Some of you may remember in the summer of 2007, the Russians announced that they had planted their flag on the seafloor under the North Pole, claiming that the 1,100 mile long ridge under the pole was an extension of the Russian continental shelf. Essentialy, Russia has claimed about half the circumference of the world in the Arctic as their sovereign territory. Since then, we've heard nothing about this curious event.

Why is this important?

For whatever reason (global warming possibly) the amount of Arctic ice had been reduced to the least experienced in the last century. By the summer of 2007, the ice had retreated so far beyond all expectations that experts were stunned. The meltdown had proceeded to where it was projected to be in 2030.

This is important for three major reasons--

• The huge amount of natural resources which will become accessible within a few years. Estimates indicate that the Arctic contains 586 billion barrels of oil. By comparison, all of Saudi Arabia's current reserves amount to only 260 billion barrels. In addition there are trillions of cubic feet of natural gas, enough to heat the world for years.
• Secondly, the melting of the Arctic ice cap will soon open shipping routes between Europe and Asia that are as much as 40% shorter than using the Panama or Suez canals.
• Lastly, there are potentially devastating issues of national security to Canada and the U.S. and the potential for environmental catastrophes that would make the Exxon Valdez accident look like a simple oil puddle. I'll spend no time here discussing those issues, but there has been lots written about terrorists and drug smugglers accessing North America thru Canada or Alaska, both of which are virtually unsecured. This access will become more viable as the Arctic ice sheet shrinks and exposes northern Canada to open Arctic water.

The Russians are decades ahead of the other eight nations that border the Arctic (the U.S., Canada, Greenland, Norway, Iceland, Russia, Sweden and Finland). In 2007, then President Vladmir Putin formed the state-funded United Shipbuilding Corporation with the objective of "exploiting hydrocarbons beneath the Arctic seabed". Immediately, he announced plans for that company to build ten new Arctic-class icebreakers (adding to their fleet of 14 already in service), 40 ice-resistant oil drilling platforms, 55 ice-resistant oil tankers and 20 ice-resistant gas tankers, all to be completed by 2030. Russia has already signed agreements with China to supply them with gas and oil in exchange for Chinese funding of the production of ships and platforms.

What are we doing, you might ask? The U.S. has only two aging ocean-going ice breakers, both of which have already exceeded their 30-year service life. Congress has refused to fund the Coast Guard's request for two new ice breakers for more than a decade. The U.S. Navy has no capability whatsoever for surface operations in icy Arctic seas. We can't depend on the Canadians either--the Canadian Navy has not operated in the Arctic since the 1950's. There are no plans by the U.S., public or private, to explore the Arctic seabed for natural resources. There are increasing numbers of foreign ships that are attempting the new navigational routes around the Arctic ice shelf and thru the Northwest Passage bordering Alaska and Canada. Canada claims the Northwest Passage as part of its territorial waters, but that has been disputed by the U.S. and the European Union. The number of attempts to navigate this route is expected to increase dramatically as the Arctic ice shelf continues to shrink in size. However, none of the eight countries bordering the Arctic have any naval capabilities to deal with security, accidents at sea, environmental disasters or the national security of any of the countries. There is a reason for the Russians large lead in the race for the "holy grail" of natural resources, as the Arctic has been described by the U.S. Geological Survey, which we should all understand.

The only governing body of the Arctic beyond the 200-mile economic zone bordering each of the eight countries is 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) treaty. Seven of the eight bordering countries has ratified UNCLOS--only the U.S. has refused to ratify the treaty. The only explanation I've been able to find on why we have refused to ratify is our unwillingness to agree with decisions made by the UNCLOS committee set up to adjudicate claims and counter-claims between the eight Arctic-bordering countries. Our refusal to ratify or re-negotiate the treaty places us on the sidelines with regard to the Arctic as opposed to having any sort of ability to effect UNCLOS decisions. UNCLOS provides for the resolution of boundary claims beyond the 200-mile limit by a 21-member UN "court". Appeals to decisions by that court can then be filed with either the Law of the Sea Tribunal or the International Court of Justice. The U.S. refusal to ratify UNCLOS not only eliminates our ability to file our own claims as well as counterclaims to those already filed by Russia, Canada, Denmark and Norway, and we don't even have representation on the UNCLOS tribunal that will make the decisions on claims already filed. The claims by any of the eight countries must be filed and will be adjudicated within a ten-year period. Russia will have it's claims for about half of the Arctic seabed adjudicated this year. Claims by Canada and Denmark will be settled in 2013 and 2014, respectively.

Even if the U.S. were to ratify the UNCLOS treaty in 2009 and immediately filed its claims, they would not be decided until 2019. Russia has said they will not wait to begin to explore and drill in areas awarded to them by UNCLOS even though the U.S. would clearly counter-claim soverign rights to major parts of the underwater archipelago which Russia claims is an extension of their continental shelf. Should Russia proceed as they have expressed an intent to do, the U.S. will have virtually no naval capability to resist or interfere with Russian activities. The same type of problem would exist with the world's use of the Northwest Passage. There would be no means to fund the security or navigation of the passage, with the shortest route through the Passage going right through McClure Sound and down the western border of Alaska, just beyond the 12-mile limit of U.S. territorial waters.

So, rather than everyone getting excited about far less meaningless political issues, we might all be better served by reading up on the Arctic, the shrinking ice cap and UNCLOS. Then, if you come away as alarmed as I did--write as many elected representatives and media people as you can think of. If there isn't a groundswell of concern expressed by the electorate, we have a couple of decades of experience indicating that we're not going to get any news coverage of this issue and certainly no action by our Congress.

Your guess is as good as mine on why "drill baby, drill" was a more important issue than this during the recent election campaign. But then, a lot of stuff political candidates and elected politicians do leave me guessing.