COMPARE
Offshore operations are capital-intensive, requiring significant financing and insurance. Oil and natural gas companies do not want to undertake these massive expenditures if their lease sites may be subject to territorial dispute. They operate transnationally, and need to know that the title to the petroleum resources will be respected worldwide and not just in the United States.
Keywords:
Related Quotes:
- Oil, gas, and mining interests have made it clear that they won't operate without legal protection from UNCLOS
- Oil and gas companies not willing to undertake extensive capital investments required to develop offshore without legal stability provided by UNCLOS
- Oil and gas industry unwilling to rely solely on rights outlined in 1958 convention
- U.S. failure to ratify UNCLOS will leave U.S. commercial mining and energy interests without legal protection
- ... and 11 more quote(s)
VERSUS
U.S. does not need to ratify UNCLOS to develop hydrocarbon resources beneath the ECS -- development is actively underway already and further development can occur thrigh bilateral agreements with neightboring countries.
Related Quotes:
- Empirically, US companies have leased and developed oil development claims on ECS since 2001 without needing UNCLOS framework
- Legal certainty provided by UNCLOS is not a necessary condition for development of oil and gas resources with US EEZ
- US actively surveying extended continental shelf and can negotiate bilateral agreements with nations regarding boundaries outside UNCLOS framework
- US within its rights according to international law to develop on extended continental shelf
- U.S. resource extraction industries realize they have more to lose being outside of the treaty and have lined up in favor of it
Parent Arguments:
Counter Argument: