Skip to comments.Oil Industry Says Joining 'Law of the Sea' Treaty Could Add to US Reserves
Posted on 03/29/2005 5:38:09 AM PST by lentulusgracchus
A U.N. treaty governing the oceans could clear the way for U.S. oil companies to tap deep oil and gas reserves offshore, which supporters say would bolster America's energy security.
But that access might be blocked, because conservatives opposed to the multinational treaty are fighting hard to keep a strong Senate majority from ratifying the pact.
When Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice called in January for prompt ratification of the treaty, she gave American oil companies their best hope yet to tap oil and gas reserves lying under thousands of feet of seawater.
In 2003, about 62 percent of the Gulf's oil production came from wells drilled in depths greater than 1,000 feet, according to the Minerals Management Service, up from 12 percent in 1993.
But oil executives say they won't venture into unchartered legal territory until the United States joins the U.N. convention ..... Knowing who owns the land and who will collect royalties are prerequisites ....
According to the convention, oil companies would be required to pay up to 7 percent in royalties to a newly created body called the International Seabed Authority.
Since its beginnings in the 1970s, the Law of the Sea convention has had a tumultuous relationship with the United States. President Reagan rejected it in 1982 over concerns regarding deep seabed mining. The Clinton administration renegotiated some of its mining provisions, but the convention came into force in 1994 without U.S. ratification.
Under the leadership of Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., a fervent advocate, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations unanimously approved its ratification last year, but it failed to move to the Senate floor for a vote after Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., called for more hearings to review sovereignty and security issues.
(Excerpt) Read more at rigzone.com ...
They have no idea or concern whether the 7% royalty is just a sucker's offer. Their economic models are so front-loaded by assumptions about the cost of money, any outyear surprises don't even show up in their risked analyses of net present value.
We won't be able to do that as we might disturb a sleeping fish. Forget it!
We won't be able to do that as we might disturb a sleeping fishy. Forget it!
Good, don't do it. The trade of isn't worth it.
That is perhaps one of the dumbest statements I have read in a long time.
What's stopping us from doing it now?
Whether it's a politician who is trying to be all things to all people, or a self-centered business who will deal with the devil for profits, or a mental deficient trying to promote "one world", dumb is dumb.
"But oil executives say they won't venture into unchartered legal territory until the United States joins the U.N. convention"
Rhetoric from those who would sell their own children, mothers and fathers to make a buck.
Like off the coast of Florida? or California? What have they been smoking?
It doesn't take a mental giant to foresee that, if this treaty becomes generally accepted international law (which it won't if the United States Navy says it isn't), the U.N. commissariat will then go on to claim title to the water column as well, and the power to police traffic on the ocean's surface. That will put them in the turnstile business and put them in a position to play water-empire (in the Mesopotamian sense) with all of humanity.
The U.S. should resist the encroachments and pretensions of would-be despotisms everywhere, including the one in the U.N. Building.
Too bad for the oil executives. Let the Russians and the French deal with it or let the sandmaggots drill it themselves.
We got ANWR to deal with and that's entirely in out own back yard.
Oil executives don't know what political risk factors to dial into their estimates of net present value -- waaaaaaahhh!
They can't estimate the risk of getting crossways with a U.N. agency that might get vindictive and decide to try to screw them somewhere else -- waaaaaaahhhh!!!
They want Mommy to tell them it's alright before they do anything -- waaaaaahhh!!
Businessmen and taking a real risk that they might have to answer for with their jobs -- what can I tell you?
We're talking about the Gulf of Mexico and offshore New England and Alaska. That's on the table right now.
The Gulf of Mexico acreage is mostly what they're talking about.
What we have here, as Strother Martin once said, is a bad case of RiNO's putting money over country.
Don't we take that oil anyway?
Concurring bump. Rhetoric now can mean trouble later.
Try that Law of the Seas Treaty (LOST) link our amigo posted above.
According to the traditional Law of the Sea, nobody controls the open ocean. Who gave the UN power over it? You don't own what you can't control or protect.
Does the UN have a navy that can enforce these laws? Are pirates about to defy the US navy and attack our oil rigs? I don't think so.
And by the way, who are these anonymous spokesmen for the "oil industry"? Does anyone still trust the media to accurately report the news using so-called anonymous sources who may not even exist?
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.