larger than the middle East deposits extends from Nam
to Indonesia.
Yes, Kirk, I'm sure that's purely a coincidence. LOL!
I worked on navigation/positioning eqpt
for floating test drill rigs in 1970.
http://atimes01.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/FJ27Ae02.html
Vietnam is the is the third-largest oil producer in
Southeast Asia with output of 400,000 barrels per day.
Indonesia, with crude oil output at 966,465 barrels
per day in September, is the region's No 1 producer,
followed by Malaysia.
I was told Indonesia is the upper end of the field, ie
where the natural gas is.
China is edging toward the Northern Nam field,
disputes re China Sea.
Ideology is for the proletariat.
Wealth is for the ruling class.
Kirk
Couple more tips of icebergs below...
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In the old days wars were fought over colonialism
> (World War I and II).Then
> they were fought over idealism (Korea and Vietnam).
> Now, they are fought over
> oil rights (Desert Storm and Iraq). No ,matter what
> they tell you. Sincerely,
> Jim Robinson
For starters, I think Japan's entering WW II had more to do with
access to resources than with colonialism or ideology. Well, so did
colonialism.
Best wishes
Keith
http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=598
Reports Say Japan to Explore Disputed Area of East China Sea
December 14, 2004 - By Associated Press
TOKYO - Japan plans to explore natural gas fields in a disputed area
of the East China Sea that rival China has also been surveying,
Japanese media said Tuesday, amid growing tensions between the two
countries.
[more]
Also, some members were arguing recently about the US spy plane
incident over China. Was it in fact over China? China is inclined to
describe the entire South China Sea as "China's historical waters".
See also:
http://www.subcontinent.com/sapra/world/w_1999_01_21.html
Chinese Territorial Assertion: The Case of the Mischief Reef
---------
http://www.geo.appstate.edu/567_041301chinac.pdf
© 2001 maps. com
Chinese Territorial Claims
A U. S. military surveillance plane recently collided with a Chinese
jet over the South China Sea. The collision has had major
international and economic implications involving China's territorial
claim of a 200-nautical mile airspace corridor. This claim is
contrary to international law.
On March 31, the U. S. military plane carrying sophisticated
listening gear was flying over the South China Sea, when two Chinese
jet fighters rose to intercept it. This cat and mouse game apparently
is well known by both sides.
The U. S. plane was about 70 miles (113 km.) offshore when the
collision occurred. The Chinese plane crashed into the sea. The
severely damaged U. S. plane made an unauthorized emergency landing
at Lingshui, a Chinese air force base on the island of Hainan. The
24-member crew and plane were detained by the Chinese military.
The Chinese demanded an apology from the United States as an apparent
condition for the release of the crew and perhaps the plane.
President George W. Bush's administration refused to apologize for
being in Chinese airspace at the time of the collision because the U.
S. plane was apparently in international airspace.
A U. S. apology would be tantamount to recognizing Chinese
territorial claims to a 200-nautical mile (230 statute miles) coastal
corridor and the airspace above it.
Following World War II, countries around the world scrambled to claim
adjacent ocean floor and the airspace over it. Until that time, most
countries claimed only three-mile territorial limits. According to
political geographer Harm J. de Blij et al (Geography: Regions and
Concepts, Wiley & Sons, 1988), "By 1986, only 17 countries still
restricted their claim to (three) miles, whereas 90 countries claimed
a 12-mile territorial sea; and no fewer than 15 countries demanded
sovereignty over 200 miles of territorial waters."
The United Nations organized the first Conference on the Law of the
Sea in the 1950s and additional meetings continued until 1982. The
resulting international law permits each coastal country to claim a
12-nautical mile territorial sea (and airspace) as sovereign
territory, where no foreign ships or airplanes may enter without
permission. The convention also allows an additional 12-mile coastal
zone, where the coastal country can exercise certain controls,
according to de Blij, such as prohibitions on pollution being dumped
by foreign ships.
Finally, the Law of the Sea allows countries to claim a 200-nautical
mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), or 188 nautical miles beyond the
12-mile territorial sea. Controls on mining and fishing are generally
the recognized activities that can be controlled in the EEZ.
This law does not allow a country to legally claim the 200-mile EEZ
as its territorial waters or airspace. Any territory outside the
12-mile territorial waters is classified as international waters and
airspace.
There are many, many complications to the implementation of the
12-mile territorial sea, the additional 12-mile coastal zone and the
200-mile EEZ. For example, countries separated by a narrow body of
water must equally divide the sea floor between them. Complications
abound where island groups are near one another. Hundreds of disputed
claims have been settled through negotiations and in the
International Court in the Hague, The Netherlands.
There are two Chinese ownership cases still unresolved in the South
China Sea. An explanation of these cases may help explain some of the
more subtle underlying reasons for China's demands for a U. S.
apology.
The ownership of two island groups in the South China Sea, the
Paracels and the Spratly Islands, is in dispute. Preliminary oil
exploration indicates good possibilities that large oil resources may
exist, not only around the islands, but in the South China Sea
itself. Therefore, whoever owns these islands will also control the
EEZ around the islands.
The significance of this situation cannot be understated for oil-poor
China. With its few petroleum resources, China is anxious to claim as
much of the area containing resources in the South China Sea as
possible.
Currently, China claims the Paracel Islands, although Vietnam and
Taiwan dispute China's claim. The islands lie almost equidistant from
China's Hainan and Vietnam. The Spratly Islands ownership, however,
is in even greater dispute, as China, Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia and
the Philippines also claim ownership.
The Chinese government would like to have international recognition
of a 200-mile territorial sea that would include the ocean and
airspace around the Paracels and Spratly Islands. This would bring a
huge area of the South China Sea and its potential resources under
complete Chinese control. Finally, such a large territorial limit
would eliminate future U. S. reconnaissance flights over the South
China Sea and keep these sophisticated listening systems far
offshore. Is there any wonder China wanted a U. S. apology? And is
there any wonder that the United States refused to apologize for
flying over international waters?
And that is Geography in the News.
April 13, 2001. #567.
(The author is a Professor of Geography at Appalachian State
University, Boone, NC. )
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
