Coming Anarchy commenter IJ quotes The Moscow Times about Russia’s zeal to prove its claim on Arctic black gold:
In 2001, the UN Commission rejected claims that the Lomonosov Ridge belonged to Russia, demanding more conclusive scientific proof. N…

According to some estimates, the Arctic region could hold up to one-quarter of the earth’s remaining untapped oil and gas reserves. Russia plans to submit a renewed claim to Arctic territory when the UN Commission [on the Limits of the Continental Shelf] meets in 2009.

Uppermost in the current debate are the rights to the disputed Lomonosov Ridge, a thin underwater crust that crosses the Arctic Ocean over the pole and stretches from Russia to a point between Greenland and Canada. Estimates suggest that the ridge could contain somewhere in the region of 10 billion barrels of oil.

Currently no one country has exclusive jurisdiction over the Arctic. Under a 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Seas, five Arctic nations—Russia, the United States, Canada, Norway and Denmark—each control a 200-mile (320-kilometer) economic zone beyond their actual borders. This means that no one country controls the pole.

In 2001, the UN Commission rejected claims that the Lomonosov Ridge belonged to Russia, demanding more conclusive scientific proof. Now it seems Moscow is willing to make more money available for Arctic research, in a bid to bolster its case.

1) is there a link to the NYT article? (based on the note in the chart, it was published on October 9, 2005, it seems?)

2) the continental shelf methodology is the same as what China used in the East China Sea dispute with Japan
(where Japan propose the simple median regardless of continental shelf). but “by sector” is really something new to me :)

Just goes to show you that the grandfatherly advice about a piece of land making the man (or nation) holds.

Who would’ve thunk that such a cold chunk of real estate could be so hot. Canada and Denmark were squabbling (albeit politely) over a bit of Arctic only a couple years ago.

And now Russia enters the fray. Well, this latest sounds ambitious, and even expansionist. Until now, I would’ve never imagined Canada as part of Russia’s so-called Near Abroad. Seems much about this post-Cold War period is back to the future”¦

Just goes to show you that the grandfatherly advice about a piece of land making the man (or nation) holds.

Who would’ve thunk that such a cold chunk of real estate could be so hot. Canada and Denmark were squabbling (albeit politely) of a bit of Arctic only a couple years ago.

And now Russia enters the fray. Well, this latest sounds ambitious, and even expansionist. Until now, I would’ve never imagined Canada as part of Russia’s so-called Near Abroad. Seems much about this post-Cold War period is back to the future”¦

Just goes to show you that the grandfatherly advice about a piece of land making the man (or nation) holds.

Who would’ve thunk that such a cold chunk of real estate could be so hot. Canada and Denmark were squabbling (albeit politely) of a bit of Arctic only a couple years ago.

And now Russia enters the fray. Well, this latest sounds ambitious, and even expansionist. Until now, I would’ve never imagined Canada as part of Russia’s so-called Near Abroad. Seems much about this post-Cold War period is back to the future…

http://a517dogg.blogspot.com/2007/07/beware-canadian-aggression.html

http://a517dogg.blogspot.com/2007/07/beware-canadian-aggression.html

Also, US opposition to the Law of the Sea Convention is mainly based on the fact that it sets up a new international tribunal which some Congresscritters believe is an infringement on US “sovereignty,” whatever that means. I don’t think the ten-year deadline is particularly important, though I could be wrong.

i m a bit confused. from the map you showed, wouldn’t the US far better under the red lines (i.e. sector centered at the pole), which is the canadian/danish proposal?