Exxon and Russian Operation Discovers Oil Field Larger Than the Gulf of Mexico 201
An anonymous reader writes The state-run OAO Rosneft has discovered a vast pool of crude in the Kara Sea region of the Arctic Ocean, arguably bigger than the Gulf of Mexico. From the article: "The discovery sharpens the dispute between Russia and the U.S. over President Vladimir Putin’s actions in Ukraine. The well was drilled before the Oct. 10 deadline Exxon was granted by the U.S. government under sanctions barring American companies from working in Russia’s Arctic offshore. Rosneft and Exxon won’t be able to do more drilling, putting the exploration and development of the area on hold despite the find announced today."
Oil's well that ends well (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I enjoy gay sex. (Score:5, Informative)
BioFilm's flagship product is Astroglide personal lubricant, aptly named, since Wray developed the clear, slippery, water-based product while working on a space shuttle at Edwards Air Force Base in 1977.
Wray, a chemist who was in the "bombs and rockets" business for 20 years, was working on the shuttle's cooling system when life took a surprising turn.
"I was trying to remove the oil from anhydrous ammonia and I ended up with this substance," he said.
You're going to suck until you stop making up stuff that can be checked withing ten seconds.
Re: (Score:2)
it also doesn't contain any oil, but it does contain propylene glycol which is derived from petroleum (or other fossil fuels).
Not only from petroleum / fossil fuel (Score:2)
Propylene Glycol is an organic chemical product that can also be derived from Palm Oil
Re: (Score:2)
Mr. President, we must not allow an anal gap!
Re: (Score:2)
Let's take the most common personal lubricant, Astroglide.
Uh, the "most common" (biggest market share, by a lot) would be K-Y. Nice try.
So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Russians dont have more oil...no problem with that.The nice thing about that oil is that it will still be there 5 years from now.
"This is our united victory - it was achieved thanks to our friends and partners from Exxon Mobil, Nord Atlantic Drilling, Schlumberger, Halliburton..."
Time until Republicans start saying "Lift sanctions" 5...4..3..2...1
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
That cancellation was itself cancelled [navyrecognition.com] after the ceasefire was announced. The sale is still going through.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
In the end a French Warship was sold to Russian's. It probably fires white flags from the cannon, and the missile tubes are firework launchers for the new victors.
Lastly it is a landing ship. That way some Russian Oligarch can get his vodka collection out of Russia to save it from being confiscated.
Re: (Score:2)
If the ship is built like their tanks, it goes twice as fast in reverse.
Re: (Score:2)
In the end a French Warship was sold to Russian's. It probably fires white flags from the cannon, and the missile tubes are firework launchers for the new victors.
No, it doesn't fire white flags from the cannons or fireworks from the missile tubes - because it doesn't have missile tubes, and the sails double as white flags.
Re: (Score:2)
It's mildly annoying when ignorant, arrogant Americans suggest that France is a nation of cowards. Perhaps you should read your Mark Twain: when he visited France over 100 years ago, his main complaint was that every square foot of its territory had been drenched in blood through centuries of warfare. You might also reflect that, without the decisive help of a French fleet and army, the American Revolution would almost certainly have been defeated.
Had the German invasion of 1940 somehow been launched into t
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, sorry about that. I'm not sure why making fun of the French is so funny to us.
Of all our allies, the French do the most to maintain some semblance of armed forces, rather than depend on the existence of our carrier fleet. The French are the only ones besides us to run a 'real' aircraft carrier. Carriers are expensive and hard.
So the truth is not lost on all of us. But it is still funny to make fun of the French..
Re: (Score:2)
It's still good for a mild giggle to talk about white flags and such. Vichy was a bitch. If they can't take a joke, they can shut their asses about Bush.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, I withdraw the "ignorant" bit. Everyone has at least one nationality they like to mock.
Re: (Score:3)
1. The two helicopter carriers are of marginal value to the Russians; many of their decision-makers would be happy if the sale were cancelled.
2. The Russians have already paid, so if the French don't deliver they have to repay the money plus penalties - and their reputation for being reliable and trustworthy is shot.
3. A large part of the ships is to be added in a Russian shipyard - so if the French keep the ships, they will be useless.
But the US administration has certainly succeeded in its main objective
Sanctions against Russia -- Obama's staying power (Score:3)
Last time it was your boy-wonder, who lifted the sanctions against Russia [nytimes.com]... Abandoning American ally Georgia for the sake of Putin's help against Iran. Ha-ha — much good did it do then...
Re:Sanctions against Russia -- Obama's staying pow (Score:4, Interesting)
Last time it was your boy-wonder, who lifted the sanctions against Russia [nytimes.com]...
Yeah.... but sanctions really only send a message in the moment you apply them... After that they're just blocking economic growth in both countries.
So slowing removing them when nobody is looking is smart move... Then you can reapply them, if it should ever come to that.
As long as Putin is around, it's probably not the last time.
Also it doesn't make sense to carry a grudge forever... Sometimes it's better to just move along.
But right now, Cuba, Iran and North Korea doesn't really care much about what the US says.... because sort of armed conflict (in violation of the UN charter) the US can't really impose further sanctions. Cuba is pretty much the US holding an old grudge, lifting those sanctions ought to be a no-brainer... As for Iran and North Korea who both does have nuclear programs, there are pros/cons to maintaining and lifting sanctions. Maintaining them on North Korea, keeps the country crushed. Whereas Iran has oil that we'll buy either way, so maybe lifting sanctions on Iran would be worthwhile. Just maybe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually any "get out of jail free card" had a very short lifespan. Look at Libya now - and look at Qadafi.
In fact Libya suffered severely when the USA decided to court Iran when it was building up a coalition against Iraq. It seems very likely that the Lockerbie bombing was an act of revenge for the shooting down of Iran Air Flight 655 by the USS Vincennes just a few months before. US intelligence agencies immediately blamed Iran for Lockerbie - until the administration decided that it wanted to cozy up to
Re: (Score:2)
It was not "free". In order to "get out of jail", Qaddafi had to acknowledge [cnn.com] Libya being behind the Lockerbie bombing [wikipedia.org], and pay restitution to the victims' kin. That was, what was demanded of him and he complied (shortly after seeing Saddam Hussein being pulled from a hiding hole [wikipedia.org]).
There was no other "beef" with him — unlike Iran, Libya did not seek nuclear weapons, nor was it providing anything better than "moral" support to any other terro
Re: (Score:2)
"...Also it doesn't make sense to carry a grudge forever... "
Although the masters of the universe in Washington, with their short attention spans, will perhaps whimsically decide to raise their sanctions when they decide that Russia has been "punished" enough, Russia will not reciprocate. That's because its sanctions were not imposed out of a sense of grudge or malice, or to "punish" anyone, but in the long-term interests of Russia. The USA and EU have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted, and no matter
Re: (Score:2)
There, there. "It is complicated"... GP was accusing RethugliKKKans of wanting to end sanctions against Russia in exchange for oil. You seem to be supporting such a maneuver.
Any sanctions imposed in retaliation for a certain deed — such as Russia's invasion into Afghanistan [wikipedia.org], Georgia [wikipedia.org] or Ukraine [theguardian.com] — must last until the deed
Re: (Score:2)
It will be more likely the Republicans will start saying they want a land war in Asia. Oh wait, that is what they want. [foxnews.com]
One of the classic blunders! [youtube.com]
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's an inherent flaw of our first-past-the-post election system, but gerrymandering, restrictive ballot access laws, and lax campaign finance rules helped.
Perfect timing. (Score:3)
Ukraine just got screwed (Score:2, Insightful)
It's almost as if Russia was anticipating this all along, and decided that the Crimea is up for grabs. With a leverage this big I'm surprised they didn't chose something juicier. Just saying...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually Crimea became part of Russia a few years before the USA came into existence. And about 50 years before it stole Texas, California, Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico and what became parts of other states from Mexico - cutting Mexico's territory by more than half.
Re: (Score:2)
For some of that land, we paid for it. We even overpaid for the Gadsen purchase (the final addition) to help make things right after all the war and unpleasantness.
Russia should have paid Ukraine for Crimea. Not full retail of course, but something for the 60ish years worth of administration and investment (probably not a lot).
A few of us over here realize that the Crimea was never on the table for any real separation from Russia. As long as the border between Russia and Ukraine didn't exist for practical p
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, thank goodness the stupid Russians are so inept when it comes to technology and heavy engineering. Remind me, how do you Yanks get up the ISS these days? Some of the stupid Russians have been suggesting you try using a trampoline, since you don't want their rockets.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually Russia doesn't even want the rebel south-eastern part of the Ukraine, even though it's by far the most valuable part of the country. Putin and his representatives have repeatedly told the rebels that Russia will not annex their territory even if they ask it to. Crimea was a special case, as it is historically part of Russia AND the great majority of its inhabitants voted to rejoin Russia.
Especially since the EU has gone out of its way to harm Russia, the best outcome from the Russians' point of vie
Re: (Score:2)
Putin and his representatives have repeatedly told the rebels that Russia will not annex their territory even if they ask it to.
http://www.ukrainewar.info/rus... [ukrainewar.info]
Re: (Score:2)
Some borders in the Arctic are disputed. there are no international borders in the area under discussion. The borders of the Kara Sae are Novaya Zemlya (Russian territory), Severnaya Zemlya (Russian territory), Franz Josef Land (Russian territory), and the Russian mainland (Russian territory too, unsurprisingly).
You'd do better looking for international border disputes in Lough Neigh,
On hold (Score:2)
"Rosneft and Exxon won’t be able to do more drilling, putting the exploration and development of the area on hold"
Who exactly is supposed to be worried this is a bad thing? For the next 10 or 20 years the oil will be more valuable to Russia in the ground as long as they have evidence that it's there.
Time for a new date (Score:2)
It looks like the date for "peak oil" just pushed out awhile, again.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
9 billion barrels was the optimistic estimate of oil field . World oil consumption is about 88 million barrels per day.
"Peak oil" just pushed out about 3 months...sorry.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to feel sorry for agreeing with me that the date for "peak oil" pushed out.
But if you want a proper date for "peak oil" you need to incorporate the other recent finds and reclamations made possible by improving technology. Of course where it gets really interesting is if one of the projects pursuing various forms of hydrocarbon synthesis pays off.
Re:Time for a new date (Score:4, Interesting)
Have you noticed at all that these new finds are in areas where it is more expensive to extract the oil? Underwater is a lot more expensive than on land. Under the Arctic Ocean? Well, waiting 5 years will probably make it cheaper, as ice heaves are terrible to construct around. Of course, 5 years may not be long enough to clear the ice.
FWIW, I'd bet that there are lots of undiscovered oil fields under deep ocean, or perhaps that you need to access by drilling sideways into the continental shelf. But that's expensive even compared to working in the Arctic Ocean.
Additionally, of course, every gallon of oil we burn increases our CO2 level. That's not just greenhouse, that's also ocean acidification. But you can't measure the damage that is done in any one day...so you don't need to worry about that, right?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If you think that Artic or deep ocean oil is expensive, try going completely without and let us know how expensive that is. Which economy will you ruin, who will you starve, to do without?
Every tree planted reduced CO2. Are you advocating the planting trees, or just cutting off oil?
Alternative energy sources and new technology can decrease our dependency on oil, do you back them?
What is your concern?
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW, the USGS's estimate for global undiscovered oil reserves puts around a quarter of the total in the Arctic regions. Mostly because until recently it was really, really hard to do exploration work there, so everywhere else got explored already.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand why this is a difficult concept for some people. The math is pretty fucking simple. You can't win. We got all the easy shit. Every time we find a new field
Re: (Score:2)
Well shit, when you consider hydrocarbon synthesis (from CO2 or something, I assume) then sure, that solves the problem! If course, it's also irrelevant to the "peak oil" issue since you're not talking about non-renewable fossil fuels anymore. Saying that the "peak oil" is pushed into the future because of synthetic hydrocarbons is like saying it's pushed into the future because of n
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You do realize that many predicted dates for "peak oil" are in the past, many are in the future, and that it hasn't happened yet? No, I guess you don't.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Peak oil WAS in 2008. It's a technical term for the maximum bump on the consumption graph. People like to pretend it's something else or that coal, shale oil, gas, biodiesel, whatever should be included but that's something else. Whether we get another peak with a sharp dropoff or a slow slide down as consumption drops due to replacement with other energy sources is something that's still being guessed at.
That's not a definition I've ever heard for peak oil [wikipedia.org]. From the wiki: "Peak oil, an event based on M. King Hubbert's theory, is the point in time when the maximum rate of extraction of petroleum is reached, after which the rate of production is expected to enter terminal decline."
The problem is, is that the amount of known reserves is constantly changing, so peak oil will always be a moving target. Production, of course, has been reduced despite known reserves, to maintain prices.
Re: (Score:2)
Hence the earlier peak and hence people reading too much into it. There may be another larger peak, but for the moment peak production was 2008.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the all time high of crude + condensate production was 77.25 million barrels per day, reached in February. The US is the nation showing most of the gains in production over the last 6 years, though: World Oil Production According to the EIA. [peakoilbarrel.com] If other nations could replicate the US experience with drilling for tight oil then perhaps we'd see enough substantial supply gains to bring down prices. The lack of sufficient added supply in the face of rising demand is why oil prices remain high.
Easy when personal definitions apply (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Peak oil isn't about quantity of oil, it's about rate of oil extraction. For example, Mexico's Cantarell field at its peak produced oil at a greater rate than the entire Canadian tar sands despite being around 0.1% of the size of what Canada has. We don't yet know whether the rate of production from this field will do anything at all to when peak oil happens.
Re: (Score:2)
It looks like the date for "peak cheap oil" just pushed out awhile, again. Unless you're American and you want to pay for it with dollars.
FTFY.
1 Billion Barrels (Score:2, Interesting)
"The well found about 1 billion barrels of oil..."
The world uses 86 million barrels per day, so this buys us about 11 extra days. Whoopee Do...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, if all other sources of oil disappeared over night and everything can be extracted quickly enough, 11 days.
Its like saying superman can beat batman with cat woman's dildo. Sounds good but really useless in the real world.
Re: (Score:3)
No it is not relevant in the real world. All the other sources will not dry up tomorrow. In the real world, technology advances and the amount of oil in reserve will increase as the ability to access oil in place increases (if that confuses you, look up oil reserves for more information). Further more, new oil is not likely to extend the amount we have in matters of time available but make oil cheaper and increase the usage. That is the real world- the world where life goes on past simple mems.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh. My troll is back. I was wondering what happened to you.
So you think you can work me over with a dildo so well that i would be begging you to stop.while i know you wouldn't be capable on your own, i don't know whether to be flattered by your interest or scared that you think you would be superman in any relationship with me. Oh well, at least i know what drives you now. I'm not gay but i do not care that you are. So hug hug kiss kiss and please stay on topic as you cowardly troll me.
Re:1 Billion Barrels (Score:5, Insightful)
You know that's one well in a potentially huge field, right?
Though 11 days of worldwide energy from one well is impressive in it's own right........
Re: (Score:2)
The well found about 1 billion barrels of oil and similar geology nearby means the surrounding area may hold more than the U.S. part of the Gulf or Mexico, he said.
That's 1 billion barrels from one well. The grand total could be much larger.
Initial estimates are always over blown (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Initial estimates are always over blown (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
can't be losing those warm-water ports, right?
Not to NATO.
CO2 isn't sexy (Score:2)
Sorry, Putin and Koch. Time to get the fuck out of our sunlight.
Re: (Score:2)
What argument? (Score:2)
arguably bigger than the Gulf of Mexico
Arguably? You've carried out your own exploration and you disagree about its extent?
Re: (Score:2)
Here's an argument : The Kara Sea is 880000km.sq of mostly shallow waters ; the GoM is 615000km.sq of deep and shallow water. Both have major rivers draining the interiors of continents into them, bringing in sediment and organic matter. So there's no immediate reason to expect much different quantities of sediment or their yield in barrels oil per km.cu sediment. Therefore, if anything, you'd expect the Kara Sea to be appre
Good news! (Score:5, Funny)
Now we can rest assured that our extinction will happen by the continuous burning of fossil fuels, not by the lack of it!
RIP planet Earth (Score:2)
We barely knew ya.
Re:Best outcome (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
because it could lower oil prices.
This is exactly what we need right now in the short term until alt fuels get cheaper. Its going to be decades before all the gas cars are off the roads, poor people cant afford new cars so they buy used, there isnt much of a used electric market out there right now. It has the added benefit of not being in the middle east like you said. To me this is a win-win-win, except for that pesky russian thing that we need to resolve.
Re: (Score:3)
there isnt much of a used electric market out there right now.
You know, I was thinking about this lately, and tbh, I don't think there will ever be a used market for electric cars. Not with current technology at least.
A used IC car can generally keep running with standard maintenance for about 20-30 years. Engines are ruggedly simple. especially the old ones, and while the total HP may go down with time (unless the engine is rebuilt, which isn't too expensive in my experience). The range will stay more or less the same. Essentially engines are not consumable, the fuel
Re: (Score:2)
You say this as if it is a bad thing. I think it would be an excellent thing, and I work in the oil industry.
Re: Best outcome (Score:3)
when the US petrodollar is completely decoupled from oil it loses about 5/6ths of its value intrinsically. The subsequent run on the currency could be an order of magnitude higher. Putin knows this and so do the Chinese but don't look to the Chinese to suddenly weeken its largest single purchasing market. The IMF will likely try to float SDRs to replace FRNs as the world currency but Russia and China stand to gain little by supporting it. Don't keep your long term wealth in current financial instruments.
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason the world tolerates the Middle East crazies is cuz of the oil.
The Russians are also proving they can be crazy as well.
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason the world tolerates the Middle East crazies is cuz of the oil.
The Russians are also proving they can be crazy as well.
At least Vladimir is able to pull off an impressive badass public image. Might even think he's Putin on a Ritz.
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason the world tolerates the Middle East crazies is cuz of the oil.
The Russians are also proving they can be crazy as well.
Oil production seems to do that to countries. Did I mention the US Is the second largest producer of oil in the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is why you don't do drugs, kids.
Re: (Score:2)
We do now know why the Russians and Americans are starting to posture over Eastern Europe though... They know there's the potential for a war, and are positioning themselves for it.
Referendum at sea (Score:2)
I can see that already. Find a small rock in that see and build a shelter on it — nothing fancy, as long as a SEAL can survive on it for a day or two. Place a retired SEAL on it. Organize a referendum [theguardian.com] on the rock on whether or not the "residents" wish for their territory to become part of the United States. Claim the land &mdash and the surrounding waters — as American.
PROFIT!
Re: (Score:3)
And that's where it breaks down. Firstly, the surrounding islands and mainland are already occupied - in many cases by Russian nuclear missile bases, supported by Russian regular army, navy and special forces. So, you're going to move in without being spotted and having to fight?
Secondly - you did notice that the country you're planning to invade has nuclear weapons, didn't you?
People like you, even the neo-Cons keep out of the
Re: (Score:2)
You only need one island — no matter, how small — to make a claim.
So do we. As long as we aren't attacking anyone, but simply building a peaceful house, there is no fighting...
Yeah, sure. It is all about me... Ad hominem much? BTW, you misspelled the "neo-KKKonz"...
Re:In highschool (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
In the Kara Sea? That is a much rougher place to work than in the Gulf of Mexico. I'm sure they will eventually manage, but I wouldn't call it easy.
Re: (Score:2)
Global Warming might make it an easier place to work.
Re:Global Warming (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah. You know it's almost as if the Russians didn't get a copy of the memo that says we are only permitted to use about 1/3 of the current known reserves.
You know, the memo that notes that if we don't leave the other 2/3 in the ground, we are COMPLETELY SCREWING OURSELVES and our little dogs too, on the climate front.
You know, sooner or later, our current "leaders" are going to be held liable for this criminally insane path they are steering us down with a greed-twisted grin on their faces. I can only hope it is sooner.
Re: (Score:2)
So what?
We've been working in the northern North Sea, Norwegian Sea, Canadian Grand Banks (colloquially "iceberg alley") for decades now (I'm just listing the ones where I've worked, personally), and the Russians have been working Sakhalin for 15 years now (I've only done office work on wells from these fields).
Just because it's too rough for Louisiana rednecks to work, doesn't mean that it's hard to work there. Just that Lou
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, smartass, just like Malthus' warnings about population - which have been consistently "proved wrong" as the linear improvements in crop yield, etc. have kept marginally ahead of the exponential rise of population. You may believe that linear increases can stay ahead of an exponential curve, but mathematics is against you. Just stick around a while.
Of course if those crop yields turn out to be unsustainable... or large areas of arable land turn into dust and blow away, as looks like happening to the we
Re:In highschool (Score:5, Informative)
Of course we're still discovering it. The problem is that we've been consuming it faster than we're discovering more since the mid 80's [ucsd.edu].
Re: (Score:2)
Brazil had that big string of sub-salt oil finds in the last decade, too - tens of billions of barrels ready for market, but the projects are still in the pipeline, and Brazillian production has actually declined in the interim. When they have everything up and running likely it will add to world supplies in a significant manner, but these megaprojects take a long time to fully complete - and their coastline is a much more hospitable environment to work in than the Arctic coast, and Brazil doesn't antagoni
Re:In highschool (Score:4, Informative)
years later and we're still finding the stuff
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Exxon Wants To Kill The Planet (Score:5, Insightful)
Most oil company people don't see it that way, or course. I'm not an oil co. employee, but I sympathize much more with their position than yours. Most of the oil people I've encountered were extremely concerned about the well-being of the planet. But even more significant was the fact that they understood that civilization was riding on their backs, and so they were doing a job that must be done lest we descend into literal darkness.
Producing oil is extremely difficult. Most people simply have no idea. They may look at offshore oil platforms (only when they are undergoing a rare catastrophe, on the news), but not even remotely grasp just how expensive and difficult it is, and how many hard working people it takes to supply the consumers of 88Mbbl/day with the oil that they DEMAND.
Some oil folks with high calibre intellects, have gone off to try to help the process of developing viable alternatives to fossil fuels. Others are just doing their jobs. And the executives are just fulfilling their obligations to their shareholders. They don't make particularly high profit margins. The largest companies do make remarkably large profits on an absolute basis, which people like you think should simply be confiscated from them.
Maybe you and your ilk should just go ahead and try it. And then maybe those oil workers should just stop pumping the oil (not that they'd have much choice, as their company would go bankrupt shortly after becoming not profitable. Then we'll see if you can live in the world that results.
The fact of the matter is that WE buy the oil and WE burn it. No oil company forces us to do so. If you really care so much about the planet, stop buying and burning petroleum, or any utility supplied electricity or natural gas for that matter.
It is actually WE who should be made to pay higher taxes for burning the crap and putting the CO2 into the atmosphere. Or royalties that would get paid back to us creating a much higher REAL MARKET PRICE for oil while not significantly increasing our cost or allowing the money to get wasted by bureaucrats--a concept people might wake up to if only they had the ability to climb out of thier conditioning for even a second to envision some other approaches to price the commons that don't involve the currently failing model of government regulation/corruption and artificial, legislatively created "markets."
Until you do that, STFU!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And THAT is why Russia will be arranging, promptly, to make whatever it needs internally. When the USSR was dissolved, many Russians believed the ideological propaganda from the West about how sweetness and light would ensue if they just let "the market" rule. They did that, and oligarchs (not all Russian) ran away with about a third of their wealth. Now they have discovered that the USA and EU are quite happy to blackmail them with sanctions and financial weapons.
So naturally they will turn away from the W
Re: (Score:2)
That won't happen. The USA never tackles any nation that can defend itself, and Russia is just as well equipped for war as the USA is. Moreover, it has ample thermonuclear weapons and delivery systems. Attacking Russia would be racial suicide.
Re: (Score:2)
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
300 million years ago, the landmasses were all agglomerated into the Pangaea supercontinent which lasted for 100 million years. The differing location vs present day makes for very different climate. The CO2 level during the past 1/2 million years has never surpassed 300 ppm so 350 is a 15% buffer.