Last Friday, the commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard said that the country needs to make up it's mind as to what's expected from the Coast Guard relative to national security and any need for an enviroental cleanup in either the Bering Sea or the Arctic Ocean, both bordering Alaska. The Coast Guard CO said they have minimal equipment, bases or personnel in that region. He went on to say that most of the ships and equipment we have there is reaching the end of it's life cycle.

There have been other articles reporting on what's happening with regard to oil exploration in the Arctic Ocean. With the rapid melting of the polar ice cap Russia is well along in building and placing dozens of drill rigs in newly opened water, as well as fleets of oil tankers and ice breakers. We don't even have one ice breaker assigned to that region. (Let's not argue about whether global warming is melting the polar ice--something is melting it and Russia is responding in a big way while the U.S. is doing nothing.)

So why is this important? Because the shortest route to get crude oil from the northern seas to refineries and markets is down through the Bering Straights, only a few miles off the environmentally sensitive Alaska coastline and the productive fishing grounds in the Bering Sea and off western Canada. Any environmental disaster in those oceans could be carried down through the Bering Sea and through the Aleutian Islands until picked up by the southbound Japanese Current and ultimately spread along the entire west coast of the U.S. Note that disasters in these oceans would not effect the country that may have caused them, Russia.

A disaster like either the Exxon Valdez or a "blown" drill rig like Deepwater Horizon could not be responded to or contained by either the U.S. or Canada. If we thought either of the former disasters was bad, something similar would be far, far worse.

So what should the U.S. do? Should we spend money we don't have to improve the capability of our Coast Guard? We really can't rely on the Russian oil companies to protect our environment, can we? From all reports, all the money they're spending is on production equipment and facilities, with nothing being reported on safety or equipment to confront environmental disasters.

So, what do we do? What's the answer? What's the role of government? Which government? What should be expected of the private sector? Which companies? From what countries? For those who say that the private sector will solve problems such as this, how can an international economy effectively regulate or require actions by private companies in multiple countries? Who has legal authority over companies from one country which may be taking actions detrimental to other countries?

Comments?

VK you are really complicating things now we have to get Obama thing out of the way first,but still very interesting subject. That is going to be a hard one to answer. This could be a leading matter to head towards the one government world.Really dont want to go to that but it could be the created crisis that the powers would want to start. As the politictions have said dont waste a crisis.

..........Note that disasters in these oceans would not effect the country that may have caused them, Russia.......

.....We really can't rely on the Russian oil companies to protect our environment, can we? ......
Comments?

Try convincing Obama-Reid-Pelosi-Biden-Frank-Geithner that Russia is causing any damage much less "disasters", and that we cannot rely on Russian oil companies "to protect our environmnent". All indications from the left in the USA are that we are trying to become more like Russia became in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.......

"Even today, according to the State Statistics Committee, the average life expectancy for Russian men is less than 59 years — 58 years and 11 months — while that for Russian women is 72 years. The combined figure is 65 years and three months.

By comparison, the average life span for men in the United States is 73 years and for women 79 years. In the United States, life expectancy at birth for the total population has reached an all-time American high of 77.5 years, up from 49.2 years just a century ago. The Russian life expectancy at birth is 12 years lower.

After seventy years of socialism, 57 percent of all Russian hospitals did not have running hot water, and 36 percent of hospitals located in rural areas of Russia did not have water or sewage at all. Isn't it amazing that socialist government, while developing space exploration and sophisticated weapons, would completely ignore the basic human needs of its citizens?

"The filth, odors, cats roaming the halls, drunken medical personnel, and absence of soap and cleaning supplies added to an overall impression of hopelessness and frustration that paralyzed the system."

"What Soviet Medicine Teaches Us"
http://mises.org/daily/3650

Yuri N. Maltsev, senior fellow of the Mises Institute, worked as an economist on Mikhail Gorbachev's economic reform team before defecting to the United States. He is the editor of Requiem for Marx. He teaches economics at Carthage College.

Originally Posted by ilovetv

Try convincing Obama-Reid-Pelosi-Biden-Frank-Geithner that Russia is causing any damage much less "disasters", and that we cannot rely on Russian oil companies "to protect our environmnent". All indications from the left in the USA are that we are trying to become more like Russia became in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.......

"Even today, according to the State Statistics Committee, the average life expectancy for Russian men is less than 59 years — 58 years and 11 months — while that for Russian women is 72 years. The combined figure is 65 years and three months.

By comparison, the average life span for men in the United States is 73 years and for women 79 years. In the United States, life expectancy at birth for the total population has reached an all-time American high of 77.5 years, up from 49.2 years just a century ago. The Russian life expectancy at birth is 12 years lower.

After seventy years of socialism, 57 percent of all Russian hospitals did not have running hot water, and 36 percent of hospitals located in rural areas of Russia did not have water or sewage at all. Isn't it amazing that socialist government, while developing space exploration and sophisticated weapons, would completely ignore the basic human needs of its citizens?

"The filth, odors, cats roaming the halls, drunken medical personnel, and absence of soap and cleaning supplies added to an overall impression of hopelessness and frustration that paralyzed the system."

"What Soviet Medicine Teaches Us"
http://mises.org/daily/3650

Yuri N. Maltsev, senior fellow of the Mises Institute, worked as an economist on Mikhail Gorbachev's economic reform team before defecting to the United States. He is the editor of Requiem for Marx. He teaches economics at Carthage College.

It doesn't do any good to rant about Russian healthcare--how'd we get there anyway? Back to the question regarding multinational responsibilities regarding environmental disasters...

So, what do we do? What's the answer? What's the role of government? Which government? What should be expected of the private sector? Which companies? From what countries? For those who say that the private sector will solve problems such as this, how can an international economy effectively regulate or require actions by private companies in multiple countries? Who has legal authority over companies from one country which may be taking actions detrimental to other countries?

Comments?

Originally Posted by DDoug

VK you are really complicating things now we have to get Obama thing out of the way first,but still very interesting subject. That is going to be a hard one to answer. This could be a leading matter to head towards the one government world.Really dont want to go to that but it could be the created crisis that the powers would want to start. As the politictions have said dont waste a crisis.

That's the problem. Governing IS complicated! Our elected officials--and the public who only listens to the partisan arguments they feed to us--completely ignore important issues in favor of spending all their time making partisan political arguments, trying to get re-elected and gain more power.

While our Congress is arguing with one another, one side trying to displace the other side's President and then vice-versa when an election changes things, life is going on without U.S. involvement and influence. The Russians planted their flag hundreds of miles out on the ocean floor of the continental shelf extending out from their boundaries into the oil and resource-rich Arctic Ocean. They have claimed ownership of those reserves uncontested by the U.S. They have begun exploration. They have begun the business of extracting oil and selling it. They will soon begin shipping the oil within a few miles of our western coastline. All without our involvement or influence.

Here's an article you might consider. Note the following excerpt from the middle of thr article...

...The Third Law of the Sea Conference created a UN body — the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf — whose mandate is to decide the claims concerning the continental shelf. The Commission is made up of independent experts drawn from states which have ratified the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention. There are no U.S. members on the Commission as the USA has not ratified the Convention, due to narrow nationalistic fears in the U.S. Senate. There are efforts currently underway to revive Senate action on the Law of the Sea Convention, but even if the USA ratifies, there will not be a vacant seat on the Continental Shelf Commission for some time (until one of the countries sitting on the Commission vacates their seat to permit the seating of a "late ratifying" nation)...

So while those governing the U.S. are bickering about who will be re-elected to the White House and those sweet 535 jobs in the capital, the world goes on. And the Russians are proceeding to claim the huge oil reserves and other natural resources off our northern coastline. Countries such as Nigeria, Mauritus, Romania, Cameroon, Ghana and The Seychelles have a vote on the matter...we don't!

Here, read about it...

http://www.theoservice.org/node/155

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

It doesn't do any good to rant about Russian healthcare--how'd we get there anyway? Back to the question regarding multinational responsibilities regarding environmental disasters...

So, what do we do? What's the answer? What's the role of government? Which government? What should be expected of the private sector? Which companies? From what countries? For those who say that the private sector will solve problems such as this, how can an international economy effectively regulate or require actions by private companies in multiple countries? Who has legal authority over companies from one country which may be taking actions detrimental to other countries?

Comments?

TRANSLATION: Leftists in the USA, including Obama, are taking us more toward becoming like Russia.....too much in Third World condition to be concerned with preventing or cleaning up possible/future environmental disasters.

Originally Posted by ilovetv

TRANSLATION: Leftists in the USA, including Obama, are taking us more toward becoming like Russia.....too much in Third World condition to be concerned with preventing or cleaning up possible/future environmental disasters.

You lost me with that one.

Here are some suggestions about the topic, which I think is a good example of potential private/public sector cooperation:

First, ask Congress to do only ONE thing, (so as not to strain themselves, or risk that they will screw up the whole plan). Let drilling leases to private companies, for appropriate fees. If this is done soon enough and the leases are attractive to investors and companies, we will eventually get our 'fair share' of Arctic off-shore oil. Every new rig erected by a foreign power in international waters renders the debate about the risks of drilling there more moot.

Then, require that drilling companies commit to accept complete legal responsibility for their mistakes and be heavily bonded to cover costs of spills and other environmental problems up front, rather than waiting to sue or arm-twist afterwards. There is an interesting formula for this being developed in New York as a way of allowing natural gas 'fracking' while still protecting the environment. It's not foolproof, but it may be the most reasonable way to extract resources and protect people and the environment at the same time.

Then, with some of the lease money, provide the Coast Guard some additional equipment. But also remind them to stop whining and do their job, not to manage the whole situation, but to monitor it. Give the Coast Guard the responsibility to inspect, or supervise private inspectors to keep track of drilling and transport procedures and activities. Make it clear that, since their station is in the region, doing this conscientiously and thoroughly is THEIR DUTY. If they have extra time, they can also stop the flood of illegal immigrants and help stranded polar bears.

I'd really like to hear why this plan is either stupid or impossible.

I wouldn't characterize those Coast Guard comments as "whining".

As a lot of polititions have said never waste a good crisis, I think a lot of governing is done this way. The possible oil spills from Russia could fall into that. Create a crisis and people will buy anything just to make it go away .Debt ceiling anyone

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

Here are some suggestions about the topic, which I think is a good example of potential private/public sector cooperation:

First, ask Congress to do only ONE thing, (so as not to strain themselves, or risk that they will screw up the whole plan). Let drilling leases to private companies, for appropriate fees. If this is done soon enough and the leases are attractive to investors and companies, we will eventually get our 'fair share' of Arctic off-shore oil. Every new rig erected by a foreign power in international waters renders the debate about the risks of drilling there more moot.

Then, require that drilling companies commit to accept complete legal responsibility for their mistakes and be heavily bonded to cover costs of spills and other environmental problems up front, rather than waiting to sue or arm-twist afterwards. There is an interesting formula for this being developed in New York as a way of allowing natural gas 'fracking' while still protecting the environment. It's not foolproof, but it may be the most reasonable way to extract resources and protect people and the environment at the same time.

Then, with some of the lease money, provide the Coast Guard some additional equipment. But also remind them to stop whining and do their job, not to manage the whole situation, but to monitor it. Give the Coast Guard the responsibility to inspect, or supervise private inspectors to keep track of drilling and transport procedures and activities. Make it clear that, since their station is in the region, doing this conscientiously and thoroughly is THEIR DUTY. If they have extra time, they can also stop the flood of illegal immigrants and help stranded polar bears.

I'd really like to hear why this plan is either stupid or impossible.

I think those are thoughtful and legitimate suggestions on how we might regulate U.S.-based oil companies who drill in open ocean waters. But how do we regulate foreign drillers, like the Russians who have claimed ownership of the continental shelf where they're drilling. As I understand it, we couldn't drill there even if we wanted to, given the failure of our Congress to take the necessary actions to permit the U.S. to be involved in the UN committee which has apaprently granted Russia the rights to those waters and the resources below the ocean floor.

And what about the foreign-flagged oil tankers, Russian or otherwise, who will begin using the route along Alaska's west coast as the shortest and fastest route to refiners in Europe and Asia? What happens if a big tanker sinks on that route, or collides with another coming in the opposite direction, and fouls the ocean shorelines from Alaska to Canada and maybe even the western U.S.?

Currently for a ship to travel from Asia to Europe the ship need to travel a long distance by...

• Traveling westwards through the Suez Canal in the middle east near the region where piracy has become rampant off the coast of Somalia,

• Traveling westward round the Cape of Good Hope at the southern tip of Africa,

• Traveling eastward and passing through the Panama Canal,

• Or traveling eastward round famously rough and stormy Cape Horn at the southern tip of South America

Once the ice in the Arctic Ocean has sufficiently melted, ships traveling to and from Asia and Northern Europe will be able to take a much shorter route--as much as 25-50% shorter--by squeezing through the gap between eastern edge of Siberia and the western edge of Alaska and then sailing through the iceless Acrtic Ocean to reach northern Europe. Tankers transporting oil from the Russian rigs in the Arctic Ocean to Asia would take the opposite route, creating "two way traffic" in that extremely rough but narrow passage in the Bering Sea only a few miles off the Alaska coastline.

Who regulates the traffic of oil tankers close off our western coastline, few if any of which will be U.S.-flagged vessels?

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I think those are thoughtful and legitimate suggestions on how we might regulate U.S.-based oil companies who drill in open ocean waters. But how do we regulate foreign drillers, like the Russians who have claimed ownership of the continental shelf where they're drilling. As I understand it, we couldn't drill there even if we wanted to, given the failure of our Congress to take the necessary actions to permit the U.S. to be involved in the UN committee which has apaprently granted Russia the rights to those waters and the resources below the ocean floor.

And what about the foreign-flagged oil tankers, Russian or otherwise, who will begin using the route along Alaska's west coast as the shortest and fastest route to refiners in Europe and Asia? What happens if a big tanker sinks on that route, or collides with another coming in the opposite direction, and fouls the ocean shorelines from Alaska to Canada and maybe even the western U.S.?


Currently for a ship to travel from Asia to Europe the ship need to travel a long distance by...

• Traveling westwards through the Suez Canal in the middle east near the region where piracy has become rampant off the coast of Somalia,

• Traveling westward round the Cape of Good Hope at the southern tip of Africa,

• Traveling eastward and passing through the Panama Canal,

• Or traveling eastward round famously rough and stormy Cape Horn at the southern tip of South America

Once the ice in the Arctic Ocean has sufficiently melted, ships traveling to and from Asia and Northern Europe will be able to take a much shorter route--as much as 25-50% shorter--by squeezing through the gap between eastern edge of Siberia and the western edge of Alaska,and then going through the iceless Acrtic Ocean to reach northern Europe. Tankers transporting oil from the Russian rigs in the Arctic Ocean would take the opposite route, creating "two way traffic" in that extremely rough but narrow passage in the Bering Sea only a few miles off the Alaska coastline.

I can only suggest initiating international agreements to address these real and potential issues. But should world leaders begin working toward such agreements, my hope would be that they establish 'insurance' funds to resolve problems caused by drilling and transport. What doesn't make sense about bonding exploration and transport according to the volume of materiel handled by individual governments or companies?

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

I can only suggest initiating international agreements to address these real and potential issues. But should world leaders begin working toward such agreements, my hope would be that they establish 'insurance' funds to resolve problems caused by drilling and transport. What doesn't make sense about bonding exploration and transport according to the volume of materiel handled by individual governments or companies?

And therein lies a big part of the problem. Our Congress has refused to ratify the UN resolution forming the committee that governs such things. The committee has been formed (see my post above) and is operating without the U.S. As best I can determine, the failure to pass our Congress was determined by votes totally along party lines. And the votes flip-flopped when the GOP took over control of the House from the Democrats. So it looks like we may have uncovered yet another important national issue wherein our elected representatives are practicing partisan politics at the expense of the country.

Geez, if there was ever a reason to throw every single one of them out of office and get a new president to boot, this is just another one. It's not that it's less important, but getting the public all excited about the Russians drilling for oil on their continental shelf and not even being involved in the UN decision-making on the issue probably just isn't sexy enough to get any good soundbites.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

And therein lies a big part of the problem. Our Congress has refused to ratify the UN resolution forming the committee that governs such things. The committee has been formed (see my post above) and is operating without the U.S. As best I can determine, the failure to pass our Congress was determined by votes totally along party lines. And the votes flip-flopped when the GOP took over control of the House from the Democrats. So it looks like we may have uncovered yet another important national issue wherein our elected representatives are practicing partisan politics at the expense of the country.

Geez, if there was ever a reason to throw every single one of them out of office and get a new president to boot, this is just another one. It's not that it's less important, but getting the public all excited about the Russians drilling for oil on their continental shelf and not even being involved in the UN decision-making on the issue probably just isn't sexy enough to get any good soundbites.

VK, Here are some additional notes on the situation and problems with our aging coast guard cutter fleet and the UN Law of the Sea Convention.

Our cutter fleet is not just aging, it is overage and lacks either the numbers or capability to effectively protect US interests whether they be in the Bering Sea, the fishing grounds around the United States, counter-terrorism, etc. Here is a link to an article in the US Naval Institute Proceedings that describes some of the problems:


http://www.usni.org/magazines/procee...s-cutter-fleet

While the U.N. Law of the Sea Convention has some problems especially involving seabed mining, it is critical that we sign on in order to protect such crucial rights as innocent passage, transit passage and archelagic sea-lane transit. Without these rights, international commerce could come to a standstill and our Navy’s effectiveness would be greatly reduced. If just the right of transit were challenged, it could allow Iran to close access to the Persian Gulf. Some of the other straits affected could include Dover, Malacca, Gibraltar, Bosporus, and Bering.

However, the same laws that keep these crucial strait open to us forbid our regulation of innocent traffic from the arctic to the Pacific Ocean. Our best hope is probably a bilateral treaty with Russia. Oil from the Arctic will probably remain in the Pacific. The shortest passage to the Atlantic is the Panama Canal and neither Very Large Crude Carriers nor Ultra Large Crude Carriers can transit the Canal nor will they be after the Canal widening is completed in 2014. Drilling on land with pipelines going south to usable ports appears to offer the best approach for the time being.