backtop


Print 53 comment(s) - last by peternelson.. on May 11 at 1:18 PM

103 kilometers later, Russia will be a little closer to Alaska

The Russian Government recently unveiled plans to build the world's longest tunnel, as part of a $65 billion USD project to develop Siberia and warm Russian-U.S. relations.  The tunnel will supply the US with oil, natural gas and even electricity.

The tunnel -- which will include a highway, high-speed rail lines, pipelines, and high-power cables -- will run under the sea in the Bering Strait and connect Russia directly to Alaska.  At 103 kilometers long, it will be over twice as long as the Channel Tunnel between England and France.

The project was unveiled by the Russian Economy Ministry under the name TKM-WorldLink, and will be jointly financed by government and private interests.  Russia plans to formally present the plan to the U.S. Government this week.  Alaska's former governor, Walter Joseph Hickel, is already in Moscow to give a series of talks on the project.

Tsar Nicholas II approved plans in 1905 to connect Siberia and Alaska via an undersea tunnel, but the outbreak of World War I and Nicholas' subsequent death prevented construction from ever starting.

Japanese engineers have offered to drill the tunnel for $60 million per kilometer, a mere $6 billion.  However, the drill cost is only a fraction of the cost of the total project; the Russian side of the strait requires approximately 3,500 kilometers of road, pipe and rail that don't exist yet.  The U.S. side would require at least half that as well. 

In total, the proposition calls for 6,000 km of infrastructure. Conservative estimates put the project completion time at around thirteen years



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Oh lord.
By Aprime on 4/24/2007 7:30:23 AM , Rating: 2
Why would the US want to be depending on Gazprom? :\




RE: Oh lord.
By povomi1 on 4/24/2007 8:35:07 AM , Rating: 5
Hahaha! Priceless! You are so right. Russia doesn't have the money for a project like this. They talk big, they think big, but at the end of the day their national wallet is only as big as the current energy prices - corruption money - armed forces spending.

Being an ex-soviet emigrant that came to US in 93', I loath Russia, Russian power-politics, their empirialistic ambitions, emperialistic nationalism, FSB/KGB/NKVD/etc.etc. controlled government, lack of human rights, human rights abuses, human rights denials, human rights perversians ("Our people don't need electricity, they are Spart...er...Russians, they like it cold like in Siberia.") and of course the ever present jealousy of Western capitalism. Also crackdown on opposition and elimination (relieve from life) of critics, human rights activists, journalists, etc. etc. aka any and all opposition.

I do enjoy Russian music and culture, which has drastically declined since the fall of the USSR and later with the establishment/re-establishment of Intelligence-Service controlled Kremlin.

Back to the original article and poster...
- "It's okay, Russia is big, powerful country. We develop great national projects. We build B-III-G tunnel into Alaska. We show US and world our might. We cut back on luxuries to build tunnel... into Alaska."

And here I am thinking, hmmm, Alaska? Alaska!? A-***ing-laska!?!?!? 65 billion dollars go build a tunnel... into Alaska?? Wtf are they going to do, price-gouge the eskimos between American energy/oil companies and Gazprom into paying the big bucks? Utterly proves the point that Russian is not only headed, but IS on its way to Africa (no offense to anyone).

Having ranted and vented, I can safely dismiss this as:
a) Never happening, they won't build, won't get off the ground
b) Never getting completed, price/costs for project rise as money seems to disappear, initial cost estimates readjusted
c) PR ploy to feed to Russians about Russian might, power, influence, legacy, empirialism, destiny, nationalism (Semi-artificial megalomania? Well kinda, its called Russian nationalism!)

"We build biiig tunnel, biggest in world. It goes around globe, into America. Ha! We strong nation, invincible. Russian (Rushian) might and glory. We are biggest, we have biggest. We is bestest than West, America and her Europa. We also equal-opportunity employer, better and bigger than America. We sell to everyone, no matter who. Iran, Syria, even our ex-citizens, them Jews in Is'rael. You have big bomb, we build bigger. We poke own eye out just so that mother-in-law has gimp for a son-in-law."

One could only wish (and hope, as it dies last) that things change and turn around, with Russia embracing the West and its values, instead of undermining it.


RE: Oh lord.
By wooboom on 4/24/2007 8:46:05 AM , Rating: 3
"FSB/KGB/NKVD/etc.etc. controlled government, lack of human rights, human rights abuses, human rights denials, human rights perversians" etc etc

You forgot to mention vodka and bears on the streets...

Be that way


RE: Oh lord.
By Zirconium on 4/24/2007 9:16:37 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
c) PR ploy to feed to Russians about Russian might, power, influence, legacy, empirialism, destiny, nationalism (Semi-artificial megalomania? Well kinda, its called Russian nationalism!)
I can see that. One of my favorite quotes is from the song by ???? (Lubeh), "??? ??????, ??? ?????? - ??? ??????" (Whats Siberia, what's Alaska - two shores), which portray the belief among some nationalists in Russia that Alaska wasn't sold, but leased to the US (contrary to documents saying otherwise), and that Alaska rightfully belongs to Russia.

Otherwise, I agree with you. This project will probably not make it, and if it does, it won't take 10-15 years and $65 billion, but a whole lot more.


RE: Oh lord.
By Zirconium on 4/24/2007 9:17:47 AM , Rating: 1
Anandtech doesn't like Cyrillic characters.


RE: Oh lord.
By James Holden on 4/24/2007 11:02:39 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
DailyTech doesn't like Cyrillic characters.

Fixed that for you.


RE: Oh lord.
By FITCamaro on 4/24/2007 10:06:36 AM , Rating: 2
You forget though. The article stated that not just government but private industry money will go into building the tunnel. The Russian government may not have the cash to build it on its own, but with private sector money as well, it is feasible. Companies stand to gain just as much as the government from this.

And Russia is a far different place now vs. in 93. Not saying that its perfect but its not the iron block you came from anymore.


RE: Oh lord.
By alifbaa on 4/24/2007 10:23:15 AM , Rating: 2
I guess I'm not understanding what that investment will be for?

Let's say tomorrow a high-speed rail connection between Moscow and LA miracled itself and you could travel from one to the other in an hour. Would anyone ride that train? I can't imagine why. There isn't a whole lot of business between the two cities, nor between any Russian city and any other American city, so what's the point?

What about a high-speed data line? Russia is more expensive than India to outsource to, but perhaps there is a little profitability in this, but these lines already exist and are cheaply built if they aren't.

The only thing I could imagine being a good idea would be to connect the Aleaska (sp?) pipeline with a Russian pipeline. This would give us access to another large source of oil. Our oil markets are diversified and large enough that Gazprom couldn't play games with us like they try to in Europe.


RE: Oh lord.
By GotDiesel on 4/24/2007 2:14:59 PM , Rating: 3
LOL.. this is a balancing act.. we have multitudes of wets coming over from mexico, this new tunnel will provide easy access for russian immigrants..


RE: Oh lord.
By FITCamaro on 4/24/2007 3:26:50 PM , Rating: 3
Sure unless you think first and realize that temperatures in said tunnel will mostly likely be near freezing and its doubtful that anyone would be able to survive the walk even if they could make it. It's not like there's going to be tons of open space in this tunnel that people can walk around in.

There will likely be a train coming through it every hour that would kill anyone in the tunnel. The only possible place would be in maintenance shafts but those would be sealed from the outside on both ends so even if you got in one side, you couldn't get out.

Not to mention the fact that I'm sure any and all accesses on both sides would likely be under armed guard to prevent any terrorist attack from getting into and blowing up the tunnel.


RE: Oh lord.
By mezman on 4/24/2007 4:21:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The tunnel -- which will include a highway


Why do you assume they would walk? Why walk when you can drive/ride? :)


RE: Oh lord.
By vanka on 4/24/2007 4:09:57 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
this new tunnel will provide easy access for russian immigrants..

Seeing as how Siberia is Russia's least populace region (with a declining population due to decreased government support after the Soviet collapse), who's going to brave the tunnel. The indigenous peoples of Siberia have no desire to leave; they mostly want to be left alone. Transportation to Siberia from the rest of the country is very limited; the government will be able to clamp down on the amount of traffic going there - especially when most of them don't return.

Also, as someone mentioned Siberia is very cold. Summer is usually a couple weeks, a month or two each for spring and autumn, with winter taking the rest of the calendar. The tunnel will be in a very inconvenient and cold location while the US/Mexico border is very convenient and warm most of the year.


RE: Oh lord.
By rudy on 4/24/2007 4:50:52 PM , Rating: 3
You are completely missing the point.

The US imports hundreds of billions from China alone and this might be a cheaper way. Throw in all the other asian out sourcing and even if it cost 200 billion it could still be worth it for both sides. Toll fees to cross would be taken from everyone in Eurasia. Mid eastern oil, whatever Europe exports wine, cars, and everything asia exports will be crossing that thing.

Both Russia and Alaska/Canada would see economic growth as they find everyone in the world shipping and traveling through their territory.

Russia is probably just looking at this from the perspective of how can we tap into the tremendous trade the US carries out with Asia.


RE: Oh lord.
By SigmaHyperion on 4/24/2007 5:31:56 PM , Rating: 3
Marine shipping is, by far, the cheapest form of mass transporation in the world. You can be damned sure that virtually everything moving by ship today would continue moving by ship in the future.

About the only things that would change over to a tunnel would be expedited freight. Stuff that's too large to effectively move by air but needs to get to its' destination in a matter of several days rather than several weeks. The costs would be too great for the cheap stuff and the capacity too limited. I would say passengers could change over from Air to Rail too -- but who in the world would realistically consider making that trip via the ground. It'd be a beautiful vacation, but not a realistic means of transit between the two continents.

Yeah, the continents are real close up near the top, but everyone would want to get way down to the bottom. LA to Beijing would be over 7500 miles. Even if you could go a constant 50mph (and you couldn't) you'd be looking at 7 day trip each way.

Not to mention the needed infrastructure development outside of the tunnel to have it transport commodities from China to the US would probably be the single largest transporation investment made since the US Rail boom of the late 1800's. You're talking about needing to lay 15000+ miles of rail which would take decades of work. The costs would be truly astronomical. All to make stuff move faster than it does by ship.


RE: Oh lord.
By peternelson on 5/11/2007 1:18:19 PM , Rating: 2
Aside from the gas, etc mentioned, I would say that a major benefit is to run cheap and maintainable fibre optic telecomms links through it, as exist in the Channel Tunnel. The cost of new undersea cables and repeaters is expensive, not to mention maintainance problems. Telcos pay a lot of money for that, which will subsidise the cost of tunnel construction. If it's only twice the channel tunnel link I say it's well worth the small cost. With a bit of government subsidy I'm sure the rest can be raised from investors or floating on the stock markets.


RE: Oh lord.
By vanka on 4/24/2007 3:55:55 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
And Russia is a far different place now vs. in 93.

I too emigrated from the former Soviet Union (from what was the Ukrainian Republic at the time) in '89 and when we left we PAID to renounce our Soviet citizenship. Your assertion that Russia is a better place now than in '93 is flat out wrong.

The people of Russia enjoyed the greatest political and religious freedom in the decade following the collapse of the USSR; right up until the point that Putin took power. Now that doesn't mean that everything was perfect; the mob/mafia was (is) very much in control and corruption was rampant in all levels of public office. When collective farms or factories were "privatized", all the equipment usually was sold to the farm/factory/plant administrator - usually at the very low price of $0. When a farm/factory/plant was too big to "privatize" in such a manner it was usually sold at a fraction of market value to the friends or relatives of the auctioneer. People wonder why Russia has such a large number of billionaires (largest number in the world if I'm not mistaken) while the rest of the population is barely above starving; well now you know.

Russia has gotten better in some respects since those times but the political, social, and market climate has gotten steady worse since Putin took office. The biggest TV network critical of the president (NTV) was acquired by the government and its editorial staff replaced. A billionaire critical of the government was tried on trumped up charges and his oil company re-collectivized. Dissidents are routinely arrested (recently international chess champion Garry Kasparov) or just disappear. New laws are passed to reduce the influence of non-government organizations (NGOs); with even natively founded and funded NGOs accused of being puppets for foreign states. To those who grew up during Soviet rule these incidents are eerily familiar; especially when the tactics used by the FSB (the successor of the KGB - different name, same people), police, and military are the same as those of their Soviet counterparts.

In short you're wrong, he's right.


RE: Oh lord.
By Pirks on 4/26/2007 12:00:52 PM , Rating: 1
vanka, think about history, about the fact that only the great kings/emperors are remembered, like Peter the Great. now compare Putin with weak and unstable government of your Ukrainian guy Yushenko, a pro-American president - so you want same level of permanent crisis (shit, I almost said crysis... damned shooters :) happening in Russia? I have a feeling that a lot of Russians look at corrupted pool of mud that the current Ukrainian government is and think "ah, thank god we have such a strong and stable president as Putin"

imagine what happens if pro-American "democratic" president takes over Kremlin - Russia immediately dissolves into a crowd of corrupted little kingdoms, because right now they need a strong guy to beat them all into submission. this American style democracy shit just ain't gonna work in Russia or Iraq or any other contry with non-American culture.

btw I listen to Shenderovich and his "Plavleny syrok" all the time and also I saw Maxim Galkin making fun of Putin and his.. er.. interaction with Queen Elizabeth :) this was great fun! and you know what - somehow both Shenderovish, Irtenyev (and that crazy guy-mozgoved with them) and Galkin are alive and kicking, nobody arrested them although they publicly mock Russian government and Putin personally. no freedom of speech anymore, you say? nah, won't cut it... yet. think again.


RE: Oh lord.
By vanka on 4/26/2007 8:01:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
now compare Putin with weak and unstable government of your Ukrainian guy Yushenko

Most of Yushenko's problems can be traced back to his efforts to rid the government of corrupt politicians; most of which are cozy with the Russian government. I support Yushenko's efforts to modernize the country and its economy and oppose Yanukovich's strong arm tactics of trying to gain power. During the '04 election Yanukovich's campaign hired thugs to incite riots amongst the protesters; luckily the thugs got drunk before fulfilling their assignment and beat themselves up on the way. Many of Ukraine's internal problems are the direct result of Russia's meddling. Russia does not want Ukraine to grow closer to the West/Europe and will try anything to prevent it.

quote:
imagine what happens if pro-American "democratic" president takes over Kremlin - Russia immediately dissolves into a crowd of corrupted little kingdoms, because right now they need a strong guy to beat them all into submission.

Why would it dissolve? Who exactly are they trying to beat into submission. All, except Chechnya, who wanted to break away from Russian rule did so during the early 90's. Most Russians would probably be happy to see Chechnya go; I think that the Kremlin would have let them go a long time ago if it wasn't for their wounded pride and the fact that Chechnya is a terrorist breeding ground. Also, I fail to see why a strong leader has to be an authoritarian or a dictator.

quote:
no freedom of speech anymore, you say?

Why not provide a quote of when I said that? What I did allude to was that dissidents are being arrested and several reporters who were critical of the Kremlin and Putin have disappeared. Yes there is still free speech but it is seriously curtailed. When the government buys out a news station that is one of its biggest critics, something is up. When peaceful protesters are arrested without case (under an anti-demonstration law passed for the specific purpose) something is up. When people critical of the government find themselves under investigation, then locked up and left penniless; something is up.

There is a big difference between having a good-natured joke at Putin's expense and being left alone (Galkin) and being arrested for protesting the government's policies (Kasparov). What worries me and many others is the very evident erosion of people's rights and freedoms in Russia. What is even more worrying is the promotion of xenophobia and attempts to homogenize the political views of the population. That is what smacks of a return to Soviet attitudes.


RE: Oh lord.
By shecknoscopy on 4/24/2007 11:10:25 AM , Rating: 6
quote:
Being an ex-soviet emigrant that came to US in 93', I loath Russia, Russian power-politics, their empirialistic ambitions, emperialistic nationalism, FSB/...


Though not an immigrant myself, I too hate the FSB. Hypertransport all the way, baby!

Wait, what were we talking about? Where's my medicine...


RE: Oh lord.
By alifbaa on 4/24/2007 11:46:17 AM , Rating: 3
That's the funniest thing I've read in a long time!


RE: Oh lord.
By protosv on 4/24/2007 12:23:31 PM , Rating: 3
Excellent!


RE: Oh lord.
By pcmech2007 on 4/25/2007 8:56:16 AM , Rating: 1
"Being an ex-soviet emigrant that came to US in 93', I loath Russia, Russian power-politics, their empirialistic ambitions, emperialistic nationalism, FSB/KGB/NKVD/etc.etc. controlled government, lack of human rights, human rights abuses, human rights denials, human rights perversians ("Our people don't need electricity, they are Spart...er...Russians, they like it cold like in Siberia.") and of course the ever present jealousy of Western capitalism. Also crackdown on opposition and elimination (relieve from life) of critics, human rights activists, journalists, etc. etc. aka any and all opposition."

Dang, just replace Russia with U.S. and KGB etc. with FBI, CIA etc. and you have just described this country. That is exactly what's going on here in the U.S. now. I think you got out of the frying pan and into the fire. Who was it that said "There is no one more a slave than those who THINK they're free"


This is cool
By EODetroit on 4/24/2007 10:02:59 AM , Rating: 2
You could drive from Cape Town to Cape Horn. Crazy.




RE: This is cool
By awer26 on 4/24/2007 10:11:24 AM , Rating: 2
Haha true, but it would take you 3 months - better to go by ship ;)


RE: This is cool
By cochy on 4/24/2007 10:15:48 AM , Rating: 2
Sounds like a cool but rather perilous road trip.


RE: This is cool
By akugami on 4/24/2007 10:56:40 AM , Rating: 2
I was thinking the same thing. It would be a nice alternative, not necessarily quicker, to flying from the USA/Canada to the Asian continent. Instead of sitting in a cramped as heck airplane flying overseas we can sit in a high speed line and with the occasional stops, see different parts of the world from the ground.

I'm also certain we can transport certain goods, especially over a high speed line, that currently is done via ship (3 weeks from east Asia to the USA) or airplane.

And the ultimate road trip. Drive from the USA, down to Mexico, back up to Canada, to Russia, China and various Asian countries, then circle through some of the European countries and loop back to USA. :)


RE: This is cool
By gramboh on 4/24/2007 11:25:24 AM , Rating: 2
Driving from the Canadian border to Alaska takes a very long time, 18-20 hours I believe.


RE: This is cool
By cochy on 4/24/2007 12:24:51 PM , Rating: 2
I would think much longer than that, seeing as it takes about 24 hours to get from Montreal to Miami driving on I95. I'm not sure there are even proper roads all the way up to Alaska through British Columbia.


RE: This is cool
By masher2 (blog) on 4/24/2007 12:34:00 PM , Rating: 3
You have the Trans-Alaskan highway to take...but you won't get there in 20 hours. Seattle to Fairbanks is close to 2500 miles. The only person I know to drive it took five days to do it...you can't drive 70mph all the way.


RE: This is cool
By lumbergeek on 4/24/2007 1:09:08 PM , Rating: 2
There's a highway all the way into Alaska from the US. It ain't no interstate, but it's paved...


RE: This is cool
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 4/24/2007 1:48:28 PM , Rating: 2
You can only drive on it for half of the year :)


RE: This is cool
By borismkv on 4/24/2007 3:15:22 PM , Rating: 2
It depends on where you enter Canada. I went from Montana to Calgary, then to Prince Rupert to grab a ferry to move to Juneau (Yay! No roads at all into Juneau...the capitol). Prince Rupert is right on the Alaska border. It took about 20 hours to drive there. Now, there are no roads into Alaska from Prince Rupert. So you have to go around through Yukon to get into Alaska. Fairbanks is almost 1000 miles from the start of the Alaskan border, though.


RE: This is cool
By blinky13 on 4/24/2007 2:02:48 PM , Rating: 3
North and South America are not connected by road. Ever hear of the Darien Gap?


Sounds really safe
By BZDTemp on 4/24/2007 7:23:50 AM , Rating: 5
Nice concept. The world longest tunnel - meaning fresh air will be a problem and then putting in gas and oil pipelines just to make it even more safe!

First of all I think the concept is really just to try and influence the gas and oil trade talks between Russia and it's European customers. Second I can not see the Banana republic that Russia has become accomplish something like this - just imagine the amount of money needed to pay the Mafia and the corrupt politicians!




RE: Sounds really safe
By Zirconium on 4/24/2007 8:33:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nice concept. The world longest tunnel - meaning fresh air will be a problem and then putting in gas and oil pipelines just to make it even more safe!
Not sure why you were modded down. This is a very legitimate concern. Apparently, there are ways to deal with crossing a tectonic boundary, but undoubtedly it will be expensive. According to http://home.att.net/~Berliner-Ultrasonics/strunnel... the bigger concern is that Russian and American railroads do not use the same gauge, so a dual-gauge track will have to be laid.
quote:
just imagine the amount of money needed to pay the Mafia and the corrupt politicians!
Contractors are bad enough here in the US (anyone hear about the "Big Dig" in Boston?), just imagine how much will be going wrong with this much money being put up as an estimate, and with two countries funding it. A lot of money will be embezzled. Funding is another concern. Remember, how Russia had to delay construction of the service module for the ISS? Granted, the financial situation in Russia is far more stable now, but paying for this will not be easy for them, and it will probably be a hard pill to swallow in the US.

I always gave shit to supporters of LaRouche because he was a fan of building a bridge across the Bering Straight. Let's see if this will actually have net positive effects if it does go through. I'm not holding my breath.


RE: Sounds really safe
By jonnybradley on 4/25/2007 4:22:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
tectonic boundary


Made me think, Alaska is pron to earthquakes, ok not very powerfull one. Do these ocuar in the region of the straits?


RE: Sounds really safe
By rcc on 4/25/2007 3:45:19 PM , Rating: 2
Look for the Pacific Ring of Fire for more info. Although the straits appear to be a bit North.


RE: Sounds really safe
By masher2 (blog) on 4/24/2007 10:56:22 AM , Rating: 3
> "The world longest tunnel - meaning fresh air will be a problem..."

The plan is for it to be built in three segments actually, each of which will be shorter than the current Channel Tunnel.


Discovery Channel's Extreme Engineering...
By jskirwin on 4/24/2007 10:16:54 AM , Rating: 2
Did a show once on a Bering Sea bridge (see: http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/engineering/b... and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bering_Strait_Bridge)

The potential payoffs could be huge. However the cost of the infrastructure on the Russian and North American side would not be small. Plus I don't see how such construction in environmentally sensitive areas would pass any kind of environmental impact study.

Greens would freak out.




RE: Discovery Channel's Extreme Engineering...
By kattanna on 4/24/2007 10:44:15 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Greens would freak out.


do they do anything else??


By rcc on 4/24/2007 1:46:23 PM , Rating: 2
I suppose it would be unkind to suggest they go to the Bering straits in the winter time to protest?


RE: Discovery Channel's Extreme Engineering...
By OddTSi on 4/24/2007 2:50:59 PM , Rating: 2
This brings up the question, which is more cost effective, a bridge or a tunnel? And I don't mean just in cost to build, but also to maintain and all that good stuff.


By jonnybradley on 4/25/2007 4:59:31 AM , Rating: 2
Well the main purpose is to transefer Gas and oil, so I would guess a tuneel is better. Can only imagine the problems you get trying to build a bridge over a frozen sea, it's damn near impossible to walk across let alone build on.


This is weird
By Kefner on 4/24/2007 11:11:23 AM , Rating: 2
Just last night, while looking at Google Earth, I was looking at how close Alaska and Russia really are, and was wondering why they didn't bridge that somehow. I figured it was much longer than it looked, and probably wasn't worth the money, at least at this time. I read awhile ago about the intercontinental highway, and read that it would get no where until they bridge Alaska/Russia. Could this be the first step to a global highway???




RE: This is weird
By Chernobyl68 on 4/24/2007 2:56:13 PM , Rating: 2
Icebergs


Shopping!
By TimberJon on 4/24/2007 11:45:45 AM , Rating: 2
Shop-ping for my tun-nel, shop-ping for my tun-nel..

OOOOO!!

I want natural gas. yes another supply line.
I want crude oil. another supply line? yes please.
I want to obtain drugs from russia, druglords vote yes.
Fedex/UPS faster shipments. Sure!
More power! bring it on.

Point there is, its not just another pipeline of some material, its a supertunnel that can house a bunch of things, and will probably be expanded to allow guard stations or CHP bunkers or something. Gas, oil, power, and other things. A Rail line or two, and commercial/civilian vehicles. You gotta have tow trucks standing by, and areas to pull cars out of the way of the flow of traffic.

in 13 years (conservatively) we will want that oil to lower our prices.

the Palm Jumeirah is a huge building project, but it was planned right, and enough money can complete something faster than normal.




RE: Shopping!
By James Holden on 4/24/2007 3:18:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the Palm Jumeirah is a huge building project, but it was planned right, and enough money can complete something faster than normal.

Except the first earthquake in the area is going to turn the whole island into a bowl of mud and sand. Google "liquefaction"


The U.S. would end up paying the whole thing
By viperpa on 4/24/2007 5:05:03 PM , Rating: 2
If this ever came about, in the end, the United States would end up paying for what the Soviet Union couldn't pay. The same thing happened with the International Space Station. When the space station was being built it was running behind schedule cause the Soviet Union couldn't afford to pay there share or for the parts.

Besides, U.S. and Soviet relations aren't the greatest at the moment. One reason is that the Russian government is still not taking a hard stand against Iran and nuclear enrichment.




By clemedia on 4/24/2007 6:32:36 PM , Rating: 2
"The tunnel will supply the US with oil, natural gas and even electricity."

So we will use the tunnel to ship oil to an area of the country practically sitting on a CRAP load of oil already.

How sad. Makes me want to just go out an exterminate the karibu. Stupid hippies.


Location, location, location...
By Maasracer on 4/24/2007 9:24:12 AM , Rating: 3
And people thought those Customs/Border Patrol gigs in BuFu North Dakota were cr@ppy...




This has severe consequences
By Hawkido on 4/24/2007 11:41:23 AM , Rating: 3
The Flu Virus currently runs east to west. The most severe outbreaks come from transcontenintal flights bringing it to the US before the medicine industry can develop the proper anti-virals. With a high speed train the mass of people crossing the pacific would double or even triple. The prolonged contact via dining cars and lavatories would guarantee the communication of the virus to most all of the passengers. The Flu would be the next major killer weapon imported from the Soviets.

That aside, I think access to the oil fields would be a good thing for both the US and the Soviet nations. It would stabilize oil prices, and open reserves up that aren't even being touched in Siberia. As to the rail differential there would be a customs checkpoint at both ends of the tunnel and everyone would have to disembark anyway, so a rail change wouldn't be too difficult at that point. Cargo containers could be inspected then crained over to the other rail size.




Tsar's Death
By vanka on 4/24/2007 3:22:56 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Tsar Nicholas II approved plans in 1905 to connect Siberia and Alaska via an undersea tunnel, but the outbreak of World War I and Nicholas' subsequent death prevented construction from ever starting.

Death? Try murder. When the blood-thirsty communists took over; they first forced the Tsar to abdicate then forced him and his family into exile on one of his remote estates. After their control was more or less established, they sent agents to execute the Tsar. The royal family was told that they were going to be photographed and so they wore their finest clothes and jewelry. According to accounts, when they were fired on the bullets ricocheted off their jewelry all over the room. After being murdered in cold blood their bodies were dumped in a nearby forest.

It is very interesting to note that Russian communists were some of the first terrorists. They engaged in suicide bombings and assassinations against government officials and even were able to assassinate one Tsar (not counting Tsar Nicholas II).




I wonder ?
By phlipflop on 4/24/2007 6:36:29 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps this tunnel is a cheeky way of extracting some minerals/ore? it would sure help to pay for it and it is the "green" way,sorry excuse to do it.




"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki