Arctic Nations Race for Uncovered Resources

[Gods_Mercenary]

Warming Arctic makes for conflicts over oil - Climate Change - MSNBC.com

The latest report by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says the ice cap is warming faster than the rest of the planet and ice is receding, partly due to greenhouse gases. It’s a catastrophic scenario for the Arctic ecosystem, for polar bears and other wildlife, and for Inuit populations whose ancient cultures depend on frozen waters. But some see a lucrative silver lining of riches waiting to be snatched from the deep, and the prospect of timesaving sea lanes that could transform the shipping industry the way the Suez Canal did in the 19th century. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates the Arctic has as much as 25 percent of the world’s undiscovered oil and gas. Moscow reportedly sees the potential of minerals in its slice of the Arctic sector approaching $2 trillion.

The half-square-mile rock, just one-seventh the size of New York’s Central Park, is wedged between Canada’s Ellesmere Island and Danish-ruled Greenland, and for more than 20 years has been a subject of unusually bitter exchanges between the two NATO allies. In 1984, Denmark’s minister for Greenland affairs, Tom Hoeyem, caused a stir when he flew in on a chartered helicopter, raised a Danish flag on the island, buried a bottle of brandy at the base of the flagpole and left a note saying: “Welcome to the Danish island.” The dispute erupted again two years ago when Canadian Defense Minister Bill Graham set foot on the rock while Canadian troops hoisted the Maple Leaf flag. Denmark sent a letter of protest to Ottawa, while Canadians and Danes took out competing Google ads, each proclaiming sovereignty over the rock 680 miles south of the North Pole. Some Canadians even called for a boycott of Danish pastries

Jokes about a war between Denmark and Canada aside, this is an interesting topic. Who lays claim to extremely valuable sea passages, oil, and minerals? Should previously signed treaties be seen as valid, or is this an unforseeable change in the very topography of the territory that renders the old agreements void? Should Canada's claim to the Northwest passage be upheld, or should it be kept international, as the U.S. proposes?

I found the thing about the boycott of Danishes very humorous, by the way. I suggest you read the whole article, there's a few gems (no pun intended) in there.

[DEEJ85]

I think that if The Northwest Passage is in actual Canadian waters, then it should be Canadian property. If it is outside of Canadian territory then I'm not sure.

In the same way, if there is something lucrative inside say America's waters then they have jurisdiction over it, no matter how useful it is to other countries like canada.

With this island that they are talking about. If it is in either countries waters, then it belongs to that country. Or which ever country is closer to this island perhaps?

Maybe it should be a shared initiative?

[Gods_Mercenary]

That's the thing, it's completely unclaimed, as far as I know, and was just released from the ice relatively recently. Now both countries have claims. It's just a lump of rock, as you can see above, both countries probably just intend to rape it of natural resources and put a nice little scientific base or something on it.

[GHook93]

I got my money on the Danish wooping the Canadians' asses! The Canadians aren't that bright (see Praxius posts for evidence). lol

All jokes aside there can always be some positives (uncovered natural resources) to a overall negative event (global warming)!

[Gods_Mercenary]

Who knows if it'll be that bad, you might be able to farm on greenland like Eric the Red did.

[Technosoul]

Last week I was mentioning this story in the science and technology forum because investigations of the shelf that connects Greenland to most of the north pole land mass has resulted in a new discovery about the age of the earth and about how long life exsisted on earth. (you can find that report in the science debate forum here at Volconvo).

The North pole snow and ice does cover the whole "top" of the globe from the USSR over to Canada. But who owns the property rights to the ancient shelf that Greenland sits upon? The shelf does not poke up into Canada as far as I know, but it might? And where is the boarderline between Russia and Canada? I would assume if it is inside the boarder line you can plant a oil rig there. Or whatever?

But what about our Mr. Bryd (if I spelled his name right?) who was the first person to explore the North Pole. He was from the USA and he basically planted our flag in the ground and claimed the Pole for us. Later the USSR did the same thing.

When our explorer Bryd explored the South Pole he also planted our flag and estabished an outpost called "Little America" of behalf of the USA. Later an international treaty was signed to make the South Pole an international place that no one can own, like the Moon is. And that treaty banned the old USSR form using the south pole for a dumping site for nuclear waste.

Perhaps the U.N. will establish a new international treaty that states that the North Pole cannot be owned by any nation. A international wildlife park, if you will. However the seals are moving southward with the water, and the Polar Bears will be forced to move southward in search of food, etc. Or else they might die off when the snow melts and the waters depart into the seas,

But back to the topic. The USA was the first country to plant our flag at the North Pole. We got historical proof it is ours. Along with the oil of course.

However our explorer was put into a private insanity ward after returning home and stating that he discovered a hole in the north pole that connected to another world inside of the earth. He stated that the inner earth has a large space with another tiny sun and that things live in that place, Some more current photos taken from an orbiting satellite confirmed the theory but the photos were promptly removed from the offical webpage for viewing those photos of earth. And some folks started to holler "cover-up conspiriacy".

What if that is true? See this link and make up your own mind.

The hollow earth - Google Image Search

Did you folks know about this? If such was (is) the case then the North Pole has much more to offer then just some oil, if the melting cap reveals a passageway to another world within the earth. The Eskomos believe they orginated from a hole in the earth, not from China. Hmm?

Speaking of Eskomos - don't those Natives have a claim to that turf?

[Praxius]

Whether or not something undiscovered there is found and is very valuable, it doesn't change the treaties or property of the land. As mentioned above and as I stated before, if something was valuable in a US Territory, you guys would go all out with a war to defend it, but since it's Canada, the US feels they can push around and change to rules to suit what they want, ie: creating traffic of their own ships, etc. to pass through our waters without notification, etc.

When it comes to the US's opinion on the North, they've got no say in the matter, just as we have no say in what they do in the Gulf of Mexico. They have Alaska, and that's fine.... deal with problems around Alaska.... but most of what they and everybody else is complaining about is the area North of Ontario, Quebec and Newfoundland, no where near any US states. This matter should be delt with between Danish and Canadian reps, much like any other territorial dispute around the world.

The US wants it to be international, because it'd save them money, and help keep them the monopoly country on the planet.... god forbid the US might not get everything for once and might have some competition.

I'd rather just give the land to the Danish then let it fall into US hands... at least they have some knowlege/experience of the artic like Russia and us Canadians have. I can picture what would happen if the US got some athority over that area *shudders*

GHook93:

You don't have to be bright to light up a room

[Gods_Mercenary]

Umm, vast tracts of alaska is considered arctic, if that's not experience, Idon't know what is. And I mind you, this is a fight over a chunk of rock. The U. S has made no claims to the island, anyway.

[Praxius]

I know, that's why I said in their territory they can complain about anything they want (As mentioned above) but now the US is attempting to track more of our territory as either theirs or free zone... which is BS. As I said in another thread, if we just decided to go boating down Lake Erie, through a few streams down to the Mississippi River to the Gulf of Mexico, I think you guys would have a problem with that. Regardless if there is land mass or waters, the territories have been marked and they stand. They have been find for quite a long time now, until they benefit someone else who didn't give a dam originally.

As a US Citizen, you should know much about illegal transportation and smuggling past borders. If we allow free passage for anybody, then we've got the same problem.... Just talk of this has already made the government boost patrols and forces up there (Pretty petty at the moment if you ask me, but those are the breaks I suppose)

About the chunk of rock... it can be a very good spot for whatever someone may want it for. For what? I have my ideas.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Warming Arctic makes for conflicts over oil - Climate Change - MSNBC.com Jokes about a war between Denmark and Canada aside, this is an interesting topic. Who lays claim to extremely valuable sea passages, oil, and minerals? Should previously signed treaties be seen as valid, or is this an unforseeable change in the very topography of the territory that renders the old agreements void? Should Canada's claim to the Northwest passage be upheld, or should it be kept international, as the U.S. proposes? I found the thing about the boycott of Danishes very humorous, by the way. I suggest you read the whole article, there's a few gems (no pun intended) in there.

Concerning the first part of your report about the North Pole warming up at a faster rate then other locations is because of a cause and effect situation happening there. White snow can reflect some heat, but dark soil can asborb heat, and so as some of the snow and ice melts and the soil is explosed then that generates more surface heat which causes more snow and ice near by to melt faster, and on and on. And such causes a kind of self produced heating system that is different then most other places. At the South Pole the ice and snow is much deeper - very deep in fact - and so less soil is uncovered to generate the same kind of cause and effect warming.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Praxius Whether or not something undiscovered there is found and is very valuable, it doesn't change the treaties or property of the land. As mentioned above and as I stated before, if something was valuable in a US Territory, you guys would go all out with a war to defend it, but since it's Canada, the US feels they can push around and change to rules to suit what they want, ie: creating traffic of their own ships, etc. to pass through our waters without notification, etc. When it comes to the US's opinion on the North, they've got no say in the matter, just as we have no say in what they do in the Gulf of Mexico. They have Alaska, and that's fine.... deal with problems around Alaska.... but most of what they and everybody else is complaining about is the area North of Ontario, Quebec and Newfoundland, no where near any US states. This matter should be delt with between Danish and Canadian reps, much like any other territorial dispute around the world. The US wants it to be international, because it'd save them money, and help keep them the monopoly country on the planet.... god forbid the US might not get everything for once and might have some competition. I'd rather just give the land to the Danish then let it fall into US hands... at least they have some knowlege/experience of the artic like Russia and us Canadians have. I can picture what would happen if the US got some athority over that area *shudders* GHook93: You don't have to be bright to light up a room

But to get in or out of any new waterway passages that might result with the polar cap melting you must pass between Alaska and Russia, and I am not sure if eather country has rights to all the water between Russia and USA owned Alaska. So now what? And some islands in that area are Native American properties, and the water near by? Hmm?

It is my hope that Al Gore and Prince Charles, and other leaders, will push to make the whole North Pole area off limits to any kind of industrail activity. A bunch of oil wells and oil ships up there would totally distroy the land in short order, and it would never be the same again for the future. And concidering why the snow and ice is melting (global warming) it would be highly un-intelligent for Canada or anyone else to pump more oil or to transport oil via the north poll ( due to oil spills from boats ) - as that would cause more global warming and other oil-related environmental mistakes.

[rmnunez]

My understanding is that there is nothing under the ice, just more ice and eventually the seabed. If the ice melts there will be a fe Islands that might appear here and there to be claimed or found within claimed waters. The Northeast Passage as newly opened up, would go through previously frozen waters, but these would be international waters 12 miles from the coast. If Denmark and Canda are less than 24 miles apart, an international channel is drafted through which shipping may travel without entering the neighboring territorial waters. What I find most challenging is the notion little Denmark could become a real superpower and part of North America with a huge land mass in Greenland.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Seabed covering vast fields of oil untapped unitl now :), not to mention brand new fishing grounds and shipping routes amazingly faster than the old ones. And Denmark would have a big old island, for what? They don't have enough people to populate it and few danes would be willing to go anyway. If the warming gets that bad (which it probably won't) You'd still have a vast trackless island with no infrastructure and little incentive to develop far beyond the coast, it would probably end up having the climate of Alaska.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Praxius I know, that's why I said in their territory they can complain about anything they want (As mentioned above) but now the US is attempting to track more of our territory as either theirs or free zone... which is BS. As I said in another thread, if we just decided to go boating down Lake Erie, through a few streams down to the Mississippi River to the Gulf of Mexico, I think you guys would have a problem with that. Regardless if there is land mass or waters, the territories have been marked and they stand. They have been find for quite a long time now, until they benefit someone else who didn't give a dam originally. As a US Citizen, you should know much about illegal transportation and smuggling past borders. If we allow free passage for anybody, then we've got the same problem.... Just talk of this has already made the government boost patrols and forces up there (Pretty petty at the moment if you ask me, but those are the breaks I suppose) About the chunk of rock... it can be a very good spot for whatever someone may want it for. For what? I have my ideas.

Open cean is quite differnet from streams, and it looks like russia stands to have a more efficient passage as it is (off their coast. anyway, I don't know if it's their waters) The thing is, are the routes passing through canadian waters, some must, but will the lanes widen to such an extent that this is no longer needed?

[rmnunez]

Seabed covering vast fields of oil untapped unitl now , not to mention brand new fishing grounds and shipping routes amazingly faster than the old ones. And Denmark would have a big old island, for what? They don't have enough people to populate it and few Danes would be willing to go anyway. If the warming gets that bad (which it probably won't) You'd still have a vast trackless island with no infrastructure and little incentive to develop far beyond the coast, it would probably end up having the climate of Alaska.

Its interesting to speculate on what the future holds with a radical change like this. I'd have figured the whole North Pole like the Caribbean, but even if it was more like the North Atlantic, we'd see Denmark full of trees and the danes are very clean and environmentally sensitive. They'd be sure to protect the environment and sensibly develop Greenland so it really was green. I wonder whether it would be part of the EU or integrated in NAFTA. I don't think there are too few Danes, they have the backing of the whole EU and NATO if they need it.

Any trade should take into account the emerging economies in the climate changed world. If the North Pole melts, waters rise and wash out the European coastline and US Atlantic Seaboard and, trade from these areas would be less important, but if the Coastlines along the trade route didn't change much, harbours along the way from Amsterdam to Yokohama would be along Norway's western coastline to Hammerfest and from there true north with rests at Norway's Spitsbergen islands and then to Barrow in Alaska, from there to Japan. Greenland's northern coast would be the best suited for the construction of harbours and shipping installations.

But what will happen elsewhere in this global climate change. Does Africa continue to desertify, the Antartic get colder, do densely populated Asian coastlines get submerged too?

[Gods_Mercenary]

I don't think it will get that bad before the climate boomerangs back. There are ocean currents here that would be absolutely destroyed by the melting, those that are responsible for warming much of the northern hemisphere.

[rmnunez]

Most of what I've seen on the climate change indicates this is a century long process.