Posted on 09/16/2007 7:12:18 PM PDT by kellynla
The justification for U.S. ratification of the Law of the Sea treaty is simple: trillions of dollars of undersea mineral wealth just waiting to be exploited.
The United States stands to gain nearly 300,000 square miles of additional ocean holdings, including an estimated 400 billion barrels of untapped undersea oil and gas, experts say.
That's because the treaty allows countries to extend their claims beyond the current 200-mile limit, if they can demonstrate the continuity of their continental shelf.
The result could make the 1849 Gold Rush and the Texas oil boom seem trivial by comparison. Not surprisingly, U.S. oil and gas companies support ratification.
To gain control over those vast new expanses of ocean, however, the United States must submit extensive map information about the ocean floor and other data to international authorities for review.
U.S. scientists are already busy in the Arctic gathering the requisite data aboard the Coast Guard icebreaker Healy, which is mapping the ocean floor to support U.S. claims if the treaty is ratified.
Newsmax reached chief expedition scientist Larry Mayer aboard the Healy. Although Mayer isn't taking sides on the politics of the treaty, he speaks enthusiastically about the potential windfall.
"I will say that the seafloor beneath the oceans has tremendous potential with respect to resources," he tells Newsmax.
Thanks for the link. Great information our government won’t freely share when making their announcements.
BTTT
I take it that would be our thirty pieces of silver for ratifying this thing?
From the link at post 16:
Another way the New International Economic Order has been described is “redistributionist.”
The Law of the Sea Treaty calls for technology transfers and wealth transfers from developed to undeveloped nations.
“The United States stands to gain nearly 300,000 square miles of additional ocean holdings, including an estimated 400 billion barrels of untapped undersea oil and gas, experts say.
That’s because the treaty allows countries to extend their claims beyond the current 200-mile limit, if they can demonstrate the continuity of their continental shelf.”
What’s stopping up from exploring and drilling in those areas beyond 200 miles now? It’s not as if there are scores of nations with the technology to explore and produce oil in such areas.
Of course, environmental nuts and Democrats would have a hissy fit.
“If I’m not mistaken this also provides the UN with a hefty tax base.”
It definitely does. I can’t think of a better reason to NOT sign onto this LOST.
“The treaty is only for big business.”
As are most things. Just another facet in the 1000 points of light.
Watch out, you're showing your age, and some might take that to mean that you're living in the past.
Certainly there were objections to this from the US and other nations back in the 80s.
But those were substantially reduced, which led to the other nations signing the treaty.
Those numbers are available for scrutiny and comparison. They are far less than what the US charges to drill and produce the OCS. The OCS has been extensively drilled and the total dollars collected over 50 years is not the kind of money needed to run any government.
You don't have to worry about that.
US ocean industries have testified that they wouldn't develop deep sea technology unless the treaty is signed. The private sector can't make claims, they have to go thru the signing country.
Signing the treaty would put the US private sector on equal footing with foreign public sector.
The ICC is a good example of how difficult it is for the US to sign individual side agreements in place of a collective treaty.
“hefty tax base”
Certainly there were objections to this from the US and other nations back in the 80s.
But those were substantially reduced, which led to the other nations signing the treaty.
Those numbers are available for scrutiny and comparison. They are far less than what the US charges to drill and produce the OCS. The OCS has been extensively drilled and the total dollars collected over 50 years is not the kind of money needed to run any government.
////////////////////
Your response is in tune with your take on border issues. Suffice it to say that there are immense known mineral deposits on the ocean floor waiting for the day that technology makes them commercially feasible to exploit. That day is not far off.
I hope you are or plan to be a part of the international nomanclatura either by way of bureaucracy or by wealth. It would be a shame if your position were just a religious conviction.
“I’m buying this carp.”
yeah, it’s really fishy.
Sure seems like it to me. Thanks for the response. You take care.
I don’t think I responded to this Ben. Thanks for the comments. I’m not a big fan of the ICC. Could you tell?
Heh heh heh...
Take care.
Just say no to this perennial loser! Sheesh they’ve been pushing this piece of junk on us since the 90s when Gordon Liddy warned against it. It’s BAAD LAW!!
Matthew 4:8-9
Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
And saith unto him, “All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.”
I was only using the ICC analogy to demonstrate that side agreements for LOS will not be any more successful than for ICC. Obviously, the mullah would not be willing to make a side agreement for Hormuz, but also, Malaysia and Indonesia have not been co-operative in the Straits of Malacca.
As I see it some of the most problematic issues the ICC will sooner or later involve itself in, are the outlandish claims by the United Nations. Is the Christian aversion to homosexuality a crime against humanity? Is the Christian aversion to abortion a crime against humanty?
The United Nations is convinced these are crimes against humanity. The U.N. is also convinced that churches are basicly criminal organizations, due to their stands on these issues.
I give it about ten to twenty years, if that long, before the U.N. starts making edicts concerning religion world wide. And with the ICC, it will have backing for those rulings.
We’re about to sign on to the seas treaty (LOST). When that treaty has been signed, it will only be a short period of time before the U.N. starts tapping it’s new resource. It will have it’s own income stream for the first time in history.
Once it has that, it will develop it’s own standing army.
The U.N. and the ICC in combonation are dangerous. We’re playing with fire here. That’s why I say the ICC is simply unacceptable. And while the U.N. is somewhat tollerable, it is hell bent on becoming the supreme governing body on the planet.
I’ve seen the U.N. I’ve know the United States, and the U.N. is no United States. It’s more like Nazi Germany if the truth be known. It will reveal itself more fully in time. After it has done so, it will be too late to rectify this situation without a lot of bloodshed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.