Deep Oil Drilling Research Paper
How will the technology advancements in deep sea oil drilling affect the ongoing competition for resources among countries?
IR 310: Peace and conflict Studies
November 25, 2013
Abstract: The goal of this paper is to identify the potential risks that may arise as technology advances are made in extracting natural resources. The focus point will be on deep sea drilling for oil. As the demand for oil increases due to the growth in the world’s population and economies, the search for oil expands to areas where it is more difficult to extract, such as in deeper depths of the ocean. The ocean covers over 70 percent of the earth’s surface and oil industry studies show greater reserves of oil may lie beneath the ocean floor. The objective …show more content…
of this paper is to show how the advances in deep sea oil drilling create an increasing urgency among the world’s countries to stake their territorial claim on the ocean’s resources, leading to potential political and military conflict. This paper will explore the tensions caused by the difference in technological capabilities and military strength, the effectiveness of policies that address off-shore mining, and the economic risks from lack of cooperation among the coastal and non-coastal countries seeking to exploit the ocean resources. This paper will also discuss the theoretical political and economic risks that may arise as the deep sea oil drilling expands into areas outside the UN chartered boundaries set for coastal countries.
Introduction: Technology is an ongoing innovation movement that seems limitless. Advancements in transportation, electronics, medicine, and all areas of human activity have improved the quality of life for many and supported the ever-growing world population. At the heart of technological advancement is the drive to produce goods and services better, faster smarter. Technology advances faster in areas of need. The improvements in medicine will occur faster than advancements in candle-making for example, because there is a greater need for medical services as well as a greater economic benefit to be had. The need for energy is universal and growing, making it one of the largest industries in the world, as evidenced by the size of the international corporations representing it. Because a country’s economic success depends upon having enough energy to fuel it, governments are also involved in promoting their interests in obtaining energy resources.
The primary energy source in today’s world is hydrocarbons, or oil. It has been drilled for and pumped for centuries and as with any natural resource it is obtained from the most accessible locations first. As the resources get depleted from the initial locations technology is developed to extract oil from the more difficult locations. Over time this creates and expanding area of mining. As the world’s population and subsequent demand for energy grows the search for oil expands. In recent decades countries bordering the world’s oceans have sought to expand their territorial ownership of the ocean in order to protect the resources for their own use, even though the technology to extract them from the ocean does not exist. With earth’s land surface oil resource reservoirs have been accounted for, what lies beneath the oceans sea bed opens a new incentive for deep sea drilling innovations. As these theories for deep sea drilling become more plausible and the race to claim the ocean’s resources escalates, the risk of conflict among countries competing for these resources increases.
The United Nations has worked on and developed international rules and laws to administer the ocean’s resources for the benefit of all citizens. It has developed boundaries, such as the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and rules such as the Laws of the Sea, to promote equal access and ownership of the open ocean resources while also recognizing the rights of countries bordering on the oceans to have some control over the seas close to their coastlines. The United Nations laws on resource ownership and management are sound but the UN cannot force compliance, and often allows for rejection of UN decisions by the affected countries. The UN Convention on the Laws of the Seas established reasonable goals and guidelines, but major coastal countries such as the United States, Israel, Peru, Syria, Israel and Venezuela have yet to sign and or ratify the Law of the Sea agreements. The importance of these countries not coming to an agreement may or may not be an economic benefit in the long run due to not abiding by regulations. China has accepted the UN Law of the Sea agreements yet it constantly operates outside the rules by harassing oil drilling operations in the open sea and claiming territorial jurisdiction in ocean waters clearly owned by other countries per the UN convention.
As with any item of economic importance, conflicts will arise about ownership despite the fact that clearly defined laws and regulations are in place. Challenges to the law, refusals to acknowledge them, disagreements on their application, varying interpretations, and flat out bullying will occur as nations race to claim the ocean’s resources. With the UN charter on ocean territories extending to a 350 mile maximum distance from the shore, the discovery of a huge oil reserve 351 miles out would most likely not prevent a country from attempting to claim ownership because too much money is at stake. In areas where there are large oil reserves and an overlap of the bordering countries’ territorial claims, conflict is more likely to arise. Technology will advance and oil drilling will occur in more locations in the open ocean. Drilling by one country just outside another country’s EEZ will create the potential for conflict. By identifying the potential conflicts in advance of the technological abilities to drill for oil at greater depths, there is a greater possibility to diffuse those conflicts through engagement and negotiation.
Current State of Offshore Drilling:
Over a century ago off-shore drilling began in the shallow waters off Santa Barbara, California. Wooden piers were extended 1,350 feet and land-based drilling techniques were used in waters 35 feet deep. By 1947 oil drilling had extended out ten miles off the coast of Louisiana, using floating barges and steel to drill in shallow waters. With the development of oil drilling platforms, drilling tubes, navigation improvements, and metal alloys, the drilling depths reached 5,000 by 1986 with Shell Oil Company’s Mensa field. The deep sea drilling activities fluctuated in the 1990’s as the price of oil declined with along with a drop in the growth in demand, making it less profitable to drill in deep water. The US deep sea oil production dropped to 5% of total US output, declining from the 20% level in the 1980’s. (BP)
World Oil Online
In March 2013 the India’s natural gas driller reached a world record depth around 7,000 drilling for natural gas. The search for energy resources by India is critical as oil and gas imports are expected to increase to 91% of their total need (ONRG). According to Forbes magazine, the world’s 25 biggest oil companies, such as Saudi Aramco and Gazprom, are largely land-based drillers but have made advancements and investments to pursue offshore drilling. Saudi Aramco has made recent plans for their first offshore drilling in the Red Sea while Gazprom has joined a major venture with Shell in order to keep up with the competitions. Saudi Aramco is pursuing off-shore drilling for natural gas to be used in domestic power-generation, which reduces domestic oil consumption and diverts it to export markets. These recent shifts in focus to offshore drilling are driven by the deep-sea drilling technology becoming more cost effective and stable. (Forbes)
Policies of the Seas:
The evolution of human beings and civilizations over thousands of years has involved the search for resources to use in order to first survive and then build wealth.
The oceans and seas of the world have been used for travel and supply resources for use by many of the world’s citizens. As the population grows and technology advances, individual countries seek the resources necessary to maintain strong economies and employment for their citizens. The exploitation of the resources residing in or beneath the ocean has increased as well. As the easily accessible resources are found and depleted, the more challenging sources of resources are sought and withdrawn using new technologies. Boundaries of ownership for land, especially between countries, is relatively easy to define by the use of maps and visual points of reference. The ownership of the ocean is much more complicated because it has been historically limited to a few miles off the coast. As the advances in technology have made it easier to identify and tap resources farther off the coast, countries have sought to expand their jurisdiction farther and farther off their coasts. Even without the ability to tap the oceans deep resources, countries have sought to expand their control over the ocean in the event resources and methods to tap them are discovered in the …show more content…
future.
Land resources were at first open and accessible to all people but gradually became defined boundaries through the development of cultures, civilizations and military conflicts. The water surface of the earth was not an area that could be controlled or monitored very easily through the 1300’s and most countries had no resources to even try. The relatively low number of people and large area of land and water did not generate the need to possess or control access to those resources. As the population grew larger and humans wanted to be less nomadic, the idea of staying on one place and controlling the land resource was developed. The people and communities living near or on the oceans and seas developed the tools to capture the resources, primarily by fishing. As technology advanced in terms of transportation and navigation, the farther into and across the world’s oceans people traveled. In the late 1400’s Spain and Portugal were the world’s most powerful navies, having travelled far in search of resources in other lands they could conquer and control. They split the ownership of the Atlantic Ocean down the middle from east to west with the help of the Pope, the world’s first large-scale attempt by governments to control the oceans.
Many countries at that time were not interested in controlling or ruling the oceans because they lacked the tools to harvest resources from the ocean or benefit from using it for travel. As some disputes about the use of oceans and seas occurred in the 1600’s, it was clear there was no government or international body to enforce rules or ownership for the benefit of all nations. The Dutchman Hugo de Grotius published a treatise promoting the concept of “freedom of the seas” as the principle for countries to abide by for matters concerning the oceans and seas. (Orbach p2) He proposed that the world’s oceans and seas were not to be controlled by anyone and could be accessed by all. At that time the world had used the ocean for fishing and travel resources, which at that time seemed to be in unlimited supply for both. As the technology of sea travel increased with stronger boats and navigation tools, individuals and countries ventured farther away from the shores of land, in search of new places and more food. Because the oceans were viewed to have an unlimited supply of food, there was no sense of urgency or need by governments to stake out a territory in the water. (Orbach p
In the late 1700’s the United States became the first country to claim “territorial waters” in the ocean, a 3 mile band of water that was subject to the same governmental control as that on land. The other coastal countries in the world soon followed and instituted the same territorial waters claim of 3 miles, referred to as a country’s “territorial sea”. (Orbach p4) While a country claimed the territorial sea off it’s coast, most countries including the United States kept that part of the ocean open for use by all of its citizens. The growth of the oil industry in the United States and the development of technology to drill for oil in the ocean caused President Truman in 1945 to issue a Presidential Proclamation that expanded the control of the continental shelf surrounding the US coasts. This was not sovereign control in terms of considering it an extension of the United States. This proclamation defined the right of the United States to exert control over the natural resources contained in that area. In the late 1940’s other countries such as Argentina and Ecuador expended their territorial waters to 200 miles in order to protect the fishing stocks off their coast. The problem of pollution from ship traffic and overfishing by several countries caused concern with the United Nations that conflicts would rise and create military actions. (UN p1) Island nations such as the Philippines, with a significant amount of ocean between the islands, declared the ocean area between the islands as part of their territorial waters. In 1976 the US Government expanded control over fishing resources to 200 miles and in 1983 President Reagan expanded the region of all economic control over the ocean to 200 miles from the coast. In all cases, once the United States established a boundary of control, the other world nations with ocean access followed the same policy. (Orbach p3) It was clear to the United Nations representatives that the increased capture of ocean territory by nations was increasing the potential for a significant conflict among nations.
The increasing volume of ocean-going transportation and resource exploration caused the United Nations to implement formal governance regarding the use of the world’s oceans. As the United Nations began to consider establishing laws and arbitration for the world’s use of the ocean, there was a rapid rise in ocean mining for several valuable items such as diamonds in South Africa, tin in Thailand, and mineral modules found in many areas of the world. The technology advancements and competition for the ocean’s resources, particularly among the world’s super-powers, was rapidly escalating in the 1960’s. In 1967 the United Nations began the process of establishing the international law and principles necessary to address the use of the world’s oceans and seas. The United Nations Division for Ocean Affairs and The Law of the Sea states on states “The hope was for a more stable order, promoting greater use and better management of ocean resources and generating harmony and goodwill among States that would no longer have to eye each other suspiciously over conflicting claims.” (UN p2)
In 1967 the world was beginning to take notice that the ocean was not an endless resource or dumping ground for pollutants. UN Ambassador Arvid Prado address the UN in 1967 and promoted the need for the world’s leaders to develop a new policy for managing the oceanic resources because the previous principle of “freedom-of-the-sea” was no longer able to address the issues raised by the technology advancements. He also promoted the idea that the ocean’s resources should benefit those citizens and countries who need the most assistance, and not just the countries that have the technology ability. The process in developing the various treaties and laws was lengthy because it involved negotiation and compromise from many countries. The initial principles and treaties address the seabed and recognition the minerals it contained did not belong to any one country but equally to all. After 15 years of negotiations, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was produced as a constitution guiding the nations in their use of the world’s oceans and relationships with each other. The areas the convention addressed are:
Setting Limits
Navigation
Exclusive Economic Zone
Continental Shelf
Deep Seabed Mining
The Exploitation Regime
Technological Prospects
The Question of Universal Participation in the Convention
Pioneer Investors
Protection of the Marine Environment
Marine Scientific Research
Settlement of Disputes
With the principles and arbitration process defined in the convention, the tools to manage the conflicts and questions surrounding the use of the oceans were in place with the goal of equal access and benefit for all of the world’s citizens.
The UN website describes this convention by stating “In short, the Convention is an unprecedented attempt by the international community to regulate all aspects of the resources of the sea and uses of the ocean, and thus bring a stable order to mankind 's very source of life.” (UN p2) Despite this lofty goal, when the control of a resource and economic benefit to a country is at stake, the nicely worded idealism gives way to the interpretation of law and ways to bend it to one’s favor. To recognize the desire by coastal countries to have some control over the waters touching their coast, the Law of the Sea defined the various degrees of control a country would have extending from its coast. The first band is the territorial limit, extended to 12 miles from the coast. For the island nations, that boundary extends from the outer islands and makes the open water between the islands part of the territorial waters. The concept of the “right of innocent passage” recognizes that there are geographic areas where a ship may pass through the territorial waters of another country because it is the shortest route between two destinations. Laws governing these passageways recognized the need for reasonableness in travel and making over 100 straits
available for general navigation without restriction. The next band of water off a the coast a country would have control over is out 24 miles, to be used for protection and containing illegal activity. The most innovative aspect of the convention was to create an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). This zone extended out 200 miles from the coast and gave the coastal country the right to control access to the resources contained in the ocean, on the seabed, and under the seabed. The primary driver for the 200 mile EEZ was to obtain control over the fishing resources, the majority of which are near the coastal waters. This had been a major source of conflict between countries over the years because of the over-fishing by countries with large fishing fleets traveling for months at a time in floating fish processing plants. The technological advancements in fishing caused huge catches of fish that created devastating environmental imbalances. By creating the 200 mile EEZ, the coastal country now had a fishing resource it could manage without outside interference. (UN p4) Some countries may be able to claim an EEZ up to 350 miles based on a formula developed by the convention. After establishing limits on territorial and economic claims by countries on their coastal waters, the UN Convention addresses the resources, primarily minerals that exist beyond the EEZ’s. The United Nations members agreed that the resources belonged to all mankind, but disputes arose on how to obtain those resources and how to allocate the benefit to all countries. The developed countries wanted an international authority to award licenses to mining companies. The developing countries argued that since the minerals were owned by the public, a public company should mine the resources under the guidance of an international authority. A compromise was reached called a “parallel system” that allowed public, private and collective mining. (UN p5). The technology currently available to mine minerals off the sea floor are expensive and risky. The low volume of production does not make it a target for conflict. As the technology used to mine the seafloor makes it less risky and less costly, the likelihood that more countries will challenge the existing arrangement is likely.
The Debates and Gray Areas of the United Nations policies
The United Nations has attempted to address the issues of rights and responsibilities as it relates to the use of the world’s ocean resources. The UN Convention on Laws of the Sea (UNCLOS) has been modified over the years as countries negotiate to strengthen its principles and compliance. The Law of the Sea, or LOST as it is now known, provides for arbitration and resolution in the case of disputes, giving the member countries several options to deal with the disputes on their own or use the services and expertise of the UN’s International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. The United States Senate has never voted to ratify the acceptance of the UNCLOS or its later versions. The principles, conventions and details of the LOST provisions, such as mineral rights, geographical areas covered, innocent passage and the like are clearly spelled out and approved by the majority of the world’s countries. As with any law or regulation, there may be some areas that are subject to interpretation and testing in a court of law when an exception occurs or a new event arises that was not considered at the time the law was established. With technology in particular, the laws and regulations developed even twenty years ago may not be adequate to address the current technology and its uses.
Because the exploration and exploitation of the world’s ocean resources can be fairly easily monitored with today’s technology, the risks of conflict related to the ownership or harvesting of those resources is subject to public opinion around the world, not just between the two parties that may be in conflict. For example, the attempt by one country to obtain oil or minerals from the seabed outside of an EEZ and outside the UN charter would be easily observed. It is impossible to move and station the large equipment needed for deep-sea oil drilling without it being noticed by someone interested in tracking such activities, such as competing governments or concerned environmentalists. The drilling activity and the country involved would then be measured against that country’s involvement with the UN, any agreements it made with the UN and neighboring countries, and the drilling activity monitored for environmental impact. If an UN member country disputed the legality of the oil drilling as being non-compliant with LOST and the many principles and rules established for off-shore oil drilling, that country would be scrutinized by the UN member countries for adherence to moral, ethical and legal principles. The challenge lies in how strict or loosely a country agrees with the UN Charter. In the case of the United States, the Senate has not chosen to address and accept the UN Convention on Laws of the Sea. The political reason given by some lawmakers is that the UNCLOS does not guarantee a fully democratic process and violates American sovereignty by allowing another government agency to render a decision affecting the US.
The biggest risk of conflict comes from China. Although it is a member of the United Nations, China has a history of ignoring some key principles of the United Nations charter by supporting tyrant countries such as North Korea. Similar to the United States position on several world issues, China has often broke with the international community when it is beneficial. In recent actions against Japan, China has claimed airspace as part of its territory even though that airspace is over Japanese controller islands. (Yahoo News). As China finds it necessary to fuel its economic growth with large intakes of foreign oil, it also seeks to expand it’s regional influence by challenging smaller nations. In February of 2012 Chinese Naval ship attempted to ram oil company supply ships supporting drilling operations in an area claimed by the Philippines. The Philippine Navy sent aircraft and ships to the area, but the Chinese left before a confrontation occurred. The drilling company left the area and returned months later. The Philippine government filed a formal protest against the Chinese government, which failed to response. China has repeatedly challenged the territorial claims of other countries in the region for economic and political reasons. In the case of the Philippine oil drilling, China is seen as pushing its oil exploration farther into deep waters as its own resources get depleted and its domestic demand increases. The US has pledged its support for countries harassed by China but that support has the potential for escalating conflict in the area as the vast oil reserves are sought by China as well as other countries in the region. The Reuters article quotes Stephanie Kleine-Ahlbrandt, Northeast Asia Director for the International Crisis Group as stating "As Southeast Asian nations run to the U.S. for assistance, Beijing increasingly fears that America aims to encircle China militarily and diplomatically. Underlying all of these concerns is the potential that discoveries of oil and natural gas beneath the disputed sections of the South China Sea could fuel conflict." The Reuters article states China has warned oil companies to avoid drilling in the South China Sea in areas it has disputed sovereignty issues with other nations in the area. While China has supported some of the UN initiatives to establish an organized and orderly management of the ocean’s resources, such as being a pioneer investor in the International Seabed Authority, it continues to take aggressive and internationally illegal actions against companies and countries in sovereign and international waters.
As shown in the map below from a CNN article on conflicts in South East Asia, numerous countries have coast lines bordering the South China Sea. The oil reserves are estimate at 4.8billion barrels, greater than the reserves in the Gulf of Mexico. (CNN) The area also contains large amounts of natural gas as well as fishing and mineral resources. China has claimed the entire South China Sea as it’s territory, in obvious defiance and violation of UN resolutions and the Law of the Sea Treaty. It clearly is using its power to intimidate neighboring countries.
Theories and Solutions As the world’s super-powers strive to maintain their economic and military dominance there will be a greater risk of conflict as the technology advances in deep sea oil drilling allows nations to expand their operations in the open oceans. A country drilling for oil just outside the EEZ boundary of another country is more likely to occur as the technology improves, creating a conflict by the home country seeking to expand their influence and jurisdiction over waters off their coast. The conflicts most likely to arise a in areas where overlaps in territorial jurisdiction occur, such as in the South China Sea. The resolution of the disputes over the territory depend upon the willingness to cooperate among the countries. China has not shown a willingness to cooperate and creates conflict with its aggressive military stance and refusal to follow the UN Conventions and rules. The lack of cooperation by the United States in following the UN rules, except when it is in the best interests of the US, reduces the effectiveness of the UN charter to create universal codes of conduct by member nations. Since there are limited enforcement options available to the UN in resolving territorial disputes for oil drilling, the status quo will remain in place to prevent and resolve conflicts. That status quo involves the UN pushing for adherence to the Laws of the Sea and the dispute resolution process to its fullest with the persuasion of moral responsibility. The super-powers of the world will support the UN position as long as it does not adversely affect their own operations and goals. Countries in conflict will posture against each other with sanctions and the threat of military force, testing the boundaries of patience but rarely engaging in direct military conflict. The conflicts will remain fairly peaceful because the distance between the superpowers, China and the US and Russia, is significantly large enough to insulate them from the threat. But as they become in closer contact by seeking to mine the ocean’s resources, the likelihood of a conflict depends upon the lack of patience or reasonableness by the countries involved. This will significant resources to be used by a country to maintain their military strength. Until energy is relatively cheap for all countries to obtain, there will be the ongoing tension created from expanding the territorial rights over the ocean’s resources.
Conclusion
History has not changed as the countries with the greatest military forces control the greatest amount of resources. The United Nations and threat of military force have been the primary tools to head off confrontation. In the short term there appears to be enough accessible oil reserves to keep the status quo, meaning energy from oil is available in enough supply at an affordable price for most countries. The cost of oil and recognition it is not inexhaustible drives the research and technology to find alternative energy sources. A byproduct of oil exploration and drilling, natural gas, as seen its demand grow as a cheaper and more plentiful alternative to oil. Significant conflicts are not expected in the short term. However, fifty years from now the risk for conflict due to oil drilling in the ocean will very much depend upon technology advancements in alternative energy sources, no oil production. If the oil production is declining as predicted and alternative energy sources are not found with comparable costs, the fight for the remaining oil will escalate among the stronger countries in the world. The decision to engage in conflict will be financial, weighing the cost of the conflict against the cost of high energy costs and the negative impact is has on society. As with any scarce resource in the world, the powerful control the oil and the desire to manage it for the common good is overpowered by financial objectives.
Bibliography
United Nations. Oceans and Laws of the Sea. Division for Oceans and Laws of the Sea. November 22,2013. http://www.un.org/depts/los/index.htm
National Academy of Sciences. “Beyond the Freedom of the Seas:
Ocean Policy for the Third Millennium
Presentation for the Fourth Annual Roger Revelle Lecture,
, November 2002
Michael Orbach
Oceanography • Vot. I6 • No. 1. '2003
Duke University Marine Lab • Beaufort, North Carolina USA http://www.tos.org/oceanography/archive/16-1_orbach.pdf Centers for Ocean Law and Policy. University of Virginia. http://www.virginia.edu/colp/ Odom, Jonathan. CHINA IN THE BULL SHOP?*
COMPARING THE RHETORIC OF A RISING CHINA
WITH THE REALITY OF THE INTERNATIONAL
LAW OF THE SEA. University of Maine, School of Law. Ocean http://mainelaw.maine.edu/academics/oclj/pdf/vol17_2/vol17_201.pdf PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES
IN OCEAN CONFLICTS: DOES UNCLOS
III POINT THE WAY?
Louis B. SOHN http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3718&context=lcp Yahoo News. “Japan warns of 'unpredictable events ' over China 's new air zone” http://news.yahoo.com/japan-politician-urges-china-prevent-touch-situation-084830606.html Insight: Conflict looms in South China Sea oil rush
By Randy Fabi and Manuel Mogato
PUERTO PRINCESA, Philippines Tue Feb 28, 2012 8:59am EST http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/28/us-china-spratlys-philippines-idUSTRE81R03420120228 Tensions heat up over oil, gas in South China Sea
By Steve Hargreaves @CNNMoney April 26, 2012: 6:01 PM ET http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/24/news/economy/south-china-sea/index.htm A Brief History of US Offshore Oil Drilling
September 2, 2013 by Officer of the Watch http://officerofthewatch.com/2013/09/02/a-brief-history-of-us-offshore-oil-drilling/ Saudis launch major gas drilling in Red Sea
Nov. 21, 2013 at 1:23 PM http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2013/11/21 BP Deep Horizon Oil Spill Commission. “National Commission on the BP Deep Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling.” Draft. http://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/classes/188/materials/bp.pdf World Oil Online. “Oil Supply and Demand by Quarter”. April 2013. http://www.worldoil.com/Oil_supply_demand_by_quarter_Graph_April_2013.html Ocean National Research Governance (ONRG). “Deep Sea Drilling: ONGC drilling breaks world record | Oil and Gas Technology.” March 12, 2013 http://oceansnrg.com/2013/03/12/deep-sea-drilling-ongc-drilling-breaks-world-record-oil-and-gas-technology/ Forbes.”The World’sBiggest Oil Companies”. November 2013.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/11/17/the-worlds-biggest-oil-companies-2013/
IR 310: Peace and conflict Studies
November 25, 2013
Abstract: The goal of this paper is to identify the potential risks that may arise as technology advances are made in extracting natural resources. The focus point will be on deep sea drilling for oil. As the demand for oil increases due to the growth in the world’s population and economies, the search for oil expands to areas where it is more difficult to extract, such as in deeper depths of the ocean. The ocean covers over 70 percent of the earth’s surface and oil industry studies show greater reserves of oil may lie beneath the ocean floor. The objective …show more content…
of this paper is to show how the advances in deep sea oil drilling create an increasing urgency among the world’s countries to stake their territorial claim on the ocean’s resources, leading to potential political and military conflict. This paper will explore the tensions caused by the difference in technological capabilities and military strength, the effectiveness of policies that address off-shore mining, and the economic risks from lack of cooperation among the coastal and non-coastal countries seeking to exploit the ocean resources. This paper will also discuss the theoretical political and economic risks that may arise as the deep sea oil drilling expands into areas outside the UN chartered boundaries set for coastal countries.
Introduction: Technology is an ongoing innovation movement that seems limitless. Advancements in transportation, electronics, medicine, and all areas of human activity have improved the quality of life for many and supported the ever-growing world population. At the heart of technological advancement is the drive to produce goods and services better, faster smarter. Technology advances faster in areas of need. The improvements in medicine will occur faster than advancements in candle-making for example, because there is a greater need for medical services as well as a greater economic benefit to be had. The need for energy is universal and growing, making it one of the largest industries in the world, as evidenced by the size of the international corporations representing it. Because a country’s economic success depends upon having enough energy to fuel it, governments are also involved in promoting their interests in obtaining energy resources.
The primary energy source in today’s world is hydrocarbons, or oil. It has been drilled for and pumped for centuries and as with any natural resource it is obtained from the most accessible locations first. As the resources get depleted from the initial locations technology is developed to extract oil from the more difficult locations. Over time this creates and expanding area of mining. As the world’s population and subsequent demand for energy grows the search for oil expands. In recent decades countries bordering the world’s oceans have sought to expand their territorial ownership of the ocean in order to protect the resources for their own use, even though the technology to extract them from the ocean does not exist. With earth’s land surface oil resource reservoirs have been accounted for, what lies beneath the oceans sea bed opens a new incentive for deep sea drilling innovations. As these theories for deep sea drilling become more plausible and the race to claim the ocean’s resources escalates, the risk of conflict among countries competing for these resources increases.
The United Nations has worked on and developed international rules and laws to administer the ocean’s resources for the benefit of all citizens. It has developed boundaries, such as the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and rules such as the Laws of the Sea, to promote equal access and ownership of the open ocean resources while also recognizing the rights of countries bordering on the oceans to have some control over the seas close to their coastlines. The United Nations laws on resource ownership and management are sound but the UN cannot force compliance, and often allows for rejection of UN decisions by the affected countries. The UN Convention on the Laws of the Seas established reasonable goals and guidelines, but major coastal countries such as the United States, Israel, Peru, Syria, Israel and Venezuela have yet to sign and or ratify the Law of the Sea agreements. The importance of these countries not coming to an agreement may or may not be an economic benefit in the long run due to not abiding by regulations. China has accepted the UN Law of the Sea agreements yet it constantly operates outside the rules by harassing oil drilling operations in the open sea and claiming territorial jurisdiction in ocean waters clearly owned by other countries per the UN convention.
As with any item of economic importance, conflicts will arise about ownership despite the fact that clearly defined laws and regulations are in place. Challenges to the law, refusals to acknowledge them, disagreements on their application, varying interpretations, and flat out bullying will occur as nations race to claim the ocean’s resources. With the UN charter on ocean territories extending to a 350 mile maximum distance from the shore, the discovery of a huge oil reserve 351 miles out would most likely not prevent a country from attempting to claim ownership because too much money is at stake. In areas where there are large oil reserves and an overlap of the bordering countries’ territorial claims, conflict is more likely to arise. Technology will advance and oil drilling will occur in more locations in the open ocean. Drilling by one country just outside another country’s EEZ will create the potential for conflict. By identifying the potential conflicts in advance of the technological abilities to drill for oil at greater depths, there is a greater possibility to diffuse those conflicts through engagement and negotiation.
Current State of Offshore Drilling:
Over a century ago off-shore drilling began in the shallow waters off Santa Barbara, California. Wooden piers were extended 1,350 feet and land-based drilling techniques were used in waters 35 feet deep. By 1947 oil drilling had extended out ten miles off the coast of Louisiana, using floating barges and steel to drill in shallow waters. With the development of oil drilling platforms, drilling tubes, navigation improvements, and metal alloys, the drilling depths reached 5,000 by 1986 with Shell Oil Company’s Mensa field. The deep sea drilling activities fluctuated in the 1990’s as the price of oil declined with along with a drop in the growth in demand, making it less profitable to drill in deep water. The US deep sea oil production dropped to 5% of total US output, declining from the 20% level in the 1980’s. (BP)
World Oil Online
In March 2013 the India’s natural gas driller reached a world record depth around 7,000 drilling for natural gas. The search for energy resources by India is critical as oil and gas imports are expected to increase to 91% of their total need (ONRG). According to Forbes magazine, the world’s 25 biggest oil companies, such as Saudi Aramco and Gazprom, are largely land-based drillers but have made advancements and investments to pursue offshore drilling. Saudi Aramco has made recent plans for their first offshore drilling in the Red Sea while Gazprom has joined a major venture with Shell in order to keep up with the competitions. Saudi Aramco is pursuing off-shore drilling for natural gas to be used in domestic power-generation, which reduces domestic oil consumption and diverts it to export markets. These recent shifts in focus to offshore drilling are driven by the deep-sea drilling technology becoming more cost effective and stable. (Forbes)
Policies of the Seas:
The evolution of human beings and civilizations over thousands of years has involved the search for resources to use in order to first survive and then build wealth.
The oceans and seas of the world have been used for travel and supply resources for use by many of the world’s citizens. As the population grows and technology advances, individual countries seek the resources necessary to maintain strong economies and employment for their citizens. The exploitation of the resources residing in or beneath the ocean has increased as well. As the easily accessible resources are found and depleted, the more challenging sources of resources are sought and withdrawn using new technologies. Boundaries of ownership for land, especially between countries, is relatively easy to define by the use of maps and visual points of reference. The ownership of the ocean is much more complicated because it has been historically limited to a few miles off the coast. As the advances in technology have made it easier to identify and tap resources farther off the coast, countries have sought to expand their jurisdiction farther and farther off their coasts. Even without the ability to tap the oceans deep resources, countries have sought to expand their control over the ocean in the event resources and methods to tap them are discovered in the …show more content…
future.
Land resources were at first open and accessible to all people but gradually became defined boundaries through the development of cultures, civilizations and military conflicts. The water surface of the earth was not an area that could be controlled or monitored very easily through the 1300’s and most countries had no resources to even try. The relatively low number of people and large area of land and water did not generate the need to possess or control access to those resources. As the population grew larger and humans wanted to be less nomadic, the idea of staying on one place and controlling the land resource was developed. The people and communities living near or on the oceans and seas developed the tools to capture the resources, primarily by fishing. As technology advanced in terms of transportation and navigation, the farther into and across the world’s oceans people traveled. In the late 1400’s Spain and Portugal were the world’s most powerful navies, having travelled far in search of resources in other lands they could conquer and control. They split the ownership of the Atlantic Ocean down the middle from east to west with the help of the Pope, the world’s first large-scale attempt by governments to control the oceans.
Many countries at that time were not interested in controlling or ruling the oceans because they lacked the tools to harvest resources from the ocean or benefit from using it for travel. As some disputes about the use of oceans and seas occurred in the 1600’s, it was clear there was no government or international body to enforce rules or ownership for the benefit of all nations. The Dutchman Hugo de Grotius published a treatise promoting the concept of “freedom of the seas” as the principle for countries to abide by for matters concerning the oceans and seas. (Orbach p2) He proposed that the world’s oceans and seas were not to be controlled by anyone and could be accessed by all. At that time the world had used the ocean for fishing and travel resources, which at that time seemed to be in unlimited supply for both. As the technology of sea travel increased with stronger boats and navigation tools, individuals and countries ventured farther away from the shores of land, in search of new places and more food. Because the oceans were viewed to have an unlimited supply of food, there was no sense of urgency or need by governments to stake out a territory in the water. (Orbach p
In the late 1700’s the United States became the first country to claim “territorial waters” in the ocean, a 3 mile band of water that was subject to the same governmental control as that on land. The other coastal countries in the world soon followed and instituted the same territorial waters claim of 3 miles, referred to as a country’s “territorial sea”. (Orbach p4) While a country claimed the territorial sea off it’s coast, most countries including the United States kept that part of the ocean open for use by all of its citizens. The growth of the oil industry in the United States and the development of technology to drill for oil in the ocean caused President Truman in 1945 to issue a Presidential Proclamation that expanded the control of the continental shelf surrounding the US coasts. This was not sovereign control in terms of considering it an extension of the United States. This proclamation defined the right of the United States to exert control over the natural resources contained in that area. In the late 1940’s other countries such as Argentina and Ecuador expended their territorial waters to 200 miles in order to protect the fishing stocks off their coast. The problem of pollution from ship traffic and overfishing by several countries caused concern with the United Nations that conflicts would rise and create military actions. (UN p1) Island nations such as the Philippines, with a significant amount of ocean between the islands, declared the ocean area between the islands as part of their territorial waters. In 1976 the US Government expanded control over fishing resources to 200 miles and in 1983 President Reagan expanded the region of all economic control over the ocean to 200 miles from the coast. In all cases, once the United States established a boundary of control, the other world nations with ocean access followed the same policy. (Orbach p3) It was clear to the United Nations representatives that the increased capture of ocean territory by nations was increasing the potential for a significant conflict among nations.
The increasing volume of ocean-going transportation and resource exploration caused the United Nations to implement formal governance regarding the use of the world’s oceans. As the United Nations began to consider establishing laws and arbitration for the world’s use of the ocean, there was a rapid rise in ocean mining for several valuable items such as diamonds in South Africa, tin in Thailand, and mineral modules found in many areas of the world. The technology advancements and competition for the ocean’s resources, particularly among the world’s super-powers, was rapidly escalating in the 1960’s. In 1967 the United Nations began the process of establishing the international law and principles necessary to address the use of the world’s oceans and seas. The United Nations Division for Ocean Affairs and The Law of the Sea states on states “The hope was for a more stable order, promoting greater use and better management of ocean resources and generating harmony and goodwill among States that would no longer have to eye each other suspiciously over conflicting claims.” (UN p2)
In 1967 the world was beginning to take notice that the ocean was not an endless resource or dumping ground for pollutants. UN Ambassador Arvid Prado address the UN in 1967 and promoted the need for the world’s leaders to develop a new policy for managing the oceanic resources because the previous principle of “freedom-of-the-sea” was no longer able to address the issues raised by the technology advancements. He also promoted the idea that the ocean’s resources should benefit those citizens and countries who need the most assistance, and not just the countries that have the technology ability. The process in developing the various treaties and laws was lengthy because it involved negotiation and compromise from many countries. The initial principles and treaties address the seabed and recognition the minerals it contained did not belong to any one country but equally to all. After 15 years of negotiations, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was produced as a constitution guiding the nations in their use of the world’s oceans and relationships with each other. The areas the convention addressed are:
Setting Limits
Navigation
Exclusive Economic Zone
Continental Shelf
Deep Seabed Mining
The Exploitation Regime
Technological Prospects
The Question of Universal Participation in the Convention
Pioneer Investors
Protection of the Marine Environment
Marine Scientific Research
Settlement of Disputes
With the principles and arbitration process defined in the convention, the tools to manage the conflicts and questions surrounding the use of the oceans were in place with the goal of equal access and benefit for all of the world’s citizens.
The UN website describes this convention by stating “In short, the Convention is an unprecedented attempt by the international community to regulate all aspects of the resources of the sea and uses of the ocean, and thus bring a stable order to mankind 's very source of life.” (UN p2) Despite this lofty goal, when the control of a resource and economic benefit to a country is at stake, the nicely worded idealism gives way to the interpretation of law and ways to bend it to one’s favor. To recognize the desire by coastal countries to have some control over the waters touching their coast, the Law of the Sea defined the various degrees of control a country would have extending from its coast. The first band is the territorial limit, extended to 12 miles from the coast. For the island nations, that boundary extends from the outer islands and makes the open water between the islands part of the territorial waters. The concept of the “right of innocent passage” recognizes that there are geographic areas where a ship may pass through the territorial waters of another country because it is the shortest route between two destinations. Laws governing these passageways recognized the need for reasonableness in travel and making over 100 straits
available for general navigation without restriction. The next band of water off a the coast a country would have control over is out 24 miles, to be used for protection and containing illegal activity. The most innovative aspect of the convention was to create an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). This zone extended out 200 miles from the coast and gave the coastal country the right to control access to the resources contained in the ocean, on the seabed, and under the seabed. The primary driver for the 200 mile EEZ was to obtain control over the fishing resources, the majority of which are near the coastal waters. This had been a major source of conflict between countries over the years because of the over-fishing by countries with large fishing fleets traveling for months at a time in floating fish processing plants. The technological advancements in fishing caused huge catches of fish that created devastating environmental imbalances. By creating the 200 mile EEZ, the coastal country now had a fishing resource it could manage without outside interference. (UN p4) Some countries may be able to claim an EEZ up to 350 miles based on a formula developed by the convention. After establishing limits on territorial and economic claims by countries on their coastal waters, the UN Convention addresses the resources, primarily minerals that exist beyond the EEZ’s. The United Nations members agreed that the resources belonged to all mankind, but disputes arose on how to obtain those resources and how to allocate the benefit to all countries. The developed countries wanted an international authority to award licenses to mining companies. The developing countries argued that since the minerals were owned by the public, a public company should mine the resources under the guidance of an international authority. A compromise was reached called a “parallel system” that allowed public, private and collective mining. (UN p5). The technology currently available to mine minerals off the sea floor are expensive and risky. The low volume of production does not make it a target for conflict. As the technology used to mine the seafloor makes it less risky and less costly, the likelihood that more countries will challenge the existing arrangement is likely.
The Debates and Gray Areas of the United Nations policies
The United Nations has attempted to address the issues of rights and responsibilities as it relates to the use of the world’s ocean resources. The UN Convention on Laws of the Sea (UNCLOS) has been modified over the years as countries negotiate to strengthen its principles and compliance. The Law of the Sea, or LOST as it is now known, provides for arbitration and resolution in the case of disputes, giving the member countries several options to deal with the disputes on their own or use the services and expertise of the UN’s International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. The United States Senate has never voted to ratify the acceptance of the UNCLOS or its later versions. The principles, conventions and details of the LOST provisions, such as mineral rights, geographical areas covered, innocent passage and the like are clearly spelled out and approved by the majority of the world’s countries. As with any law or regulation, there may be some areas that are subject to interpretation and testing in a court of law when an exception occurs or a new event arises that was not considered at the time the law was established. With technology in particular, the laws and regulations developed even twenty years ago may not be adequate to address the current technology and its uses.
Because the exploration and exploitation of the world’s ocean resources can be fairly easily monitored with today’s technology, the risks of conflict related to the ownership or harvesting of those resources is subject to public opinion around the world, not just between the two parties that may be in conflict. For example, the attempt by one country to obtain oil or minerals from the seabed outside of an EEZ and outside the UN charter would be easily observed. It is impossible to move and station the large equipment needed for deep-sea oil drilling without it being noticed by someone interested in tracking such activities, such as competing governments or concerned environmentalists. The drilling activity and the country involved would then be measured against that country’s involvement with the UN, any agreements it made with the UN and neighboring countries, and the drilling activity monitored for environmental impact. If an UN member country disputed the legality of the oil drilling as being non-compliant with LOST and the many principles and rules established for off-shore oil drilling, that country would be scrutinized by the UN member countries for adherence to moral, ethical and legal principles. The challenge lies in how strict or loosely a country agrees with the UN Charter. In the case of the United States, the Senate has not chosen to address and accept the UN Convention on Laws of the Sea. The political reason given by some lawmakers is that the UNCLOS does not guarantee a fully democratic process and violates American sovereignty by allowing another government agency to render a decision affecting the US.
The biggest risk of conflict comes from China. Although it is a member of the United Nations, China has a history of ignoring some key principles of the United Nations charter by supporting tyrant countries such as North Korea. Similar to the United States position on several world issues, China has often broke with the international community when it is beneficial. In recent actions against Japan, China has claimed airspace as part of its territory even though that airspace is over Japanese controller islands. (Yahoo News). As China finds it necessary to fuel its economic growth with large intakes of foreign oil, it also seeks to expand it’s regional influence by challenging smaller nations. In February of 2012 Chinese Naval ship attempted to ram oil company supply ships supporting drilling operations in an area claimed by the Philippines. The Philippine Navy sent aircraft and ships to the area, but the Chinese left before a confrontation occurred. The drilling company left the area and returned months later. The Philippine government filed a formal protest against the Chinese government, which failed to response. China has repeatedly challenged the territorial claims of other countries in the region for economic and political reasons. In the case of the Philippine oil drilling, China is seen as pushing its oil exploration farther into deep waters as its own resources get depleted and its domestic demand increases. The US has pledged its support for countries harassed by China but that support has the potential for escalating conflict in the area as the vast oil reserves are sought by China as well as other countries in the region. The Reuters article quotes Stephanie Kleine-Ahlbrandt, Northeast Asia Director for the International Crisis Group as stating "As Southeast Asian nations run to the U.S. for assistance, Beijing increasingly fears that America aims to encircle China militarily and diplomatically. Underlying all of these concerns is the potential that discoveries of oil and natural gas beneath the disputed sections of the South China Sea could fuel conflict." The Reuters article states China has warned oil companies to avoid drilling in the South China Sea in areas it has disputed sovereignty issues with other nations in the area. While China has supported some of the UN initiatives to establish an organized and orderly management of the ocean’s resources, such as being a pioneer investor in the International Seabed Authority, it continues to take aggressive and internationally illegal actions against companies and countries in sovereign and international waters.
As shown in the map below from a CNN article on conflicts in South East Asia, numerous countries have coast lines bordering the South China Sea. The oil reserves are estimate at 4.8billion barrels, greater than the reserves in the Gulf of Mexico. (CNN) The area also contains large amounts of natural gas as well as fishing and mineral resources. China has claimed the entire South China Sea as it’s territory, in obvious defiance and violation of UN resolutions and the Law of the Sea Treaty. It clearly is using its power to intimidate neighboring countries.
Theories and Solutions As the world’s super-powers strive to maintain their economic and military dominance there will be a greater risk of conflict as the technology advances in deep sea oil drilling allows nations to expand their operations in the open oceans. A country drilling for oil just outside the EEZ boundary of another country is more likely to occur as the technology improves, creating a conflict by the home country seeking to expand their influence and jurisdiction over waters off their coast. The conflicts most likely to arise a in areas where overlaps in territorial jurisdiction occur, such as in the South China Sea. The resolution of the disputes over the territory depend upon the willingness to cooperate among the countries. China has not shown a willingness to cooperate and creates conflict with its aggressive military stance and refusal to follow the UN Conventions and rules. The lack of cooperation by the United States in following the UN rules, except when it is in the best interests of the US, reduces the effectiveness of the UN charter to create universal codes of conduct by member nations. Since there are limited enforcement options available to the UN in resolving territorial disputes for oil drilling, the status quo will remain in place to prevent and resolve conflicts. That status quo involves the UN pushing for adherence to the Laws of the Sea and the dispute resolution process to its fullest with the persuasion of moral responsibility. The super-powers of the world will support the UN position as long as it does not adversely affect their own operations and goals. Countries in conflict will posture against each other with sanctions and the threat of military force, testing the boundaries of patience but rarely engaging in direct military conflict. The conflicts will remain fairly peaceful because the distance between the superpowers, China and the US and Russia, is significantly large enough to insulate them from the threat. But as they become in closer contact by seeking to mine the ocean’s resources, the likelihood of a conflict depends upon the lack of patience or reasonableness by the countries involved. This will significant resources to be used by a country to maintain their military strength. Until energy is relatively cheap for all countries to obtain, there will be the ongoing tension created from expanding the territorial rights over the ocean’s resources.
Conclusion
History has not changed as the countries with the greatest military forces control the greatest amount of resources. The United Nations and threat of military force have been the primary tools to head off confrontation. In the short term there appears to be enough accessible oil reserves to keep the status quo, meaning energy from oil is available in enough supply at an affordable price for most countries. The cost of oil and recognition it is not inexhaustible drives the research and technology to find alternative energy sources. A byproduct of oil exploration and drilling, natural gas, as seen its demand grow as a cheaper and more plentiful alternative to oil. Significant conflicts are not expected in the short term. However, fifty years from now the risk for conflict due to oil drilling in the ocean will very much depend upon technology advancements in alternative energy sources, no oil production. If the oil production is declining as predicted and alternative energy sources are not found with comparable costs, the fight for the remaining oil will escalate among the stronger countries in the world. The decision to engage in conflict will be financial, weighing the cost of the conflict against the cost of high energy costs and the negative impact is has on society. As with any scarce resource in the world, the powerful control the oil and the desire to manage it for the common good is overpowered by financial objectives.
Bibliography
United Nations. Oceans and Laws of the Sea. Division for Oceans and Laws of the Sea. November 22,2013. http://www.un.org/depts/los/index.htm
National Academy of Sciences. “Beyond the Freedom of the Seas:
Ocean Policy for the Third Millennium
Presentation for the Fourth Annual Roger Revelle Lecture,
, November 2002
Michael Orbach
Oceanography • Vot. I6 • No. 1. '2003
Duke University Marine Lab • Beaufort, North Carolina USA http://www.tos.org/oceanography/archive/16-1_orbach.pdf Centers for Ocean Law and Policy. University of Virginia. http://www.virginia.edu/colp/ Odom, Jonathan. CHINA IN THE BULL SHOP?*
COMPARING THE RHETORIC OF A RISING CHINA
WITH THE REALITY OF THE INTERNATIONAL
LAW OF THE SEA. University of Maine, School of Law. Ocean http://mainelaw.maine.edu/academics/oclj/pdf/vol17_2/vol17_201.pdf PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES
IN OCEAN CONFLICTS: DOES UNCLOS
III POINT THE WAY?
Louis B. SOHN http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3718&context=lcp Yahoo News. “Japan warns of 'unpredictable events ' over China 's new air zone” http://news.yahoo.com/japan-politician-urges-china-prevent-touch-situation-084830606.html Insight: Conflict looms in South China Sea oil rush
By Randy Fabi and Manuel Mogato
PUERTO PRINCESA, Philippines Tue Feb 28, 2012 8:59am EST http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/28/us-china-spratlys-philippines-idUSTRE81R03420120228 Tensions heat up over oil, gas in South China Sea
By Steve Hargreaves @CNNMoney April 26, 2012: 6:01 PM ET http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/24/news/economy/south-china-sea/index.htm A Brief History of US Offshore Oil Drilling
September 2, 2013 by Officer of the Watch http://officerofthewatch.com/2013/09/02/a-brief-history-of-us-offshore-oil-drilling/ Saudis launch major gas drilling in Red Sea
Nov. 21, 2013 at 1:23 PM http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2013/11/21 BP Deep Horizon Oil Spill Commission. “National Commission on the BP Deep Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling.” Draft. http://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/classes/188/materials/bp.pdf World Oil Online. “Oil Supply and Demand by Quarter”. April 2013. http://www.worldoil.com/Oil_supply_demand_by_quarter_Graph_April_2013.html Ocean National Research Governance (ONRG). “Deep Sea Drilling: ONGC drilling breaks world record | Oil and Gas Technology.” March 12, 2013 http://oceansnrg.com/2013/03/12/deep-sea-drilling-ongc-drilling-breaks-world-record-oil-and-gas-technology/ Forbes.”The World’sBiggest Oil Companies”. November 2013.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/11/17/the-worlds-biggest-oil-companies-2013/