Bush Continues to Support UN "Law of The Sea" Treaty

The New American ^ | January 19, 2005 | William Norman Grigg

[beaver fever]

Hydro Carbons won't work either. The coal resources in the US alone are estimated to be sufficient to last 1000 years at present rates of consumption.

You heard me right. 1000 years!

[FierceDraka]

DICK LUGAR! *spits in contempt*

That RINO needs to be recalled - he's been esconced in his Senatorial throne for so long that he's no longer a Hoosier, but another fatcat Washington insider, and a thrice-damned internationalist (a nice word for "traitor" if you ask me) at that.

[FierceDraka]

And FURTHERMORE,

GET THE UN OUT OF THE US, AND GET THE US OUT OF THE UN!

NOW, MISTER!

[Ben Ficklin]

Hydrocarbons= crude oil & natural gas.

GeoTimes Article

[sergeantdave]

Ms. Rice made a whole bunch of statements concerning LOST that no one can back up in the treaty.

Now I could be wrong. Maybe this UN treaty enshrines US sovereignty and sits the UN in the back of the bus. I'd be in favor of that.

If the statements of Ms. Rice are true I'm all for it. On the other hand, if she's blowing smoke in my face, I don't like it and will not stand for it.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

The sea treaty seems to be a route toward UN self-suficiency. Therefor, I'm opposed to it.

[sergeantdave]

In conclusion, let me say that Ms. Rice should be thrown in foxhole with communist bullets zinging over her head and praying that one of them doesn't blow her head or pretty make-up off.

I'm not trying to be cruel, but this female does not understand the utterly vicious philosophy of the UN and its hooray section that cheers the death of millions. Rwanda and Cambodia are two examples. I can name a dozen more.

The fact that she supports LOST indicates that Ms. Rice has a serious vacuum or lack of principles in her head.

[beaver fever]

I mentioned Oil and Gas in answer to NavVet on post# 12.

He mentioned mining and I thought he meant O&G. Of course offshore O&G is well established and profitable but my objection directed towards offshore mining.

As far as the restrictions on offshore O&G drilling I am not aware of what if any such restrictions exist withing the LOS treaty. I haven't heard mention of it from the energy companies I have talked to. My uninformed guess is that existing oil rights over the continental shelf extending up to 400 miles in some cases are not on the table. I may be wrong about that.

[Ben Ficklin]

I'll defer to you on the mining part.

I will add that the US began an extensive mapping of the shelf subsequent to '82.

[zeugma]

Any company wanting to mine the sea floor would have to pay a big chunk of the profits into a UN fund that would be distributed to all the mismanaged American hating third world countries of the world.

Your summation is dead on target and exactly why this treaty needs to be brought before the senate, and VOTED DOWN by the critters. As long as no vote is held, this treaty will sit out there and wait for a midnight Christmas-Eve session for it to be passed my voice vote when there are 3 senators present.

[beaver fever]

A slight correction underwater mining is possible in the case of coal mining due to the uniformity of coal seams and the hard rock setting in which they occur. Typically this sort of mining operation is only economical if the resource is close to shore where the shaft is sunk and galleries extend under the sea bed.

There is a mine in Cape Breton that extends almost three miles under the sea bed but it closed down due to low coal prices. There is still a considerable resource remaining so the mine could conceivably be reopened.

In the case of other commodities like copper and gold, that occur in fracture zones, the geology makes it unlikely that sea water could be prevented from entering the shafts and galleries.

[RebelTex]

For those concerned enough, and with the fortitude to wade through the legalese and posturing, here's some links for research:

Oceans and Law of the Sea Home Page

* FINAL ACT OF THE THIRD UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON THE LAW OF THE SEA (1982)  *later amendments and agreements not included

Please let us know what you discover and what its potential impact on American Sovereignty might be.  I can't get through all of it, but the main part of the provisions start on page 19 of 35.

Hope you have better luck getting through it than I did.

[the invisib1e hand]

The UN isn't going away anytime soon. There are too many dictators with designs on the US and the world to switch it off all at once. Perhaps the only way to keep the beast on a leash is to keep a seat at the table, until widespread liberty takes hold and generations of wise men and women arise who will see the UN for what it is and kill it. A generation hence at the earliest, and that's if everything goes well.

[Czar]

If it's something the UN wants, then you can just about count on two things: (1) it will enhance UN power and UN finances, and increase its appetite for meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations; and (2) it will erode U.S. sovereignty and place a claim on U.S. taxpayers.

I am opposed to the Law of the Sea Treaty and have so informed my Congressman and Senators.

It would please me greatly to see the UN kicked the hell out of the United States. They are a useless collection of third world thugs from fifth rate countries. Not only do we not need them, they are harmful to U.S. interests.