"The Arctic Circle holds an estimated 90 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and 1,670 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, the U.S. Geological Survey said on Wednesday."

Read more (http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?id=675121)

Ed ~ i reckon this estimated amount is enough to supply world demand for three years.

Most of the Arctic Circle is a subjugate territory of Russian Federation

http://ykalaska.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/bbc-44069525_arctic_russia416.gif

The oil will be sold by Russia to countries that demand it at world market prices.

If some countries do not agree that it is Russian land and subjugate of Russian territory, they will have to prove their claims through war.

If some countries do not agree that it is Russian land and subjugate of Russian territory, they will have to prove their claims through war.

Why not just sell it off cheap like Russia did with Alaska?

Why not just sell it off cheap like Russia did with Alaska?

the traitors who sold Alaska...

I'm sure all those involved will be able to come to an agreement W/O going to war....as for Alaska. How did that land end up in Russia's hands anyway?

And talk about the losing end of the stick - don't complain about Alaska when look at the massive amount of land China (bursting at the seems with people) lost to Russia who barely pumps out 1 kids per couple. Just to put things in perspective.

Looks like the geo-political game is in full force:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lomonosov_Ridge

The Lomonosov Ridge lies at least 954 meters below the sea surface, but it is being claimed to be part of the 'continental shelf' of Russia.

But that's OK. After the war, the few survivors will have more spoils to divide, and fewer people to divide it amongst.

I'm sure all those involved will be able to come to an agreement W/O going to war....as for Alaska. How did that land end up in Russia's hands anyway?

Russia used to send whaling crews to the Pacific. Established forts in Hawaii, California, Alaska, etc. Couldn't maintain such an extended presence back then, in the face of British, American, and Spanish presence, so relinquished some of their territorial claims. They likely would have lost Alaska, too, but decided to sell it based on their claims of having set foot there. Seward's Folly it was called, because many Americans at the time believed the US was swindled by Russia, paying too much for land it could not use. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_purchase

And talk about the losing end of the stick - don't complain about Alaska when look at the massive amount of land China (bursting at the seems with people) lost to Russia who barely pumps out 1 kids per couple. Just to put things in perspective.

China lost land to Russia? :bugeye: when?

WWII? Probably a lot of Chinese looking Russians :)

Well it was USSR then anyway so what difference does it make, they weren't Russians.

When will we just start producing hydrogen instead of destroying land as well as polluting everything with oil that could spill? :shrug:

Might as well ask when men will stop being so god damn greedy and provide viable energy solutions instead of solutions where they can make the most profit.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power will true peace be known." Jimi Hendrix

Most of the Arctic Circle is a subjugate territory of Russian Federation

http://ykalaska.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/bbc-44069525_arctic_russia416.gif

The oil will be sold by Russia to countries that demand it at world market prices.

If some countries do not agree that it is Russian land and subjugate of Russian territory, they will have to prove their claims through war.

Maybe in your screw up view of the world but no it doesn't

If some countries do not agree that it is Russian land and subjugate of Russian territory, they will have to prove their claims through war.


Sounds like a bully to me. Why make that kind of remark because if Russia has legal rights to land and can provide proof then who should complain? BUT if Russia only says that it has rights then that is a matter for an international court of law to determine, not a bullying technique.

Most of the Arctic Circle is a subjugate territory of Russian Federation

http://ykalaska.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/bbc-44069525_arctic_russia416.gif

The oil will be sold by Russia to countries that demand it at world market prices.

If some countries do not agree that it is Russian land and subjugate of Russian territory, they will have to prove their claims through war.

Immoral !!

Hooray, an unnecessary power struggle for an unnecessary fuel source! Go World!

The Arctic is the property of the Republican Party.

3 years?!

That is too miserably pathetic to even ponder.

What were all those dinosaurs doing at the North Pole? Visiting Santa?

What were all those dinosaurs doing at the North Pole? Visiting Santa?

? During the mesazoic the land masses at the poles weren't there.

? During the mesazoic the land masses at the poles weren't there.
How do you know that? It's Mesozoic not mesazoic.

How do you know that? It's Mesozoic not mesazoic.

I was into dinosaurs when i was younger. Part of looking into that was knowing where the land masses were.

I was into dinosaurs when i was younger. Part of looking into that was knowing where the land masses were.
Is that how you learned how to spell Mesozoic?

Do you have any scientific links for support?

Or are we simply to rely upon your authority and infallibility?

The Mesozoic was a time of tectonic, climatic and evolutionary activity. The continents gradually shifted from a state of connectedness into their present configuration; the drifting provided for speciation and other important evolutionary developments. The climate was exceptionally warm throughout the period, also playing an important role in the evolution and diversification of new animal species. By the end of the era, the basis of modern life was in place.

WIKI

WIKI
LOL. Almost worthless.

http://geology.com/pangea.htm:

http://geology.com/pangea-continental-drift.gif

http://geology.com/pangea.htm
Interesting you should bring up Pangea since geologists rejected Alfred Wegener, continental drift, and plate tectonics, just as they reject abiogenic petroleum origin.

However your maps clearly show an arctic circle during the Jurassic and Cretaceous and Antarctica is at the pole in every diagram.

"Paleontologists from the United States and Argentina discovered one of the most complete plesiosaur skeletons ever found. (A plesiosaur is a swimming marine reptile that lived about 70 million years ago. At that time the waters of what is now Antarctica were much warmer than they are today.) The fossil plesiosaur was discovered during a 2005 expedition to Antarctica."
http://geology.com/news/2006/12/fossil-plesiosaur-discovered-in.html

http://geology.com/news/images/plesiosaur.jpg
Artist's impression of the plesiosaur and environment. Painting by Nicolle Rager, National Science Foundation.

geologists rejected Alfred Wegener, continental drift, and plate tectonics
From the same page:
"In the early 1900's Alfred Wegener proposed the idea of Continental Drift. His ideas centered around continents moving across the face of the earth. The idea was not quite correct - compared to the plate tectonics theory of today - but his thinking was on the proper track."

However your maps clearly show an arctic circle during the Jurassic and Cretaceous and Antarctica is at the pole in every diagram.
Correct.

At that time the waters of what is now Antarctica were much warmer than they are today
Global warming is good for the environment.

Huh ? Link ?
Wegener was ridiculed for continental drift just as you ridicule me for abiogenic petroleum origin.

Since you love Retardipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Wegener

The one American edition of Wegener's work, published in 1924, was received so poorly that the American Association of Petroleum Geologists organized a symposium specifically in opposition to the continental drift hypothesis. Also its opponents could, as did the Leipziger geologist Franz Kossmat, argue that the oceanic crust was too firm for the continents "simply to plow through". By the 1930s, Wegener's geological work was almost universally dismissed by the scientific community and remained obscure for some thirty years.

http://www.amazon.com/Rejection-Continental-Drift-American-Science/dp/0195117336

Global warming is good for the environment.
What environment ?

http://www.amazon.com/Rejection-Continental-Drift-American-Science/dp/0195117336

Wegener was ridiculed for continental drift just as you ridicule me for abiogenic petroleum origin.

I changed that, see original post.
Plate tectonics and continental drift are not rejected.

And I don't ridicule you, you ridicule me. You ridicule virtually everyone on this site that doesn't agree with your abiotic oil ideas.

However, at the time he was unable to demonstrate a mechanism for this movement; this combined with a lack of solid evidence meant that his hypothesis was not accepted until the 1950s, when numerous discoveries provided evidence of continental drift. from the wiki link