[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 76 (Thursday, May 8, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3968-S3970]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LAW OF THE SEA TREATY
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
[[Page S3969]]
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
[[Page S3970]]
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The Senator from South
Carolina is recognized.
____________________