Posted on 03/30/2010 7:16:27 PM PDT by Bigtigermike
WOw, Carry_Okie, I have seen your name lots of times on FR
before, but I never knew about this, or your committment to
this field. I scanned those links for only half a minute, since I’m rushed right now, and am home on a pit stop. But I will get back in touch with the links and you.
This has set off some very interesting associations and memories from my work in Historic Preservation from the last few years.
btw, CHECK OUT my reply on this thread # 240, which I typed before I saw yours.
Ya mean Palin was right?
This is a FAKE. Obama gets to say I opened it to drilling but the DECK IS SO HEAVILY STACKED NOW,THAT HARDLY ANY DRILLING WILL BEGIN FOR YEARS AND YEARS.
The gov. works with greenies , open up the drilling applications and then make it impossible for oil companies to do it, telling them when Io sue behind the scenes. The EPA has been doing that for years..
Meanwhile Chinese and Russians are drilling wells off the coast of Cuba like mad!
Buahahahahahahahahaha! Obama thinks we are ALL suckers!
EFF OBAMA!
At the same time Obama is shutting down drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, Utrah and California where WE KNOW THERE IS OIL!
Obam is a EFFIN FASCIST! He plays the double handed game, LIES..... LIES ,, LIES!!!!
FAKE DEVIOUS BASTARD!!!!
Thanks to the King, Almighty One!
Whilst Googling around for some answers, the item that pops up most often on the subject is LOST(Law Of the Sea Treaty) authored by the UN in 1982 and creates 200 mile economic zones, amongst other things. 140 some odd nations have signed on; it's very long and probably not worth the effort to dissect. However, the commentary on it reveals two things that jump out at the casual observer: 1)The US has NEVER ratified the treaty and, 2) conservative commentators universally agree it would be an unmitigated disaster for the US as it is just another redistribution scheme from our would-be world governors.
The gist of my questions was to try to arrive at the justification for the federales skimming off $$$'s by regulating and restricting access to resources that as near as I can tell don't belong to them. Why not the States? The States probably have a higher claim. But then there's the prospect of a treaty out there that if ratified, would just about negate any State claim. I dunno. It certainly doesn't do anything for our cost of energy.
The bottom line may be what I think was the first reply to my questions, roughly: "The federales have a Coast Guard and a Navy to set people straight as to any questions.
You have to go back in time, to when each and every state was formed. Legal title to the land and minerals emanates from there. I’ve never worked on offshore projects so I’m a little unclear as to legal jurisdiction offshore. However, as ownership of subsurface lands was never officially ceded to states, title remained in the US Government.
Each state has different mixes of state, federal and private lands. Some, such as Texas and most of the NE states have very little federally owned land/minerals. The newer the state, the more federal land and minerals, thus the western states have much more state and fed ownership. In general, all the tillable acreage was patented to individual (fee) owners, and in certain cases the minerals were reserved by the feds and states, in order to generate revenue from the activity then, predominately mining, to the present day predominance of Oil & Gas.
In general, all ownership emanated from the formation of the United States as a country, thus the ownership of offshore mineral rights. There was obviously no rush to populate the sea floor, no push to develop farm lands to feed the country like the Oklahoma Land Rush. All states, when formed, used the patent process to convey ownership and generate revenue, with the feds doing the same; all being an incentive to populate the country. Back then, there was only a vague understanding of subsurface value.
As to mineral ownership beyond territorial limits, it really is the law of capture—first to it, gets it—and your example of the Coast Guard and Navy to protect it is valid. Most all countries and companies respect this extension, as can be seen with divided ownership in the Caspian Sea where the rights of the bordering countries are extended out into the waters, although not without some dispute, naturally. We will soon see how willing to do so this admin is, as some wells being contemplated off of Cuba, by Cnooc (China) and Lukoil (Russia) could arguably be deemed trespass if we had an admin with any spine at all.
A further example of the rule of capture is now being witnessed in the Arctic and Antarctic waters by Russia, where they are actively gearing to drill, as should we.
This is only a down & dirty and quick stab at a very lengthy, involved and legalistic subject. Hope this helps.
It appears the UN is attempting to lay claim to everything in and under the seas outside the "economic zones" discussed in the LOST, via it or other treaties. Can you imagine???!!! Anyway, I don't know any history of offshore oil/gas/mineral exploration and extraction except to say US and other nations' companies have been conducting operations around the world, on the continental shelves in particular, since the beginning of exploration probably. First come, first served??? Offering "incentives" to local nations' muckkity mucks for the privelege?
Still in all, it just appears unseemly for the federales to be selling something they can't produce proof of ownership of. Particularly since it does nothing but increase the price of the end product to us, the consumers. And we think prostitution is unseemly???
Yeah, I’ve seen the UN attempted grab for a long time now. Maybe I didn’t clearly lay it out, but offshore exploration rights are granted by the nation in proximity. Regrettably, in many cases (certain African nations, some Middle Eastern, definitely in the Caspian), in the early days-—15-20 years ago, baksheesh was necessary to get the concession.
Rule of capture would only work in the polar regions, as we are now witnessing. Watch for ZERO to back all UN money grabs where these regions are concerned.
He will let it be (or direct it to be) shut down by the EPA.
Mark Levin went into great detail about this today on his radio show— even if you are not a Levin fan or listener, it is well worth listening for the first 20 minutes IMHO. He used to be the Deputy Solicitor to Interior Dept under Reagan, —their #2 lawyer so he has some insight....
Highlights...1. Took all drilling off table when administration took over—any offshore is limited exploration. No drilling for years....2. He also said this action signaled tee says this action signifies with certainty that the administration will try to pass Cap and Trade. 3. The offshore is set to offset the announcement today that EPA will try to regulate C02 emissions....
Again, really worth the listen! He has free audio rewind click upper left corner:
http://www.marklevinshow.com/home.asp
You were clear enough, it's just that I question under what authority in areas OUTSIDE their generally accepted territorial waters. Under the authority of their coast guard and navy???
For example, I vaguely recall reading a piece(conspiracy theory?) years ago ONE of the reasons we initially ended up in Vietnam was to protect the interests of Standard(?) Oil who was operating in or near the Tonkin Gulf. True or not, it may just be indicative of how that business is.
Again, I will say that those areas have been closed to E&P since 1981 due to the Offshore Drilling ban which was renewed each year expect in 2008. However, even though the ban was lifted in 1981 there was no drilling started in those areas while it was lifted.
And while Obama lifting this ban may be good, it is unlikely that companies are going to begin drilling on a large scale in those areas until oil reaches and maintains a price of over $100.00 a barrel.
Just remember, this is for Exploration. There are plenty of known sites where production drilling could begin if he, or anyone for that matter, were serious about our national security regarding energy independence.
That is one of the biggest complaints I have against George W. We put him in office with a majority in both houses of congress, and he never gave us energy independence.
Too bad, we’d be beyond the problems and have a richer national economy if we were a world player in oil production.
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.