Marc2b
Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline
|
It seems like I diverted your thread the pahunkboy (hijacked seems like such an aggressive term). Sorry about that. I do think a fight is brewing over control of the arctic though it could be anywhere from five to a hundred years from now. It will be first simply because it’s closer to those who need it than the Antarctic is. That having been said...
LadyEllen said:
quote:
I agree Marc - much easier to get at as well.
I watched an article about some UK team down there right now; apparently they have found huge lakes far below the ice - in liquid form and are now busy trying to access them. The access is to find out whether there might be ancient lifeforms that have survived in that environment - which will be amazing if the theory is right.
My immediate (and cynical) thought was, "are these lakes freshwater?" - because as the population grows and the environment changes, I hear that freshwater is going to be in more and more short supply - and therefore very valuable indeed.
From a strictly scientific point of view, it would be totally cool if they discovered an unexplored eco-system! As for exploiting any freshwater in Antarctic I would think the cost of transporting it (either via ship or pipeline) would be prohibitive but hey, if people get desperate enough... necessity is the mother of invention after all.
Raechard said:
quote:
This kind of depends on where people think the majority of prehistoric life walked/swam about and died. Although the climate has obviously changed a great deal and plates have shifted from one place to another I doubt there is as much oil on the southern and northern tips of the earth as we have typically found in other parts of the world where the sun had more of a direct contact and so greater influence on the congregation patterns of life. I could be wrong but when I look at the variety of life there today compared to the rest of the world I don't think so. Some oil will be found possibly but not a great deal in comparison to the amount we have already exploited elsewhere. About time people were looking for alternatives.
As you said plates have been shifting and climate has been changing pretty much since day one. Given what we know about the geologic history of the earth, I see no reason Antarctica should have any more or any less mineral wealth/oil than any other comparable sized area. If, however, we were to grant your contention and say that Antarctic had less resource wealth – say, only ten percent than any other comparable sized area – it would still represent a huge wealth of untapped resources. Resources that resource starved civilizations will go to extremes to get.
For the record, I’m all for seeking out energy alternatives. I’m just looking at this from a dispassionate viewpoint (i.e. how will people/nations react when they become desperate for resources?).
_____________________________
Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!
|
RE: Who owns the unclaimed north- Russia disputes - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread