PDA

View Full Version : Trent Lott Reverses Himself on LOST for a Price



boatbuddha
05-08-2012, 09:49 AM
A lot of (mainly conservative) people who don't understand maritime law oppose the Law of the Sea Treaty. Trent Lott used to claim it would create a UN on steroids. Now he's been hired to lobby for it, and after careful consideration he's decided he was wrong. Now don't get me wrong, I support the ratification of LOST but I think it's rather telling of our system that someone who once so opposed it will now lobby in favor of ratification for an $80,000.00 check.

Ian McColgin
05-08-2012, 10:49 AM
Like Gingrich lobbying for Freddie.

It is possible that Lott, now free of reelection pandering, at last read the measure and figured out that it really is a good idea. It's an incredible disgrace that for all these years when we have a congress that might ratify we have a president against and when we have a president in favor we have obstruction in congress. We'll see if Lott is even marginally effective in his new role.

boatbuddha
05-08-2012, 10:56 AM
Ian you may be right. Perhaps hanging out with all these political types has made me overly cynical.

Donn
05-08-2012, 11:02 AM
........

boatbuddha
05-08-2012, 11:13 AM
Ack. You are correct sir!

David W Pratt
05-08-2012, 11:32 AM
Have to admit to a vast ignorance of LOST.

Concordia 33
05-08-2012, 11:32 AM
A lot of (mainly conservative) people who don't understand maritime law oppose the Law of the Sea Treaty. Trent Lott used to claim it would create a UN on steroids. Now he's been hired to lobby for it, and after careful consideration he's decided he was wrong. Now don't get me wrong, I support the ratification of LOST but I think it's rather telling of our system that someone who once so opposed it will now lobby in favor of ratification for an $80,000.00 check.

I am a fiscal conservative and I am definitely leery of the LOST Treaty.



U.S. law decrees that the mineral resources on and below the surface of the continental shelf are held by the federal government for the benefit of the American people. The U.S. Department of the Treasury and some U.S. states benefit from royalties paid by energy companies for the oil and natural gas that they extract from the continental shelf off the coast of Alaska and in the Gulf of Mexico.
Membership in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) would alter U.S. law and current practice for the worse. If the United States joined the convention, it would be required to transfer a portion of the royalty revenue generated on the U.S. extended continental shelf (the shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from shore) to the International Seabed Authority in Kingston, Jamaica. The Authority is empowered to distribute those funds—considered “international royalties”—to developing and landlocked nations, including some that are corrupt, undemocratic, or even state sponsors of terrorism.
Given the potentially massive mineral wealth on the U.S. extended continental shelf, U.S. accession to UNCLOS would likely have significant financial implications. Congress, particularly the Senate, needs to fully consider the potential wealth transfer that would result from joining UNCLOS. To this end, the U.S. Task Force on the Extended Continental Shelf needs to complete its work so that the Senate and the rest of the U.S. government will have a better estimate of the royalty revenue at stake.


Just curious ...why shouldn't I be opposed to it? I think giving a portion of the royalty revenue to a fund over which the US has no control would not be my first choice. Why do you think it IS a good idea? I am not trying to pick a fight here, I just don't understand and am interested in why you think this is good?

Tall Boy
05-08-2012, 11:56 AM
I think giving a portion of the royalty revenue to a fund over which the US has no control would not be my first choice

Well that's not quite acurite, once we throw billions of the taxpayers money into the pot, we get one vote out of 160 where it goes from there....

Concordia 33
05-08-2012, 12:05 PM
Well that's not quite acurite, once we throw billions of the taxpayers money into the pot, we get one vote out of 160 where it goes from there....

Yes thanks for correcting me. So can anyone explain to me how this is good. I only see the downside.

boatbuddha
05-08-2012, 12:20 PM
I am a fiscal conservative and I am definitely leery of the LOST Treaty.

Just curious ...why shouldn't I be opposed to it? I think giving a portion of the royalty revenue to a fund over which the US has no control would not be my first choice. Why do you think it IS a good idea? I am not trying to pick a fight here, I just don't understand and am interested in why you think this is good?


Well for one the LOST establishes stable maritime zones, a maximum outer limit for territorial seas; protects innocent passage, transit passage, and archipelagic sea lanes passage rights; it prevents coastal nations from expanding their own maritime zones; and reaffirms sovereign immunity of warships, auxiliaries and government aircraft.

It would also establish that we have rights to the continental shelf beyond the 200 mile EEO. Yes if you drill (or mine) outside the EEO you pay a tariff but it's capped at just 7%. I think 7% is a small price to pay for the kind of certainty the LOST provides. There's a reason the API is fully behind LOST.

Tall Boy
05-08-2012, 12:20 PM
Yes thanks for correcting me. So can anyone explain to me how this is good. I only see the downside.

It's not good unless you're a globalist fairmonger........

boatbuddha
05-08-2012, 12:21 PM
Well that's not quite acurite, once we throw billions of the taxpayers money into the pot, we get one vote out of 160 where it goes from there....


The royalties are paid by the drillers not the taxpayers.

Tall Boy
05-08-2012, 12:22 PM
Well for one the LOST establishes stable maritime zones, a maximum outer limit for territorial seas; protects innocent passage, transit passage, and archipelagic sea lanes passage rights; it prevents coastal nations from expanding their own maritime zones; and reaffirms sovereign immunity of warships, auxiliaries and government aircraft.

It would also establish that we have rights to the continental shelf beyond the 200 mile EEO. Yes if you drill (or mine) outside the EEO you pay a tariff but it's capped at just 7%. I think 7% is a small price to pay for the kind of certainty the LOST provides. There's a reason the API is fully behind LOST.

We have the US Navy, we have already estabished everything we need. LOST is a giveaway............

boatbuddha
05-08-2012, 12:25 PM
We have the US Navy, we have already estabished everything we need. LOST is a giveaway............


I don't know if you've noticed but the navy is shrinking and is likely to shrink more. In fact one may argue that the rise in piracy is directly related to the decline of the US navy. But hey I get your point why have laws if you have force. I mean who needs the cops if you're the biggest and baddest boy on the block. And you'll always be the biggest and baddest, right?

BTW: The USN has for years been the biggest proponent of the LOST.

Tall Boy
05-08-2012, 12:45 PM
But hey I get your point why have laws if you have force. .

My point? We have laws and, we have a Navy to enforce those laws, That's my point. What's yours?

S.V. Airlie
05-08-2012, 12:50 PM
we are all counting on a navy. Let's check to see what we have after cuts in the Defense budget.The Monroe Doctrine was fine even if he had no teeth so to speak in 1817.

Concordia 33
05-08-2012, 12:53 PM
The royalties are paid by the drillers not the taxpayers.

And the money is deducted from their operating expenses lowing the tax owed, or increasing the cost for the minerals to consumers - either way it comes out of your pocket.

Concordia 33
05-08-2012, 12:55 PM
Well for one the LOST establishes stable maritime zones, a maximum outer limit for territorial seas; protects innocent passage, transit passage, and archipelagic sea lanes passage rights; it prevents coastal nations from expanding their own maritime zones; and reaffirms sovereign immunity of warships, auxiliaries and government aircraft.

It would also establish that we have rights to the continental shelf beyond the 200 mile EEO. Yes if you drill (or mine) outside the EEO you pay a tariff but it's capped at just 7%. I think 7% is a small price to pay for the kind of certainty the LOST provides. There's a reason the API is fully behind LOST.

That sounds good, but why do we have to contribute 7% and yer only get a 1/160 say in how it is spent. Can't this clause be excluded from LOST?

Tall Boy
05-08-2012, 12:59 PM
Let's check to see what we have after cuts in the Defense budget..

I have an idea, let's whack the "Offense" budget first...

S.V. Airlie
05-08-2012, 01:05 PM
Under Obama, it will be and some here will be looking for dinghies to chase Somali pirates.ah sarcasm! gotta love it.

boatbuddha
05-08-2012, 03:38 PM
That sounds good, but why do we have to contribute 7% and yer only get a 1/160 say in how it is spent. Can't this clause be excluded from LOST?


Once again the drillers would contribute this not the taxpayers. And it's not 7% of the total budget but 7% of the particular rigs output value. In theory Brazil my contribute more than the US.