Law of the Sea Treaty
Floor Speech
LAW OF THE SEA TREATY -- (Senate - May 08, 2008)
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, many of us have come to the floor, certainly this past week--all this year--talking about increasing energy prices. There has been a lot of commentary about whom to blame. What do we do, how do we reduce the price of oil, how do we address the predicament we are in as a nation that is so very heavily dependent on energy for our economic strength? I have certainly done my share of talking about the need to increase domestic production of oil and gas, particularly in the State of Alaska. We believe we have great opportunities up there and can be doing more to address it. What we haven't had an opportunity to bring up in the debate is the potential for a vast reservoir of energy that is available to the United States in the Arctic, in the far north, and the fact that we could lose out to other nations if we are not more proactive in asserting our claims to these resources.
I have been on the floor many times talking about the Arctic Coastal Plain and the potential in ANWR. We believe there is anywhere between 10 to 16 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil, the largest remaining onshore petroleum field in North America. But even further to the north, beyond ANWR, off the coast of Alaska and beyond, this is where we believe an unquantifiable amount of resource may lie. It is estimated that the Arctic may hold 25 percent of the entire world's undiscovered oil and gas resources. It is enormous. That number is based on a 2000 assessment by the U.S. Geological Survey. In that survey, they only looked at a few of the Arctic basins. There is going to be a more detailed survey that will be out. The survey is currently underway. The projection is that the amount of 25 percent could be lower--that, in fact, the amount of oil and gas in the Arctic region could go significantly higher.
What is the problem with this situation? The fact is, we believe the potential in the Arctic under the ice may be enormous, but we have no legal claim as a nation to most of this oil or gas, unless the United States becomes a party to the convention on the law of the sea.
I can tell you, if we are not willing to claim it, if we do not step up to claim it, others certainly will.
We had before the Foreign Relations Committee the Convention on the Law of the Sea. It was before us. We have had several hearings on it. It was reported favorably out of the committee on October 31 of last year by a committee vote of 17 to 4.
For those who are not familiar with the Law of the Sea Treaty, it allows, among other things, coastal states to exert sovereign rights to all living and nonliving resources within its exclusive economic zone out to 200 nautical miles from its shores. Essentially, it is the Outer Continental Shelf. But, in addition, a nation can exert claim to an extended Outer Continental Shelf if it can show that its continental shelf extends beyond the 200-mile limit.
So last year, the Coast Guard Cutter Healy went up north beyond Alaska, up into the Arctic Ocean, to do a mapping of the ocean floor there, to determine where the extent of that continental shelf may extend.
Behind me I have a map or chart of the Arctic Ocean that was mapped by the Coast Guard Cutter Healy during this last season of exploration. What the expedition showed us was that the United States could potentially lay claim to an area about the size of the State of California as part of our extended continental shelf. But we cannot do that without being a party to the Convention on the Law of the Sea.
So to make it a little more real to the situation--and I know it is difficult to see the map--but what you have here is Alaska. It is upside down, but Alaska is at the top of the world, so we felt it should be located at this angle. Here is the State of Alaska, the Canadian border, all of Canada, Greenland, Norway, and then Russia up through here. The red dotted line indicates the limits of the permanent ice that you have. So much of what you see in the lighter area is continental shelf.
What you have with this line--that kind of follows in a very jagged way Russia--this is Russia's continental shelf claim. So they are essentially laying claim to this area from the Chukchi Sea, the East Siberian Sea, and down through here.
Norway has its extended continental shelf claim. Here is Norway. They have made a claim that their Outer Continental Shelf should allow them access to the resources up to this green line.
Well, what we have here with the yellow line is the Russian extended continental shelf area. So through their mapping, or their determination, they believe--the Russians believe--they could potentially lay claim to all of this area in to the coast of Russia.
Where it gets a little complicated is looking at the coastline of Alaska, recognizing that we have claim to 200 miles off the coast of Alaska, but with the mapping the Coast Guard Cutter Healy has brought back, it demonstrates we can potentially add an additional 100 miles offshore from our existing 200 miles of exclusive economic zone, theoretically putting Alaska's claim--and, therefore, the United States's claim--to an area that would be potentially on this side of the Canadian border and coming down through the Chukchi Sea, clearly overlapping where the Russians have submitted that they would have the potential for a claim.
So you need to kind of appreciate the dynamics you have here. We have mapping that indicates the U.S. continental shelf could extend out dramatically. When you talk about a mass, an area the size of the State of California, you would say that is hugely significant to us as a nation in terms of our potential for additional resource.
Now, I have shown you the lines on this map. There are some who object to ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty and express concerns about sovereignty. But for those who are concerned about sovereignty, I would suggest that if we are not party to the Convention on the Law of the Sea, there is a good chance Russia's claim to the Arctic--which I have shown you, following this yellow line, which is substantial; it is about 45 percent of the Arctic Ocean--could be recognized cutting into what we believe to be our extended continental shelf.
Now, let's talk a little bit about the potential for the resources up there. It is estimated the area that Russia claims as its Arctic Ocean shelf--so this area in through here, as shown on the map--could hold 580 billion barrels of oil equivalent. And 90 billion of those barrels could be in the Chukchi Sea and the East Siberian Sea, so close in to the State of Alaska. That is 90 billion barrels of oil we have the potential to stake a claim to as well, but only, again, if we are party to the Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Now, some would take a look at this map and say: Well, Russia is not going to be able to get that. We all saw the cover of Time magazine last year when Russia took a little submarine down and basically planted a flag on the bottom of the seabed, staking claim. It got people's attention. I think folks looked at that and said: Well, they don't have any claim to that ocean seabed. On what do they base that? So you look at this map and say: There is no reason Russia has any greater claim to 45 percent of the Arctic Ocean anymore than the United States or Canada, so it is not going to happen.
But for those who would doubt Russia might have success with their claim, I would ask you to look at what has happened. Right now, you have a handful--probably, seven or eight--different nations that have submitted to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf their requests for extended continental shelf claim.
Russia submitted their claim back in 2001. Brazil is out there, and they submitted their claim in 2004. Australia submitted a claim in 2004, Ireland in 2005, New Zealand in 2006. You also have a joint submission by France, Ireland, Spain, and the United Kingdom that came about in 2006. Norway submitted their claim--that is going out this far, as shown on the map--in 2006. France has submitted a claim last year, as well as Mexico.
On April 21 of this year, the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf confirmed that Australia's claim to an additional 2.5 million square kilometers of continental shelf beyond its existing exclusive economic zone was valid and has moved forward to allow for that extended claim.
Now, Australia's claim, again, was submitted in 2004. So the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf is actually moving on these submissions. The claim Australia made--and, again, Australia is an island nation, so they clearly have a great deal they can say lies off their continental shelf area, but 2.5 million square kilometers of continental shelf has now been added to their jurisdiction. This is an area approximately five times the State of France. Now, for those of us who are thinking a little bit closer to home, that is three times the size of the State of Texas. So, again, the jurisdiction that has been extended to the nation of Australia, because of their claim to additional Outer Continental Shelf areas, is significant.
Martin Ferguson, who is Australia's Minister for Resources and Energy, noted that the Commission's findings ``demonstrates that Australia's effective engagement in law of the sea matters delivers results.''
Now, I mentioned nine submissions that have been submitted for extended continental shelf claims. All of these have been made since December of 2001, including Russia's claim to half the Arctic and the resources it holds. We see that Australia's claims have been accepted. I believe it is only a matter of time before other claims are accepted as well.
I believe--I believe very strongly--it is in the best interests of the United States to be able to submit our claims. We have the mapping. We can establish the extension of the shelf, again, to a considerable area--the size of the State of California. I believe it is incumbent upon us to assert our authority in this area and to have a seat at the table in determining the validity of the claims of the other nations.
If we think Russia should not be able to extend their jurisdiction out--as they have requested, with this pretty impressive yellow line--to 45 percent of the Arctic Ocean, we want to be able to sit at the table and say why we believe they should not have the ability to make that claim. Well, if we are not a party to the treaty, we are not sitting at the table, and we cannot contest the validity of the claims of other nations.
We have the opportunity to stake a claim to an area of the seabed that we believe--we believe very strongly--likely contains billions of barrels of oil. We have the research to demonstrate that the seabed is part of our extended continental shelf. But we cannot claim ownership of these resources without being a party to the Convention on the Law of the Sea.
There are plenty of other reasons why we should ratify this treaty--whether it is to ensure that our Navy has the ability to freely navigate in international waters; or to provide our maritime industries with the legal certainty they need to carry out their activities.
I believe, again, very strongly, the ratification of the convention is a must. But I think we need to recognize that as we are kind of sitting back on this at this point in time, other nations are moving forward. They are making their claims to greater areas of the ocean and to its seabed. I do not think we should be left behind as a nation and lose out on significant potential energy reserves at a time when we all know that energy is at an incredible premium.
I will make the same statement I made in committee when we had the discussion on the Convention on the Law of the Sea. I urge my colleagues to support ratification of the Convention on the Law of the Sea and urge the Senate leadership to bring the treaty to the floor for a vote. With that, I yield the floor.
Source