U.S. Accuses China of Blocking South Sea Oil&Gas

[ronwagn + 6,290]

https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2019/08/23/u-s-accuses-china-blocking-access-trillions-south-china-sea-oil-gas/

 

U.S. Accuses China of Blocking Access to Trillions in South China Sea Oil and Gas

76

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

This whole 'Nine Line Map', 'we own the entire South China Sea issue is childish in the extreme - and China knows this. How can China claim sovereignty over waters which are not even adjacent to China? It is ridiculous.

It is not only a Vietnamese issue, but concerns every other nation with shores on the South China Sea. These nations are cowed due to economic dependence and military threat. 

This is the true face of the Belt & Road Initiative. 

[JR EWING + 123]

Hilarious. Something very similar going on in the west, just a different aggressor. 

Thats what happens when you use the rule book when it suits and to toilet flush the rules when it doesnt suit. 

Where will it all end?

Belt and Road. So the Chinese are buying countries in Africa using the time honoured tradition of paying for it. Small wonder these countries go for it considering the previous options were simply plunder and pillage by the likes of UK and France. Later of course the US.

Keep up the good work China. 

 

 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

This is kind of a weird discussion... the more interesting one I think would be : what is the likelyhood that these reserves would be developed if China weren't blocking them? 

[JR EWING + 123]

5 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

This is kind of a weird discussion... the more interesting one I think would be : what is the likelyhood that these reserves would be developed if China weren't blocking them? 

Absolutely. And if HC,s are on the way out why would they bother. Is there something we all dont know about EV,s etc

[NickW + 2,714]

12 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

This whole 'Nine Line Map', 'we own the entire South China Sea issue is childish in the extreme - and China knows this. How can China claim sovereignty over waters which are not even adjacent to China? It is ridiculous.

It is not only a Vietnamese issue, but concerns every other nation with shores on the South China Sea. These nations are cowed due to economic dependence and military threat. 

This is the true face of the Belt & Road Initiative. 

China is a signatory to this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea

Which clearly defines how to demarcate marine economic exclusivity zones

And then blatantly ignores it. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

1 hour ago, NickW said:

China is a signatory to this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea

Which clearly defines how to demarcate marine economic exclusivity zones

And then blatantly ignores it. 

And Now you know why the tariffs are going the way they are. 

China agreed to (meaninglessly) sign a document to avoid tariffs, then cried foul when Trump added monitoring mechanisms. They were Always planning to blatantly ignore the rules they were agreeing to. It's worked so far, under multiple presidents. 

[NickW + 2,714]

4 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

And Now you know why the tariffs are going the way they are. 

China agreed to (meaninglessly) sign a document to avoid tariffs, then cried foul when Trump added monitoring mechanisms. They were Always planning to blatantly ignore the rules they were agreeing to. It's worked so far, under multiple presidents. 

Yep

Turkey is doing exactly the same thing in the Agean with Cyprus and Greece. 

 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, NickW said:

China is a signatory to this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea

Which clearly defines how to demarcate marine economic exclusivity zones

And then blatantly ignores it. 

There's a surprise

[ronwagn + 6,290]

7 hours ago, JR EWING said:

Absolutely. And if HC,s are on the way out why would they bother. Is there something we all dont know about EV,s etc

Just that they will not replace ICE engines. 

[David Jones + 84]

19 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Just that they will not replace ICE engines. 

Maybe not in your lifetime but anyone under 30 will live to see the end of the ICE across the general market for transportation. EVs are broadly better even now in many cases, the predominant issues being infrastructure and cost as well as a lot of feet dragging from legacy car makers but this will not always be the case and is already changing.

It's also interesting to consider the fact that the EU and China markets represent 1/2 of all car sales and I don't see any reason to expect them not to move towards EVs over the next two decades. For China it's strategic, for the EU it's also a case of getting out of the unfortunate situation of sitting between the US and Russia both now fossil fuel producers/exporters and both looking to hook that region on their product through distasteful means. I don't think the EU likes this position and even the UK will be going more and more in the direction of EVs regardless of US partnerships because while the top might be filled with some fossil fuel heads a large swathe of the population is not of this mentality. I wonder what 30 million EVs sold annually will do to the associated technology. Do we think it won't help solve or at the very least substantially improve many of the remaining issues such as price and energy density? That would be wishful thinking in my opinion.

Edited August 27, 2019 by David Jones

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

EV's are the Chinese equivalent of a Potemkin Village. 

The Chinese generate much of their electricity from thousands and thousands of tiny "teapot" utility plants. Using that high-sulphur sourced electricity, they sanctimoniously charge their EV batteries and claim an environmental victory. What a joke.  

To be honest, Europe is only marginally better. For twenty years they basically mandated diesel automobiles and trucks that supposedly emitted a low level of greenhouse gases but in reality were much, much worse--VW was just lying about it. The human toll of that was immense. Now they're suddenly the climate police of the world? What a joke.

Simple fact: If China or Europe had access to light, sweet crude oil and high-grade natural gas, they'd be singing a different tune altogether. i don't doubt that EV's will eventually win this battle; however, China and Europe--and yes count Norway in that mix, as they used nothing but high-emitting diesel autos for decades--have caused their fair share of the climate change. 

And for Pete's sake, don't forget the cows! There's pretty good science that shows cows emitting 37% of the methane gas in the US, by chewing their cuds and regurgitating from their multiple stomachs. Yet most of those zealots eat steak. And please, don't underestimate the population bias. We Homo sapiens are notorious for emitting methane and sulphur on a daily basis. Since there are 1.5 billion Chinese and only 330 million Americans, why don't we extend the Trump Tariffs to blowhole gases? Heck, that's a 4:1 population bias; we've been letting those people get by with polar bear murder! And all those Europeans? Red wine is very high in sulphur--just read the warning label--so wouldn't it be fair to place a tax on their blowholes? Everyone could wear an emissions collector for a day, pay up accordingly. 

There's climate change in the works, no doubts about it. Read "Annals of the Former World" by John McPhee. In it the geologists all agree that we've had at least 50 of these epochs during the hundreds of million years the planet has been around. Don't spread the word but they didn't have utility companies or diesel trucks during those others. Back then they had only the dinosaurs to blame, and yes, dinosaurs were regurgitant animals, too, so maybe there wasn't a meteor strike, perhaps there was merely too much methane gas emitted through dinosaur blowholes. I'm getting worked up; I'm pretty sure I'm on to something here.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

Everyone could wear an emissions collector for a day, pay up accordingly. 

 

1 hour ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

I'm getting worked up; I'm pretty sure I'm on to something here.

Gold

[JUAN 0]

On ‎8‎/‎25‎/‎2019 at 11:31 PM, ronwagn said:

https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2019/08/23/u-s-accuses-china-blocking-access-trillions-south-china-sea-oil-gas/

 

U.S. Accuses China of Blocking Access to Trillions in South China Sea Oil and Gas

76

 

[JUAN 0]

I have to make this comment because is imposible to read so many ridiculous posts without doing it. First, china is a country with more than 25 times older than the existence of EEUU, you guys want to say that these territories don´t belong to them, extremely hilarious, then, before saying "ideas" like that, give yourselves a time and read the history of this country or maybe, more close, read the book of A. Greenspan, "The Man Behind the Money", this will give you the first lights and then you can go forward.

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

Juan: I've read the book, "Greenspan, The Man Behind Money," if that's the one you're referring to. I'm trying, but I'm not sure I get your point. As you no doubt know, Alan Greenspan was a close friend of Ayn Rand. I've never known whether she was influenced by him, or vice versa--perhaps they fed off each other's ideas. Anyway, if we're referring to John Galt, Ms. Rand's great hero in "Atlas Shrugged," then greed is good and any social act is silly. Are you implying that it's okay for China to build the so-called Spratly Islands atop the reefs and horsts that were thrown up there? Well, that's debatable. The Fiery Cross Island--a newbie by anyone's standards--has gone from being just a reef to what appears to be a full-blown Chinese military establishment in just five years. Because the name, South China Sea, sounds like this might be China Territorial Waters, these islands that are popping up haven't gotten the attention they deserve. I'd have to go check it out again, but I recall that Fiery Cross is about 750-800 nautical miles from mainland China, but just 160-180 miles from Vietnam. Two other islands under renovation, Subi and Mischief, are about 500 miles from China. I don't believe that any American would think of this building project as anything but an effort at claiming bits of land in an effort to increase military surveillance and response in the area. I don't know where you're from, and I'm not trying to promulgate an agenda here, but if you're somehow suggesting that Alan Greenspan would endorse such a thing, or that he somehow obtained the idea from Ayn Rand, well then, you give me pause. True, China is an ancient land, and their culture is very different from European and American culture, but building the Spratly Islands out of reefs in the middle of open sea poses a clear and present danger to the rest of us. I am absolutely amazed that is hasn't led to military conflict.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 8/27/2019 at 2:52 PM, David Jones said:

Maybe not in your lifetime but anyone under 30 will live to see the end of the ICE across the general market for transportation. EVs are broadly better even now in many cases, the predominant issues being infrastructure and cost as well as a lot of feet dragging from legacy car makers but this will not always be the case and is already changing.

It's also interesting to consider the fact that the EU and China markets represent 1/2 of all car sales and I don't see any reason to expect them not to move towards EVs over the next two decades. For China it's strategic, for the EU it's also a case of getting out of the unfortunate situation of sitting between the US and Russia both now fossil fuel producers/exporters and both looking to hook that region on their product through distasteful means. I don't think the EU likes this position and even the UK will be going more and more in the direction of EVs regardless of US partnerships because while the top might be filled with some fossil fuel heads a large swathe of the population is not of this mentality. I wonder what 30 million EVs sold annually will do to the associated technology. Do we think it won't help solve or at the very least substantially improve many of the remaining issues such as price and energy density? That would be wishful thinking in my opinion.

The electricity used in the EVs will come primarily from natural gas or coal IMHO. I don't expect to see electricity running large vehicles unless they are hybrids running off of electricity produced onboard or by a connection to a electricity through the road or overhead. If new technology (other than nuclear) proves me wrong, I would be happy that it did even though I am a natural gas advocate. 

[NickW + 2,714]

15 hours ago, JUAN said:

I have to make this comment because is imposible to read so many ridiculous posts without doing it. First, china is a country with more than 25 times older than the existence of EEUU, you guys want to say that these territories don´t belong to them, extremely hilarious, then, before saying "ideas" like that, give yourselves a time and read the history of this country or maybe, more close, read the book of A. Greenspan, "The Man Behind the Money", this will give you the first lights and then you can go forward.

The age of China as a political / national identity is completely irrelevant.

Take a look at the attached map and you will see the demarcation of China's claim which in many cases is virtually at the low water mark of other countries coastlines. 

Secondly as a member of the Permanent Security Council they signed and agreed to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea

Their claim is at complete odds with the agreements they have signed and they are using their economic power to bully smaller nations.