Bering Strait crossing today

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0><tr> <td valign="top" colspan=3 height=90 BGCOLOR="#6666CC" TEXT="#080000" background="b8e01573.jpg"> <div> <FONT SIZE="5" COLOR="#FFFFFF" FACE="Arial" ><B>Googlegrease</B></FONT>     |     <A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Googlegrease">home</A>                  back to  <A HREF="where.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Where">Where</A></div> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <A HREF="alaska_china_railroad.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Alaska China Railroad">Alaska China Railroad</A><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#FFFFFF" FACE="Symbol" >   ·   </FONT><A HREF="alaska_texas_railroad.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Alaska Texas Railroad">Alaska Texas Railroad</A><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#FFFFFF" FACE="Symbol" >   ·   </FONT><A HREF="ny_la_highspeed_rail.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="NY LA Highspeed Rail">NY LA Highspeed Rail</A><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#FFFFFF" FACE="Symbol" >   ·   </FONT><A HREF="seattle_jacksonville_rail.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Seattle Jacksonville Rail">Seattle Jacksonville Rail</A><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#FFFFFF" FACE="Symbol" >   ·   </FONT><A HREF="smart_grid.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Smart Grid">Smart Grid</A><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#FFFFFF" FACE="Symbol" >   ·   </FONT><A HREF="contact.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Contact">Contact</A></div> <div> <I>Bering Strait crossing today</I></div> <div> </div> </td> </tr><tr> <td valign="top" width=210 BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000" background="aefd2013.jpg"> <div> <A HREF="where.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Where"><IMG SRC="ae40e0e0.png" border=0 width="14" height="14" ALT="up" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></A>   <IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="14" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" WIDTH="14">     <A HREF="beringia_bering_straight.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Beringia Bering Straight Trail"><IMG SRC="ae50e0e0.png" border=0 width="14" height="14" ALT="previous" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></A>  <A HREF="alaska_highway_history.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Alaska Highway History"><IMG SRC="ae60e0e0.png" border=0 width="14" height="14" ALT="next" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></A></div> <div> <A HREF="euro_america_highway.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Euro America Highway">Euro America Highway</A></div> <div> <A HREF="europe.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Europe">Europe</A></div> <div> <A HREF="russia.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Russia">Russia</A></div> <div> <A HREF="china.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="China">China</A></div> <div> <A HREF="beringia_bering_straight.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Beringia Bering Straight Trail">Beringia Bering Straight Trail</A></div> <div> <B>Bering Strait crossing today</B></div> <div> <A HREF="alaska_highway_history.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Alaska Highway History">Alaska Highway History</A></div> <div> <A HREF="alaska.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Alaska">Alaska</A></div> <div> <A HREF="nome_alaska.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Nome Alaska">Nome Alaska</A></div> <div> <A HREF="alaska_railroad_chronology.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Alaska Railroad Chronology">Alaska Railroad Chronology</A></div> <div> <A HREF="canada.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Canada">Canada</A></div> <div> <A HREF="united_states_corridor_1.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="United States Corridor 1">United States Corridor 1</A></div> <div> <A HREF="united_states_corridor_2.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="United States Corridor 2">United States Corridor 2</A></div> <div> <A HREF="united_states_corridor_3.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="United States Corridor 3">United States Corridor 3</A></div> <div> <A HREF="united_states_corridor_4.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="United States Corridor 4">United States Corridor 4</A></div> <div> <A HREF="mexico_corridor.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Mexico Corridor">Mexico Corridor</A></div> <div> <A HREF="pan_american_highway.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Pan American Highway">Pan American Highway</A></div> <div> <A HREF="inter_american_highway.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="InterAmerican Highway">Inter-American Highway</A></div> <div> <A HREF="maps.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Maps">Maps</A></div> <div> <A HREF="other_data.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Other Data">Other Data</A></div> <bR> </td> <td valign="top" height=390 width="100%" BGCOLOR="#EEEEEE" TEXT="#080000"> <div> <IMG SRC="ab4ed600.gif" border=0 width="237" height="96" ALT="Follow the Footsteps of History Across America logo" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <div> Hydrogen Intermodal Transporation</div> <div> A Foundation for All Nations to Compete in the Global Economy</div> <div> <B><IMG SRC="13eecab0.jpg" border=0 width="236" height="171" ALT="map of the first Hydrogen Highway" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">   </B><IMG SRC="168f4ad0.jpg" border=0 width="244" height="173" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <bR> <div> The following interview appeared in the June 20, 2003 issue of Executive Intelligence Review </div> <bR> <div> <B>Connecting N. America And Eurasia by Rail</B> </div> <div> <I>Hal Cooper, PhD, a Seattle-based transportation consultant, is a longtime advocate for an intercontinental railroad connection across the Bering Strait, and for development corridors —rail, utilities including electric transmission, natural gas, and water, and highways-on key routes in the Americas, and worldwide.</I></div> <bR> <div> <I>He recently commissioned the painting re- produced here, done by J. Craig Thorpe, for presentation to Alaska Gov. Frank Murkowski (R). Cooper was interviewed on June 9 by Marcia Merry Baker. </I></div> <bR> <div> <B>EIR</B>: The Bering Strait Crossing, what is the physical geography involved? How long is the span to link up the continents? </div> <div> <B>Cooper</B>: It's 53 miles, or 85 kilometers, across from Alaska to Russia, at the Bering Strait, at the minimum distance.</div> <bR> <div> <B>EIR</B>: What might be a comparable strait?</div> <div> The Chesapeake Bay?</div> <div> China just began work on a 22-mile bridge across Hangzhou Bay, which will be the world's longest trans-oceanic bridge. Is there anything like the Bering Strait, or would this crossing be the first? </div> <div> <B>Cooper</B>: The English Channel is very similar to it. And, of course, the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay would be another.</div> <div> But I think the English Channel is the analogy that's closest to the Bering Strait. </div> <bR> <div> <B>EIR</B>: What about the physical setting there?</div> <div> Does it still compare with the English Channel and Channel Tunnel? </div> <div> <B>Cooper</B>: In some respects, it's more difficult, because it's farther, but it isn't as deep. It's 180 feet, versus about 250.</div> <bR> <div> There are two islands out in the middle of the Bering Strait— Little Diomede, on the United States side, and Big Diomede Island, on the Russian side, that would make it considerably easier, because your longest underwater distance is about 23 miles. So it's actually less than the English Channel. </div> <bR> <div> <B>EIR</B>: There are some spectacular new bridges in the world, for example, those reconnecting Scandinavia with Western Europe. In the approaches to the tunnel to the Bering Strait, are bridges involved? </div> <div> <B>Cooper</B>: No. You would have a straight tunnel across.</div> <bR> <div> There have been some proposals for a bridge, and I'll get to that. But there would be a straight tunnel; there would be a straight two- or three-bore tunnel. It would go through the islands. It would be under the water—probably 50 or 75 feet below the water line.</div> <bR> <div> Your soil there is a granitic, and granite-chalk type, and it's actually relatively stable to dig.</div> <bR> <div> You are quite a ways north of the active geologic zones where the earthquakes are.</div> <bR> <div> So it's actually relatively stable there.</div> <div> In some respects, it would be easier to dig than the English Channel was, because there are not these rock fissures going down that caused so much problem there near the French coast for the English Channel Tunnel. </div> <bR> <div> <B>EIR</B>: In other words, you are saying—whether two- or three-bore—it's an excavation matter. Some others have said that you could drop onto the seabed, a kind of sealedbox affair. </div> <div> <B>Cooper</B>: You could do that. But the only concern that I would have is the flows of ice through there, and the possibility of dislocating it.</div> <div> That would be, to me, a concern. I would prefer to put it down in the rock, although you could put the tubes on the floor, provided that you dug near the shores, because of the ice. But you'd have to be very concerned about the flows of ice through there. </div> <bR> <div> <B>EIR</B>: So this would be a first, this length of actual excavation. It would be the longest? </div> <div> <B>Cooper</B>: To my knowledge, yes. It would be the longest in the world. But you know, it isn't that much longer from other things that already exist, that it would be a revolutionary breakthrough. Because actually, when you look at the single, particular sections of the tunnel, it's less than what the English Channel is now. </div> <bR> <div> <B>EIR</B>: So it's in sections. It's tractable. </div> <div> <B>Cooper</B>: It's very do-able. </div> <bR> <div> <B>EIR</B>: These islands you mentioned: Are they just rock outcrops, or are they more significant? </div> <div> <B>Cooper</B>: Well, there are about 200 native people who live on Little Diomede Island on the Alaskan side. As far as I know, there is only a weather station, and some Russian military people on the Russian side on Big Diomede Island. </div> <bR> <div> <B>EIR</B>: The Diomedes are visible in the painting [Figure 1] you commissioned. </div> <div> <B>Cooper</B>: Yes, they are very visible from the land.</div> <div> And we got that view from both my having flown over the area, and from photographs from the Internet, which were explicit about the Diomede Islands. </div> <bR> <div> <B>EIR</B>: Now to some of the politics and the financing questions.</div> <div> You've been Mr. Shuttle Diplomacy, going between Russia—that would be Chukotka, and other places in Siberia —Alaska, Canada, and you are based in Seattle. </div> <div> What about the feasibility politically? </div> <div> <B>Cooper</B>: Well, it's very interesting to note that, to myknowl- edge, there's little if any effort going on on the U.S. side.</div> <bR> <div> I know there is a gentleman by the name of George Koumal, who in the past, has created this hemispheric Bering Strait tunnel and rail group.</div> <bR> <div> He's based in Tucson, Arizona. He's been working somewhat with the people up in Alaska, and he has got some degree of support up there. But, unfortunately, not enough.</div> <bR> <div> But that has not led to any significant effort so far. Certainly not from the standpoint of financial support or benefits from the state of Alaska, or anyone else.</div> <bR> <div> But on the Russian side, I know the Siberian State Transport University in Novosibirsk has established a taskforce, and they are actually looking at the economic development, and the traffic-generation potential of connecting the Russian rail system to the Bering Strait. Years ago, there was a feasibility study done by the Moscow Regional Transportation Institute by Dr. Viktor Razbegin, which shows that the Bering Strait Tunnel is very feasible. </div> <bR> <div> <B>EIR</B>: Is this partly why, on the Russian side, you see an interest in tank cars—which you show in the painting? This is for petroleum? </div> <div> <B>Cooper</B>: It would be for carrying oil.</div> <div> And, of course, in Russia, there is large amounts of oil transported by railroad. It's interesting to point out that, in the conditions of the Arctic, you could build the fanciest railroad—double-track, electric, fully resistant to any frost conditions, which, of course, you have plenty of there, and the cost would be about $7.5 million a mile. </div> <bR> <div> <B>EIR</B>: How does that compare with other modes? </div> <div> <B>Cooper</B>: Well, I'm going to compare it to a pipeline.</div> <div> And you can carry any commodity in either direction on the railroad. Including all the oil you want.</div> <div> Now, if you build a pipeline to that area, and we're extrapolating the cost of the Alaska pipeline, which was completed in 1979, at a cost of about $10 million a mile. It would probably be about $15 million a mile, at a minimum, now, for a pipeline very similar to what was built in Alaska. </div> <bR> <div> <B>EIR</B>: Because of permafrost, and so on? </div> <div> <B>Cooper</B>: It has to be built elevated; it has to be able to resist heat. You have to have foundations.</div> <div> And all sorts of things like that. And, the cost would be a minimum of $15 million a mile, and you could ship one commodity in one direction.</div> <div> And in fact, believe it or not, the railroad would have a greater capacity to carry oil than the pipeline would. </div> <bR> <div> <B>EIR</B>: That's a revelation. </div> <div> <B>Cooper</B>: It just points out that, if you had gone back, and it was 1972 again, and we were looking at that Alaska pipeline, we would have never built the pipeline, knowing what we know today.</div> <div> Because the comparison was made when the rail was just marginally more expensive, coming down to North Dakota, with a cost of $800 million for the pipeline, and the pipeline ended up costing $10.8 billion!</div> <bR> <div> And on top of that, you have to add $7.9 billion for the oil spill that happened in 1980. </div> <bR> <div> <B>EIR</B>: So, what you are saying, is that the development corridor approach, which you have been promoting for decades, and which is in the LaRouche Eurasian Land-Bridge approach, is even cheaper at the outset? </div> <div> <B>Cooper</B>: Oh, absolutely!</div> <div> The difficulty you have is that the oil companies want the transportation system under their own control.</div> <div> And they have no concern whatsoever about cost effectiveness.</div> <div> Their attitude is, that it might be the difference between 3¢ a gallon and 5¢ a gallon, added onto the cost of gasoline. </div> <bR> <bR> <div> <I>This article appears in the </I><I><U>January 30, 2004 issue</U></I><I> of </I><I><B>Executive Intelligence Review.</B></I> </div> <div> <B>Alaska: Gas Pipeline</B></div> <div> <B>Or Bering Strait Crossing?</B></div> <bR> <div> by Paul Gallagher </div> <div> Reports that a new natural gas pipeline, running 1,300 miles from Alaska to the lower 48, was about to be announced—</div> <div> a fruit of the secretive energy task force of Vice President Cheney—</div> <div> circulated at a Jan. 15 conference in Juneau sponsored by the Alaska State Senate Transportation Committee.</div> <bR> <div> But the subject of the conference itself was the desire for new, through railroad corridors from Alaska down through Canada and back into the United States—</div> <div> one of the oldest infrastructure needs, and plans, in North America.</div> <bR> <div> The juxtaposition of these two, quite different ideas of "economic infrastructure" was the subject of Canadian Broadcasting Company and CBS-TV interviews with rail consultants of the Alaska conference.</div> <bR> <div> It's the difference between "energy profits" illusions—</div> <div> à la the California and national energy deregulation crisis since 2000—</div> <div> and infrastructure building for general economic recovery, whose finest expression is in Lyndon LaRouche's proposals for the Eurasian Land-Bridge and a "Super TVA" recovery policy in North America.</div> <bR> <div> The question of a new connection to Alaska—</div> <div> even if it's Cheney's energy-pirate friends' plans for a new gas pipeline—</div> <div> actually involves the whole "world land-bridge" of transportation-centered corridors.</div> <bR> <div> Veteran transportation consultant Hal B.H. Cooper, who presented a preliminary "Alaska-Canada Railroad Corridor Feasibility Study" to the Jan. 15 Juneau conference, pointed out one little-known aspect of the natural gas pipeline plan.</div> <bR> <div> Canadian natural gas production in Alberta rose dramatically from 1995 on, as the inflationary craze for natural-gas generation of electricity took off in North America; now Alberta production has peaked at 5 trillion cubic feet per year and is actually falling.</div> <bR> <div> Natural gas prices have skied up again to nearly $9.50 per thousand cubic feet, nearing their level of the destructive 2001 price spike which shut down aluminum and other industrial facilities; average retail electricity prices have increased by .25¢ per kilowatt in one year.</div> <bR> <div> An Alaska natural gas pipeline is aimed to replace dropping Canadian production in that energy-inflation geometry.</div> <bR> <div> Its capital cost—on the order of $15 billion over five years—</div> <div> does not require the large-scale investment in new coal-fired and nuclear-powered electric plants around the United States, which would counter that inflationary pressure because of much lower fuel costs.</div> <bR> <div> Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, in fact, is promoting an "alternative": a big new U.S. dependence on <I>liquified</I> natural gas from the Mideast, to be brought into Gulf of Mexico ports.</div> <bR> <div> All this is part of the powerful inflationary forces which have been building up within the so-called "deflationary" U.S. economy during the productive economy's collapse since July-August 2000.</div> <bR> <div> Producing electricity with natural gas is a way to make quick, relatively small "emergency" additions to generating capacity in a localized electricity shortage crisis; but it makes no sense as a national energy strategy, as the spikes in heating-fuel costs and per-kilowatt-hour electricity costs have shown.</div> <bR> <div> If a pipeline is to be built, a far more valuable resource to the economy to bring down through it, would be <I>water</I>, from the MacKenzie River and the overcharged Alaskan river system generally, into the arid Rocky Mountain longitudes of North America.</div> <bR> <div> <B>Rail Corridor Comes First</B></div> <div> But <I>any</I> pipeline really requires a new transportation <I>development corridor</I>.</div> <bR> <div> <B>Why?</B></div> <div> The pipeline itself can't be built,</div> <div> Cooper notes, without finishing off the already beaten-up Alaskan Highway and American roads which connect to it. U.S. Interstate Route 5, for example, running up the American West Coast from southern California, is already disintegrating in stretches from the tens of thousands of heavy trucks that use it per day.</div> <bR> <div> The construction of a pipeline from British Columbia to Alaska requires carrying 100-110 million tons of materials up along its route between 2005 and its completion before 2010.</div> <bR> <div> That will crush the long north-south highways of western North America—</div> <div> even if, for example, the steel pipeline sections are made shorter than is economical for their final assembly, so that trucks can carry them.</div> <bR> <div> Therefore, if we're not going to ruin existing infrastructure (Cheney energy-pirate style) while building new "infrastructure," a new railroad corridor to Alaska has to be built first, before any pipeline!</div> <bR> <div> That railroad would transport trucks and their drivers, as well as the heaviest construction loads on rail cars.</div> <bR> <div> It would carry 40-60 million tons or so a year to serve the contruction of a pipeline or pipelines while it was underway;</div> <div> and in a few years as pipeline construction ended, would be carrying 60-70 million tons of other freight—</div> <div> lumber products, energy products, food and other agricultural goods, consumer goods, and still, trucks—as well as passenger service.</div> <bR> <div> In the representation in <B>Figure 1</B>, a water pipeline is shown above ground along the railroad corridor; a natural gas pipeline would be buried underneath it.</div> <bR> <div> The railroad would require electricity, and the corridor could be planned for transmission of electricity, as shown; it would run north from the northern end of the Western Interconnection, the western-most transmission section of the U.S. electricity grid.</div> <bR> <div> That railroad corridor is now being planned by the Canadian Arctic Railway Company of British Columbia. But funding for the project is more than uncertain, and is planned to be private.</div> <bR> <div> This idea has been seen as a necessity by those who planned or envisaged industrial and economic growth, since the first half of the 19th Century when Alaska still belonged to Russia—the first proposal was made in 1845 by the governor of the then-Territory of Colorado.</div> <bR> <div> But it has never been constructed. As the planning has been redone several times during the 20th Century, it has been connected to the idea of crossing the Bering Strait into Russian and Chinese railroad corridors.</div> <bR> <div> In the first decade of the 20th Century, America and Russia were very close to launching construction of a U.S. West Coast-to-Siberia rail corridor, using freight ferries across the Strait.</div> <bR> <div> Again during World War II, President Roosevelt and Josef Stalin discussed the same thing, and Stalin attempted to revive the idea with President Truman after the war. But the rail corridor up over North America has never been built.</div> <bR> <div> <B>Bering Strait Imperative</B></div> <div> The intensity of use of this railroad corridor, and its effect on overall economic productivity of North American and Eurasian nations, changes entirely when it crosses the Bering Strait—</div> <div> as is now definitely technologically feasible by tunnel (<B>Figure 2</B>), using the two islands, (Little Diomede and Big Diomede) which lie along the Strait crossing in order to break up its total length.</div> <bR> <div> The long-awaited Alaska-Canada railroad corridor then becomes an extension of the northern Eurasian Land-Bridge—involving the Trans-Siberian and Baikal-Amur lines, and the Chinese northern rail line construction extending to them—and part of the "world land-bridge."</div> <bR> <div> For example, whereas American consultant Cooper in Juneau estimated that a railroad corridor between Alaska and Canada would reach 70 million tons of freight per year, he reported that the Siberian State Transport University has done extensive study of traffic over a Bering land-bridge.</div> <bR> <div> The freight traffic on the same corridor, if so extended, would then more than quadruple, to as much as 300 million tons per year among the nations of North America, Russia, China, Korea, Japan, and Europe.</div> <bR> <div> This would be propelled by the savings of time in moving most kinds of freight. Take a 40-foot standard freight container being shipped from Shanghai to New York City. Entirely by sea—the cheapest means—it takes 30-35 days (by air, the cost per pound is nearly 20 times higher).</div> <bR> <div> By sea across the Pacific and then rail across America, takes 20-22 days; ship and truck, 20-25 days.</div> <bR> <div> But entirely by rail on the "world land-bridge," the container would arrive in only 10-12 days, and cost just 3-5% more than all-sea shipping.</div> <bR> <div> Moreover, in this context of world infrastructure building and connection, the transport corridor from Alaska down the West Coast of North America is then not enough.</div> <bR> <div> An additional corridor from Alaska becomes necessary and, in fact, more important:</div> <bR> <div> This corridor, as consultant Cooper has drawn it, will come southeast across Western Canada to cross into North and South Dakota, and continue as the Central North American Land-Bridge Corridor.</div> <bR> <div> This section of it is the long-"missing" major north-south rail corridor down the center of the United States—following the route of U.S. Highway 83—to Texas, and into Mexico.</div> <bR> <div> This combination of two new rail and <I>development corridors</I>, both flowing across the Bering Strait to join the Eurasian Land-Bridge (<B>Figure 3</B>), connect North America to the "world land-bridge."</div> <bR> <div> They also make clear the complete coherence between the Eurasian Land-Bridge idea—for which Presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche is known internationally, and which is being carried out in projects by China and other countries—and his "Super-TVA" policy for the United States' recovery from economic depression.</div> <bR> <div> The North American side of this railroad corridor construction would involve tens of thousands of new productive jobs directly, and many tens of thousands more resulting from that economic activity.</div> <bR> <div> If double-tracked, the Alaska-to-West Coast and Midwest corridor routes would cost $7-10 billion in construction; the much greater Bering Strait-crossing land-bridge corridor construction, by several nations, $70-100 billion.</div> <bR> <div> The American Federal states, including Alaska, have all been forced to cut their budget spending—despite more than half of them raising taxes—by the depression tax revenue drops since 2000.</div> <bR> <div> They—as in the cases of Alaska, Texas, California, and other states with ambitious transport corridor plans—can put no money into the the new infrastructure public works that would create new revenue and productive jobs. </div> <bR> <div> LaRouche's Super TVA will target credits from the Federal Treasury—which uniquely has the power to create them—to assist states and the regulated public corporations they create to carry out such great projects.</div> <bR> <div> Through treaty agreements, credits will be created for international projects.</div> <bR> <div> His recovery program is modern economic infrastructure for the general welfare—like the Alaska/Central North America Corridor.</div> <bR> <bR> </td> <td valign="top" width=210 BGCOLOR="#EEEEEE" TEXT="#080000"> <div> <B>A Public Service of</B></div> <div> <A HREF="http://www.radiozx.com/" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.radiozx.com/"><B><IMG SRC="bd259290.png" border=0 width="89" height="41" ALT="radiozx logo" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B></A></div> <div> <B>Hot Headlines...</B></div> <div> <B><IMG SRC="bd323230.png" border=0 width="35" height="35" ALT="newspaper Hot Headlines" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"><IMG SRC="bd46a240.png" border=0 width="106" height="36" ALT="lizard running" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B></div> <div> <B>for people on the Run!</B></div> <div> <A HREF="http://www.googlegrease.com/" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.googlegrease.com/"><B><IMG SRC="8ada5510.jpg" border=0 width="165" height="81" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B></A></div> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>