Originally posted by vor78
It would be difficult (though not impossible) to keep the oil exploration and drilling teams alive in such a climate. And once you get the oil to the
surface, what then?
Not when all global oil supplies dry up completely. It is true that there is no point of going there now, but in the future? Long terms infinitely
exceed short term expectations. IF there were no other available energy source save oil, then it might be reasonable to assume Antarctica would be the
best choice. However, that does not seem to be the case. In such a scenario, demand would be exceedingly high so moving capital to Antarctica would
become increasingly easy. In reality, however, the most appropriate answer would be that such an endeavor in Antarctica would impose an opportunity
cost on capital, which could otherwise be spent on research and development of alternative fuel sources such as tidal, solar, wind, hydro, thermal,
nuclear fission and possibly nuclear fusion. If NONE of the aforementioned sources of energy are sufficient enough to provide the standard of living
we all enjoy today, then perhaps expeditions into Antarctica might become cheaper and technically more feasible in the future. I do seriously doubt,
however, that we would come to such a point...
[edit on 4-1-2009 by cognoscente]
|
