Skip to comments.
Treaty Could Bring U.S. Undersea Riches (Really? At what cost?)
NewsMax.com ^
| Sunday, September 16, 2007 8:38 PM
| Chris Gonsalves
Posted on 09/17/2007 3:08:48 PM PDT by foxfield
This article states that
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.
It goes on to say that it
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: lost; unclos
What gives? I'm having a hard time squaring this article with various threads that I have seen on FR earlier this year. I hear this treaty is coming up before the Senate for a vote on or about September 27, 2007. Am I missing something?
1
posted on
09/17/2007 3:08:54 PM PDT
by
foxfield
To: foxfield
“The United States stands to gain nearly 300,000 square miles of additional ocean holdings..”
We can only gain 300,000 square miles of ocean holdings if they belong to someone else at this time. Who is the owner now?
Take the 300,000 square miles and tell the world to dare take it away from us. Oops, I forgot - we have become a bunch of kneepad-wearing sissies. We want to be LOOOVED, right?
2
posted on
09/17/2007 3:19:35 PM PDT
by
353FMG
(Government is the opiate of the people.)
To: 353FMG
Don’t gain anything unless you can do something with it. Why get 300,000 more when we cannot drill or mine what we already have.
3
posted on
09/17/2007 3:22:40 PM PDT
by
edcoil
(Reality doesn't say much - doesn't need too)
To: foxfield
I wonder if there’s any connection between this and a stunt that the Ruskies recently pulled in the Arctic Ocean which,I read,could net them trillions and trillions of dollars worth of oil and gas from disputed territories.
4
posted on
09/17/2007 3:23:01 PM PDT
by
Gay State Conservative
(If martyrdom is so cool,why does Osama Obama go to such great lengths to avoid it?)
To: Gay State Conservative
This is much bigger than just the Russians. It's the United Nations!!! Take a look at these articles at
aim.org:
There are at least three other threads in FR -- I am trying to find them. Also, articles cited above link to other relevant information. I am trying to refresh my memory on this whole issue. As I recall, there is a pretty steep downside for the USA if this thing gets ratified.
5
posted on
09/17/2007 3:39:17 PM PDT
by
foxfield
To: edcoil
Why not accept 300,000 square miles if you can take it. Never mind what you plan to do with it. Someday we MAY get a government with common sense and enough brass that realizes that the most efficient form of energy is still CRUDE OIL!!!
6
posted on
09/17/2007 3:41:52 PM PDT
by
353FMG
(Government is the opiate of the people.)
To: foxfield
Oops sorry about the bad links in my previous post. Give these a try:
aim.org:
7
posted on
09/17/2007 3:44:22 PM PDT
by
foxfield
To: foxfield
Can anyone tell me what the candidates think of LOST?
To: foxfield
What good is it if we get all of this potential oil? The Democrats won’t allow us to drill anyway.
9
posted on
09/17/2007 4:12:44 PM PDT
by
Signalman
To: 353FMG
“Claims and disputes will be resolved by arbitration panels established by the treaty.” Why should the U.S. delegate decision-making authority to international bodies?
10
posted on
09/17/2007 4:30:38 PM PDT
by
Teflonic
To: Teflonic
Why should the U.S. delegate decision-making authority to international bodies? Because it passes the "global test?"
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson