Bering Sea Pipeline for exports into Asia

[shortlived]

Instead of building a pipeline to export via tankers, why not build a pipeline to Siberia along with a landroute berring bridge or tunnel

Canada is big on energy exports to asia so why not just build a pipeline across the berring straight?

Why not make this deal multinational

http://oilsandstruth.org/russia-build-tunnel-rail-highways-and-pipelines-alaska

Edited March 12, 2013 by shortlived

[TimG]

Instead of building a pipeline to export via tankers, why not build a pipeline to Siberia along with a landroute berring bridge or tunnel

Canada is big on energy exports to asia so why not just build a pipeline across the berring straight?

Why not make this deal multinational

http://oilsandstruth.org/russia-build-tunnel-rail-highways-and-pipelines-alaska

Russia has absolutely no interest in helping the competition get product to market.

[Topaz]

Instead of building a pipeline to export via tankers, why not build a pipeline to Siberia along with a landroute berring bridge or tunnel

Canada is big on energy exports to asia so why not just build a pipeline across the berring straight?

Why not make this deal multinational

http://oilsandstruth.org/russia-build-tunnel-rail-highways-and-pipelines-alaska

Weird, I was thinking the same thing only a China, Canada and US connection but I wonder if they could lay it on the ocean floor without any future problems, which is probably doubtful.

[shortlived]

The TKM-World Link

The TKM-World Link (Russian: ТрансКонтинентальная магистраль, English: Transcontinental Railway) also called ICL-World Link (Intercontinental link) is a planned link between Siberia and Alaskaproviding oil, natural gas, electricity, and railroad passengers to the United States from Russia. The plan includes provisions to build a 103-kilometre (64 mi) road and electrified high-speed rail tunnel under the Bering Strait which, if completed, would become the longest tunnel in the world.^[21] The tunnel would be part of a railway joining Yakutsk, the capital of the Russian Yakutiarepublic, and Komsomolsk-on-Amur, in the Russian far east, with the western coast of Alaska.^[22]

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin approved a plan to build a railroad to the Bering Strait area, as a part of the development plan to run until 2030. The more than 100-kilometre (60 mi) tunnel would run under the Bering Strait between Chukotka, in the Russian far east, and Alaska.^[23]

A cost estimate was US$66 billion.^[24] The plan involves creating a 6,000-kilometre (3,700 mi) route through Siberia to facilitate economic ties to the USA. A pipeline would be created to transport natural gas and oil from Siberia.^[25]

As of 2011, the railway Amur Yakutsk Mainline connecting Yakutsk (2,800 km or 1,700 mi from the strait) with the main rail network is under active construction; the estimated completion date is 2013.

In late August 2011, at a conference in Yakutsk in eastern Russia, the plan was backed by some of President Dmitry Medvedev's top officials, including Aleksandr Levinthal, the deputy federal representative for the Russian Far East.^[22] It would be a faster, safer, and cheaper way to move freight around the world than container ships, supporters of the idea believed.^[22] They estimated it could carry about 3% of global freight and make about US$7 billion a year.^[22] Shortly after, the Russian government approved the construction of the US$65 billion Siberia-Alaska rail and tunnel across the Bering Strait.^[26]

^{Well I think it is in Russias interst to have a route from Alaska to the continental us give a little to get a little.}

^{Note the Berring Sraight is only 55 meters deep. that is half a 100meter race which can be run in less than 10 seconds.}

^{This offers a much more economical and safer solution to tanker cargo traffic.}

^{Russia needs US and Canadian Partnership for TNC to be viable, so it makes sense the three countries, and even china and ASEAN work together to make that a reality that allows for free trade via an internationally operated tunnel.}

^{Point is Russia needs Canada to get the continental US, there are no grounds for witholding equal access to Asian Markets.}

^{This removes the contentious issue of cutting a swatch of forest in BC through native land and having oil tanker off the coast. It is a winwin, more economical, safer, and more environmentally friendly.}

Edited March 14, 2013 by shortlived

[TimG]

Well I think it is in Russias interst to have a route from Alaska to the continental us give a little to get a little.

The quote you provided talked of gas going from Russia to Alaska. There is absolutely no reason for Russia to undercut its own sales to China and Japan by allowing supplies from North America into Russia.

If the resources are to get to Asia it is to be by boat. If they can't get to Asia because of the irrational psychoses of environmental scare mongers then they are to blame for the for the subsequent loss of tax revenue and cuts to social programs.

[shortlived]

The quote you provided talked of gas going from Russia to Alaska. There is absolutely no reason for Russia to undercut its own sales to China and Japan by allowing supplies from North America into Russia.

If the resources are to get to Asia it is to be by boat. If they can't get to Asia because of the irrational psychoses of environmental scare mongers then they are to blame for the for the subsequent loss of tax revenue and cuts to social programs.

This is just nonsense. Russia by all means would facilitate transit of oil and gas, its about who buys it and where it goes to. Russian needs Canada to get to the continental US, Canada needs Russia to get to Asia.

You are talking nonsense. I think that Russia would warmly welcome Canadian Participation in the TKM link. You don't seem to be citing anything that would indicate support for what you are saying.

Simply put TKM is not very viable without Canadian support. So your position is not accurate. Canada, the US, and Russia would all benefit.

You are assuming that there will be excess supply, this is not the case with oil. There is a near infinite market for oil and gas.

All oil and gas ain't the same. Buyers want different blends based on their industrial needs.

You don't seem to understand the project. I suggest you ask questions before making completely invalid statements.

The siberian link is an international project that includes many many business partners.

as far back as 2007

The project, which Russia is coordinating with the United States and Canada, will take 10 years to 15 years to complete, TKM-World Link, which groups companies involved in the development, said in a statement handed out before a news conference with Russian officials in Moscow on Wednesday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/18/business/worldbusiness/18iht-tunnel.1.5332262.html?_r=0

The chunnel cost maybe $15 billion or so, this tunnel is twice as long as the chunnel, but as opposed to linking a country to Europe, it links the old world to the new world and vice versa. It is tremenous if considering how high speed rail and rail in general could revolutionize travel to asia and beyond.

the thing would probably be the 21st century's panama canal.

bear in mind Northern gateway is pegged at $5.5 billion, that money could be redirected to get TKM worldlink online to acheive much the same result. or rather a greater result...

a high-speed railway, highway and pipelines, as well as power and fiber-optic cables, according to TKM-World Link. Investors in the so-called public-private partnership include OAO Russian Railways, national utility OAO Unified Energy System and pipeline operator OAO Transneft,

see also ICL worldlink

http://www.linkedin.com/groups/ICL-World-Link-4541246

This is something the G8 or even the G20 can get on about

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/eirv34n19-20-20070511/44-45_719_appeal.pdf

China is also interested in the project

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/yakunin-wants-decision-on-bering-rail-link-by-2017/456393.html

between Canada, US, China and Russia a project of this size (and particularly as a replacement to pipline through bc to the coast for tanker traffic is highly desierable. this project ain't a one trick pony like the tanker project is.

There is a US champion called interbering on board the project to, its (rather optimisitic) projections are very good

InterBering, an Alaska-based company promoting the project, the proposed 103-kilometer tunnel would cost up to $30 billion to construct and would be part of a total rail infrastructure project on both sides that could cost $100 billion and create up to 50,000 jobs.

Read more:http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/yakunin-wants-decision-on-bering-rail-link-by-2017/456393.html#ixzz2NV9IAOTI

The Moscow Times

I think even the ambassador bridge guy might like to get onboard this one.

Here is the interbering url

http://www.interbering.com/

Also the rail link could be sped up by automated rail laying machines that exist now.

http://www.interbering.com/Alaska-Canada-rail-link-study-2.html

Edited March 14, 2013 by shortlived

[TimG]

This is just nonsense. Russia by all means would facilitate transit of oil and gas, its about who buys it and where it goes to. Russian needs Canada to get to the continental US, Canada needs Russia to get to Asia.

North America, despite the endless obstructions by enviro-nuts, is close to becoming self sufficient in fossil fuels - so much so that the natural gas in the NWT is left sitting in the ground because it makes no economic sense to build the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. The only possible justification for a Bering Strait pipeline is to ship North American gas and oil to China via Russia except Russia has absolutely no reason to want to facilitate this competition.

On top of that you have the economics of the project which much more expensive than shipping from the BC or Alaska coast even with the most stringent safety standards that the world has ever seen.

As I said, the oil goes via the BC coast by pipeline or rail and or it gets shipped Houston by rail or pipeline.

Those are the choices.

[shortlived]

North America, despite the endless obstructions by enviro-nuts, is close to becoming self sufficient in fossil fuels - so much so that the natural gas in the NWT is left sitting in the ground because it makes no economic sense to build the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. The only possible justification for a Bering Strait pipeline is to ship North American gas and oil to China via Russia except Russia has absolutely no reason to want to facilitate this competition.

On top of that you have the economics of the project which much more expensive than shipping from the BC or Alaska coast even with the most stringent safety standards that the world has ever seen.

As I said, the oil goes via the BC coast by pipeline or rail and or it gets shipped Houston by rail or pipeline.

Those are the choices.

Yes which is exactly why having an ability to export to Asia is wonderful.

Not only oil but mineral resources too. Goods also, food what have you. Even people. All via RAIL!

Goods from China likewise can be sent via rail or russia or even from South Africa, all by connecting the last link.

Not only this but the line and tunnel would connect Canada's north rather than highways to the north,put in rail, and with that new doors to Northern Resource development will be opened up.

All for just $100 a year (or less) from Canadian tax payers for 10 years, before income generated, and any private corporate interest in the project, which I think companies seeking access to northern development would either be customers of this rail line or directly invest in it.

For the cost of only one happy meal a month you could fund a railline and tunnel that will connect canadian markets with the old world. Not just Canada but also American and Latin American markets. It is being part of something big.

Most of all it would create Canadian jobs in rail and resource industries because the goods from around the world would transit through The Yukon and/or NWT and Alberta and/or BC.

Better yet instead of Taxing Canadians they can be sold stock each year for the Canadian portion of the project. Because this project is one that will pay off in time. Yes instead of forcing Canadians to pay taxes for something they don't use, instead they will be given stock. How much better can it get?

Being connected to the Old World via rail has many benfits.. export markets for farmers, cheaper goods for consumers, more resource availability for industry, an alternative for passenger transport by air and sea. More web connectivity for communications to reduce satallite communications needs in the north of Canada, and so on.

Also railways arn't a bottomless pit, railways made Canada.. it is part of canadian history.. and more so the metal to lay the rails and wood is a resource that can be used in the future if needed... it is there forever.

True just like the northern pipelines and highways of WWII that were laid down in the North, this railline will face many of the same challenges or worse, but humanity has grown better at technology, now there are machines that can do the work, and the ability to fabricate the needs are available with greater ease.

Reducing those dirty leaky pipelines as much as possible especially in environmentally sensitive areas is a good first start, and that is what this project can help with a bit.

For less than the cost of ActionPlan you could have a link to the world! Now thats a plan!

LinkPlan, a real economic project, with positive benefits... as opposed to 'Harper Benefits'

Edited March 14, 2013 by shortlived

[TimG]

Yes which is exactly why having an ability to export to Asia is wonderful.

What is the point with creating delusional schemes that make no economic sense?

There is no need for a land connection via Alaska. Ships cost a lot less and are more flexible for goods transport. Airlines are the only broadly acceptable mode of transport for people.

But you failed to address the primary objection: Russia has nothing to gain and a lot to lose but allowing such a link for the export of NA fossil fuels. If you can't understand this basic aspect of geopolitics then you have nothing useful to say on the topic.

[shortlived]

What is the point with creating delusional schemes that make no economic sense?

There is no need for a land connection via Alaska. Ships cost a lot less and are more flexible for goods transport. Airlines are the only broadly acceptable mode of transport for people.

But you failed to address the primary objection: Russia has nothing to gain and a lot to lose but allowing such a link for the export of NA fossil fuels. If you can't understand this basic aspect of geopolitics then you have nothing useful to say on the topic.

You are totally wrong, all I have to say is that it is economical. Air traffic is not as economical as land routes especially for cargo. Why do you think there are trucks and trains to transport cargo rather than air.

Also sea based trade isn't the most economical means of transit, especially to land locked areas.

Also in needing to ship oil to the coast, with no pipeline there, the problem exits anyway. Rail is already a cheaper, and safer method of shipping oil. The risk of disaster and the danger that oil poses to the ocean is one that can be mitigated by the Bering project.

PEAK OIL

while oil is in abundance now within the next 10 to 20 years oil will go up in cost. Northern Arctic oil reserves will be sought an all season transport route will be of great economic benefit. Public acceptance of oil pipelines in environmentally sensitive areas is also growing as a point of public quiet, and ecoterrorism is on the rise.

You are simply wrong. Plenty of people ride the train. Ive ridden the train many times myself.

Trains are used for "trips" while airlines are often used for short vacations and business travel.

People who have lots of goods to move will go with train because it offers better cargo allowances. example people who are taking goods with them.

None the less economically it is far more useful for transport than container because it is safer and can be a shorter duration.

The transport time of cargo to the continental us from China is reduced to about two weeks, how long does that take via ship?

Oh and it is benefifical for Canada to be part of the trade route. Countries that are parts of trade routes have residual benefits. This connects the entire work except for oceania via train.

It makes perfect economic sense.

Why transport oil through warzones by sea when it can be safely shipped by landroute?

Take for instnace the issue of the straight of Hormuz where a very large amount of middle east oil gets shipped out of. With this the closure of the sea route can be mitigated by land transport.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GrowingGap.jpg

Pay particular note that Russia and Chinas oil reserves are being depleted. 21 years of reserve life for russia 14 for china.

Estimated reserves by country

See also: List of countries by proven oil reserves

bbl = barrel of oil

Countries with largest oil reserves

Most of the world's oil reserves are in the Middle East.^[16]

Estimated reserves by country

See also: List of countries by proven oil reserves

bbl = barrel of oil

Most of the world's oil reserves are in the Middle East.^[16]

Summary of Reserve Data as of 2012^[2] Country Reserves^[17]

10⁹ bbl Reserves

10⁹ m³ Production^[18]

10⁶ bbl/d Production

10³ m³/d Reserve life ¹

years Venezuela 296.5 47.14 2.1 330 387 Saudi Arabia 265.4 42.20 8.9 1,410 81 Canada 175 27.8 2.7 430 178 Iran 151.2 24.04 4.1 650 101 Iraq 143.1 22.75 2.4 380 163 Kuwait 101.5 16.14 2.3 370 121 United Arab Emirates 136.7 21.73 2.4 380 156 Russia 74.2 11.80 9.7 1,540 21 Kazakhstan 49 7.8 1.5 240 55 Libya 47 7.5 1.7 270 76 Nigeria 37 5.9 2.5 400 41 Qatar 25.41 4.040 1.1 170 63 China 20.35 3.235 4.1 650 14 United States 26.8 4.26 7.0 1,110 10 Angola 13.5 2.15 1.9 300 19 Algeria 13.42 2.134 1.7 270 22 Brazil 13.2 2.10 2.1 330 17 Total of top seventeen reserves 1,324 210.5 56.7 9,010 64 Notes: 1 Reserve to Production ratio (in years), calculated as reserves / annual production. (from above)

Russia and China will be "oil dependent" by the 2030's unless other energy sources become commonplace, and other materials are used for manufacture like carbon.

There are great secondary benefits of a tunnel between the old world and the new.

Edited March 16, 2013 by shortlived

[Shady]

Why hasn't Obama approved the keystone pipeline yet? Wtf is he waiting for?

[shortlived]

Why hasn't Obama approved the keystone pipeline yet? Wtf is he waiting for?

Oh I think you should also note, it is in Canada's strategic interests not to have a pipeline and oil port on the west coast.