Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Sign in to follow this  
Xoon

The even colder dispute for black gold and Chinese knock offs.

Recommended Posts

 

arctic-continental-shelf-claims.jpg

Because of climate change, new trade routes to Asia is opening up over the arctics. To top this off, it is estimated that 30% of the world oil reserves is there 13% around Svalbard. Russia and Norway are working on grabbing as much as the arctic as they can, while Canada and Denmark is currently having their new borders reviewed by the UN. Same applies to Russia, but they top it off with military presence. 

 

 

svalbard_3.gifSvalbard-283x300.jpg

Svalbard is a peculiar thing in the north however. Because of the Svalbard treaty, any signers can exploit its resources at the islands or sea and it is a demilitarized zone. Also, you can freely immigrate to Svalbard, without ID, passport or whatever, as long as you come from a participant country. Funny enough, Afghanistan is one of them.

 

What causes conflict is the overlapping claims in the Arctic between the Canadians, Danes and Russians, all claiming the North pole. On top of this, because of the Svalbard treaty and the larger amounts of oil there, Russia wants to get in. However, Norway claims that the Svalbard treaty does not include the resources below the sea, and has laid claimed to the Continental shelf around Svalbard. This has angered the Russians, accusing Norway of violating the treaty.  The dispute is if "exploiting the ocean" counts as exploiting the hydrocarbon deposits below it.

 

Map_borderline_at_sea_Norway_Russia.gif

If not, then the Barents sea treaty states that Norway owns it, because of a line drawn between Norway and Russia in 2010, which states that Norway own the continental shelf on it's side of the border, which includes Svalbard.  The only exception is deposits that cross the border, in which case close cooperation between the two parties must the done. 

 

This is a lot of money. They claim this could make Norway the next Saudi Arabia. Adding to this, china is currently in the process of buying land in Svalbard.

 

I wonder what the US will, say, if they support Russia, so that they can drill oil themselves or if they support Norway and is allocated drilling rights by the Norwegian government.

 

This is a huge deal of Norway, as we have the closets warm water ports to the arctic.  

 

 

Relevant documents:
http://www.jus.uio.no/english/services/library/treaties/01/1-11/svalbard-treaty.xml

https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/upload/ud/vedlegg/folkerett/avtale_engelsk.pdf

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

I can't take that videos seriously with those Soviet athems and almost all footage of russians were some military drills.

Yeah, try to look past the propaganda parts. I posted them since they gave neat graphics on claims, oil deposits and talked about trade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Xoon said:

Yeah, try to look past the propaganda parts. I posted them since they gave neat graphics on claims, oil deposits and talked about trade.

I understand the point, but war for some frozen island? Our gov. will have hard time to justify it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d assume that the US would support Norway in any dispute, due to the NATO connection and desire to contain Russia.

 

Norway’s economy already has a lot of oil money coming in, how are they doing at preventing Dutch Disease? I’ve heard they’re doing better than the middle eastern petrostates, but that’s not exactly a high bar to clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LostCosmonaut said:

I’d assume that the US would support Norway in any dispute, due to the NATO connection and desire to contain Russia.

 

Norway’s economy already has a lot of oil money coming in, how are they doing at preventing Dutch Disease? I’ve heard they’re doing better than the middle eastern petrostates, but that’s not exactly a high bar to clear.

Norway's current strategy is to invest the oil money in the Sovereign wealth fund, which then is used to diversely invest in the stock market, which the country can live on in the future. 

The New government, the Right-left-Progressive-christian coalition has a new strategy, investing in the industry and growing other sectors and making Norway more entrepreneur friendly.

 

But the Dutch disease is still very real. The oil crisis hit the Norwegian economy pretty hard. 50 000 people lost their jobs in the oil sector, and many more from the sectors living off the oil sector ( shipping, supply). This caused a lot of ships to be decommissioned. On the other hand, the fishing industry boomed, with some fishers making up to 600 USD a day. This also helped along the automation industry.

 

But Norway has no automotive industry, no aircraft industry, a agricultural sector that lives on subsidies, and in general very little industry outside exceptions ones like furniture, ammunition, missiles, and aluminum. 
The previous governmental decisions are completely to blame for it, like shooting down any attempts at a automotive industry. 

 

At least we are good at making millionaires, we are however, bad at keeping them around and taxing them. 

 

Oh and, the reason Norway began handing out licences in the Barents sea is because our current oil deposits are running out.

 

@LoooSeR
Not a war, maybe sanctions or sour relations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/23/2017 at 4:27 PM, Xoon said:

the Right-left-Progressive-christian coalition

That's something you don't see in Merica. 

 

What is the Norwegian opposition's platform regarding this looming oil crisis/dispute?  

 

 

Looking at the potential reserves in the Arctic on the Business Insider map, Russia looks like it is in a good position to take advantage of deposits in the western Barents Sea towards Franz Josef Land without needing to get too antagonistic towards Norway. 

screen%20shot%202014-06-03%20at%208.55.0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Priory_of_Sion said:

That's something you don't see in Merica. 

It should be noted that the right party is Liberal Conservative, the left party is Social Liberal, The Progressives are classic liberal and Christian party is, the Christian party, nobody cares, people just vote for them since they are THE Christian party.
So the coalition could be called a Liberal coalition.

 

The opposing group was the Labor-Center-Socialistic-environmentalist-communist Coalition. 
With the labor party being unionist, workers rights, socialist and for more wealthfare. Center party is basically social democratic agricultural party, previously called the farmers party. Socialists are socialist, not really much new there. The environmentalists are basically communist hippies detached from reality. They wanted to remove all diesel vehicles by 2040, want us to stop expanding hydropower, and instead invest in wind and solar, very rational for country with periods with only 4 hours of sunlight a day, and further north, zero for 3 months. The Reds, is basically a communist party (they identify as communist, though call themselves socialist is public), take everything related to communism and slap it together, and you have the Reds. 

Which makes this a socialist coalition. 

 

11 hours ago, Priory_of_Sion said:

 

What is the Norwegian opposition's platform regarding this looming oil crisis/dispute?  

 

 

Looking at the potential reserves in the Arctic on the Business Insider map, Russia looks like it is in a good position to take advantage of deposits in the western Barents Sea towards Franz Josef Land without needing to get too antagonistic towards Norway. 

screen%20shot%202014-06-03%20at%208.55.0

Norway is for the most part, just ignoring Russia's complaint and trying not to make a big fuzz out of it, so that the environmentalists don't catch wind of it.

 

Only thing I have seen through the Norwegian media and heard from oil industry is that Norway opened 3 new zones in the Barents sea for oil drilling. Simply going with the Barents sea treaty. The small line stretching out of Norway up to Svalbard is the product of that treaty.

 

The only opposition internally to drilling oil in the arctics is from environmentalists, who are afraid it will hurt the environment. And some that feel we should seek to grow other sectors instead. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By LostCosmonaut
      Something I haven't seen discussed on this site before; Soviet/Russian efforts to domesticate foxes by breeding for domesticated behavior. Article in Scientific American here; https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/mans-new-best-friend-a-forgotten-russian-experiment-in-fox-domestication/
       
      Interesting that there were physical changes correlated with the behavioral changes the Russians bred for.

       
      Buy one for only $7,000! https://domesticatedsilverfox.weebly.com/aquiring-a-tame-fox.html
       

      (not entirely unlike a dog I guess)
       
       
      It seems like a pretty cool idea to drunk me, though I don't have a spare 7,000 dollars laying around (thanks student loans!). Also, I don't think my cat would approve.
       
    • By LostCosmonaut
      M24 in Norwegian Service

      A Norwegian M24 preserved in Akershus
      http://preservedtanks.com/Albums/Blog/20080917/P1000439_M24_Akershus_c.jpg
       
      The Norwegian military received its first M24 Chaffee tanks in 1946, when a batch of nine tanks arrived (some sources say that 17 arrived total, of which 8 were used for training only). By the 1950s, a total of 123 (some sources say 124 or 125). These tanks were adequate for their role in the 1950s, but by the middle part of the Cold War, it was apparent that they were outdated. In particular, the 75mm main armament was wholly inadequate against newer Soviet tanks such as the T-54/55 or T-62. However, acquisition of new tanks to replace the M24s would have cost a great deal of money which the Norwegians did not have an excess of. As a result, it was decided to modify the Norwegian M24s to improve their combat capabilities.
       
       
       
      Development of NM-116
       
      Development of what became the NM116 began in the late 1960s. It was decided that the M24s would be upgraded completely; not only would new armaments be fitted, but a new powertrain, advanced fire control system, and other equipment would be added. Also, it was decided that the new tank would be used in the antitank role by the Norwegian Army.
       
      Trials of the first prototype of the upgraded M24 began in January 1973, and after several months of testing, it was accepted for production. Norwegian engineering firm Thune-Eureka was selected as the primary contractor. However, numerous other companies, such as Cadillac, also participated in the program. Around this time, the new tank received the designation NM-116 (also written NM116). It was commonly referred to as the NM-116 Panserjager, due to its use in the antitank role. The NM-116 was heavily modified, with a new main armament, fire control, engine, and other systems. The crew had also been reduced from five to four, with the elimination of the bow gunner position.
       

      An NM116, easily distinguished from an M24 by the different armament, turret, and laser rangefinder.
       

      Diagram showing the crew layout of the NM116
      Teknisk Håndbok Panserjager NM116 Pg. 3-3
       
       
      Seventy-two M24s were upgraded to the NM-116 standard in total. Eight of the remaining Norwegian Chaffee’s were modified become the NM-130 Bergepanser, an armored recovery vehicle. These upgrades took place from 1973 to 1977; the upgraded tanks were grouped into six units of twelve tanks each. These supplemented Norway’s Leopard 1 tanks, which entered service in the late 1960s / early 1970s. The NM-116’s remained in service through the latter years of the Cold War, not retiring until 1994. Though the tanks never saw combat, they still formed an important part of the forces on NATO’s northern front.
       

      http://www.spycom.org/11_KALD_KRIG/materiell/116.jpg
       
      Upgraded Equipment
       
      Main Gun
      By 1973, the 75mm M6 obsolete as an anti-tank weapon. However, the relatively small M24 would be unlikely to handle a full power 90mm or 105mm anti-tank gun without seriously damaging the tank every time it fired. As a result, it was decided to acquire the French 90mm D-925 gun. This gun operated at a lower pressure than guns such as the 90mm M3, producing less severe forces on the mechanism and less recoil. However, it also meant that the projectiles fired would have a lower muzzle velocity. This forced HEAT shells to be used as the primary antitank rounds. The D-925 as mounted on the NM-116 could fire three kinds of rounds;
      Hulladingsgranat M62 (Hollow Charge Shell / HEAT) Projectile Weight: 3.650 kg Projectile Length: 0.5m Explosive Filler: 0.67 kg Muzzle Velocity: 750 m/s This round was capable of penetrating up to 320mm of armor, or 120mm against a plate angled 65 degrees from vertical. Technical manuals state the round would fail to fuse at angles over 70 degrees. Sprenggranat MF1 (High Explosive Shell) Projectile Weight: 5.280 kg Projectile Length: 0.48m Explosive Filler: 0.945 kg Muzzle Velocity: 640 m/s Røykgranat MF1 (Smoke Shell) Projectile Weight: 5.40 kg Projectile Length: 0.48m Phosphorus Filler: 0.800 kg Muzzle Velocity: 635 m/s This round could make a smoke cloud 50m across that would persist for 20-30 seconds. There was also a practice round with the same ballistics as the HEAT shell. The gun was capable of elevating 15 degrees above horizontal, and could depress 10 degrees. Normal recoil length was 280mm, with a maximum recoil of 317mm. Ammunition capacity was 41 rounds.
       In addition to the D-925, an M2 Heavy Machine Gun was mounted in the turret, coaxial with the main armament. 1500 12.7mm round were carried within the tank. The NM-116 was also fitted with a smoke discharging system, firing 76mm smoke grenades. 16 smoke grenades were carried, and up to 8 could be launched at one time.
       

      Diagram showing new turret, with main armament, smoke launchers, etc.
      Teknisk Håndbok Panserjager NM116 Pg. 3-38
       
      Fire Control
       
      The M24’s analog fire control was augmented by a Simrad LV3 laser rangefinder. This allowed more accurate determination of range, improving accuracy.
       
      Engine/Powertrain
       
      As part of the NM116 upgrade program, the M24’s twin V8 engines were replaced with a single Detroit Deisel 6V53T engine. This six cylinder engine produced more power than theprevious installation, but was smaller and more reliable. With the new engine came a new transmission, the Allison MT 650/653, a 6 speed automatic transmission (5 forward, 1 reverse) with torque converter. A new cooling system developed by Thune-Eureka was fitted as well. The installation of new engines and transmissions made the NM116 more reliable than its predecessors, and somewhat improved mobility and fuel consumption.
       
      Other Upgrades
       
      The NM-116 modernization program included the installation of numerous minor upgrades and improvements to the M24. One of the most notable of these was the radios. Tanks assigned to platoon leaders were equipped with an AN/VRC44, while other tanks were equipped with the AN/VRC64. A new intercom system was also fitted in the tank, as the crew layout was changed from the standard M24.
       
      Specifications:
       

      Dimensions of NM116
      Weight: 18300 kg
      Length (gun forward): 5.92m
      Length (gun rear): 5.32m
      Width: 2.82m
      Height: 2.60m
      Ground clearance: 0.45m
      Ground Pressure: 74 kPa (.74 kg/cm2)
      Maximum Speed: 47 km/h (governed)
      Range: 300 km
      Engine Power: 260 hp at 2800 rpm (191 kW)
      Torque: 735 Nm
      Ammunition Capacity: 41 rounds
       
                     
       
      Sources:
      http://modellnorge.no/nyheter-mainmenu-2/forbildenyheter/402-panserjager-nm116-historie-og-kamuflasje
       
      Zaloga, Steve, and Jim Laurier. M24 Chaffee Light Tank, 1943-85. Oxford: Osprey, 2003. Print. Page 22
       
      http://modellnorge.no/images/stories/th/nm116th/index.html#/0 - Teknisk Håndbok Panserjager NM116
       
      http://www.detroitdieselpartsdirect.com/Documents/detroit-diesel-specs/6V53T-Industrial.pdf
       
      http://www.primeportal.net/tanks/erik_torp/nm_116/ - Numerous pictures of NM-116
       
      http://modellnorge.no/index.php/galleri/militaere-kjoretoy/militare-kjoretoy/nm116-nm130-og-m24-chaffee- Pictures of NM-116, NM-130, and Norwegian M24s
    • By LostCosmonaut
      Link here (comments section is terminally stupid)
       
      Nuclear deflection seems like a pretty good idea for objects of this size. Even if you don't break it up, you can still detonate it standoff and change the velocity quite a bit, which is good enough.  Also, nuclear deflection is about the only thing we have right now that we can use with a lead time less than several years.
       
       
    • By Khand-e
      http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/30/imf-agrees-to-include-chinas-rmb-in-benchmark-sdr-currency-basket.html
       
      *Witty remark about economics here*
×