LOST a loser for energy industry. Law of the Sea treaty would impede drilling.
The Obama administration has announced that it will seek early Senate action on ratification of the long stalled United Nation's Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST).
In fact, an accord the Clinton administration viewed as the greatest environmental treaty in history would be used to implede, weaken and imperil America's energy sector.
LOST's International Seabed Authority (ISA) entity would form an intity to be known as "the Enterprise". Under LOST, this Orwellian-named organization is charged with distributing the wealth of the "international commons" to the less-developed nations.
LOST would govern not only 70% of of the world's surface that is covered by international waters, but the reach of the accord extends to other waters, including inland ones, that migrate into the planet;s oceans. In other words, activities far from the seas can be embroiled in the treaty-including the U.S. harbors, bays and rivers.
Of course, such interior and coastal waterways are where much of America's oil and gas industry refines and stores its products and converts feedstocks into chemicals.
LOST will entail unprecedented, and probably devastating, burdens on the oil and gas industry and related companies.
To read the full story:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6407613.html
In fact, an accord the Clinton administration viewed as the greatest environmental treaty in history would be used to implede, weaken and imperil America's energy sector.
LOST's International Seabed Authority (ISA) entity would form an intity to be known as "the Enterprise". Under LOST, this Orwellian-named organization is charged with distributing the wealth of the "international commons" to the less-developed nations.
LOST would govern not only 70% of of the world's surface that is covered by international waters, but the reach of the accord extends to other waters, including inland ones, that migrate into the planet;s oceans. In other words, activities far from the seas can be embroiled in the treaty-including the U.S. harbors, bays and rivers.
Of course, such interior and coastal waterways are where much of America's oil and gas industry refines and stores its products and converts feedstocks into chemicals.
LOST will entail unprecedented, and probably devastating, burdens on the oil and gas industry and related companies.
To read the full story:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6407613.html
Views: 25
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Pipeliner on
-
LOST also opens the door to a long sougnt UN goal, the distribution of wealth by taxing Americans.
For the complete article:
http://www.creators.com/opinion/oliver-north/permission-slip-for-th...
-
Permalink Reply by intrepid on -
From the article: "The International Seabed Authority, a bloated, multinational bureaucracy headquartered in Jamaica, has the mandate to distribute revenues and "other economic benefits" on the basis of "equitable sharing criteria, taking into account the interests and needs of developing states." In addition to acting as a global IRS, the ISA also decides which companies from which nations will develop mineral resources on the seabed."
If that's true how could anybody be for it?
-
Permalink Reply by Pipeliner on
-
How Communist China Invoked LOST to Obtain U.S. Naval Secrets
Posted April 19, 2004
By J. Michael Waller
The United States already has allowed the People's Republic of China (PRC) to invoke provisions of the unratified Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) to acquire extremely sensitive naval technology. A Pentagon official whose job was to track Chinese attempts to obtain U.S. military technology says that the Clinton administration gave the PRC technology that has compromised American submarine movements and could enable Beijing, undetected, to run submarines immediately off the U.S. coast.
Calling itself a "pioneer investor" in ocean mining, Beijing demanded highly sensitive underwater technology from the United States under the pretext that it would be used to mine manganese nodules on the floor of the Pacific Ocean. "Unfortunately, the level of technology they were attempting to acquire greatly exceeded the level of capability that either the United States or our industrialized allies used in undertaking such work," said Peter Leitner, a senior strategic trade adviser in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
"The quality of the side-scanning sonar, deep-ocean bathymetric equipment, cameras, lights, remotely operated vehicles and associated submersible technology provided them the capability to locate, reach and destroy, or salvage early-warning and intelligence sensors vital to our national security," Leitner told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee at a March 24 hearing.
"Additionally, such technology also imparted an offensive capability to our chief potential military adversary by enabling them to map any portion of the ocean or continental shelves to determine submarine routing schemes or underwater bastions where missile-launching or intelligence-gathering submarines may operate undetected just off the U.S. coast," Leitner said. "The ultimate nightmare would be a close-in, submarine-launched cruise-missile attack upon the continental U.S. to which we are completely vulnerable and defenseless."
Leitner fought a long and lonely battle to prevent Beijing from receiving the technology, but in 1994, under Bill Clinton, in his words, "The zealous advocates of the treaty in several government agencies saw to it that the technology was provided to the PRC so as not to undermine the 'spirit of the treaty.'"
For complete article:
http://www.patriotfiles.com/forum/showthread.php?t=34765
-
Permalink Reply by intrepid on
-
Pretty sure they will take them any way they can. This treaty still doesn't sound good.
-
Permalink Reply by intrepid on
-
What's Exxon's profit got to do with anything? According to a very smart fellow 'it's the only game in town'. Do we really want to hinder it in any way?
-
Permalink Reply by Pipeliner on
-
Exxon's thinking on investment in alternate fuels. A 2-year old article, but it holds true today.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/04/30/8...
-
Permalink Reply by Jon Williamson on
-
Yes and don't forget, big oil companies are the reason why gasoline got up to $4 a gallon.
-
Permalink Reply by intrepid on
-
All very good points, Jim. I can see how Exxon would not want CNG vehicles to take off. Let me pose one question:
Why should that cause anyone to be in favor of LOST?
-
Permalink Reply by Scott on
-
Jim,
If I remember correctly, you stated several months back that you have bought leases in Louisiana for many years. Have you ever registered your company with the State Louisiana?? Is it possible for a company who is a licensed corporation in say Oklahoma to buy leases in Louisiana legally? Sorry in advance if I am thinking of someone else...
-
Permalink Reply by w.r. frank on
-
I recently attended the DUG conference in Ft. Worth. Every public bus I saw had a sign "Powered by Natural Gas" boldly painted in big letters on each side. Dallas has committed for a trial of NG vehicles.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
Support GoHaynesvilleShale.com
Top Content
Not a member? Get our email.
Groups
-
Natchitoches Parish
399 members
-
Cass County, TX
119 members
-
Franklin County, Texas
8 members
-
San Augustine, TX
386 members
-
Rusk County
97 members
-
Vernon Parish
59 members
-
Bienville Parish, LA
242 members
-
Sabine County, Texas
172 members
-
Sabine Parish, LA
455 members
-
Angelina County, TX
87 members
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
