National Defence Committee on June 16th, 2009

[Dr. Marc St-Onge]

The reports in the media were somewhat exaggerated. We should have put this map in the middle, but what can you do. The geological and bathymetric information on the map clearly shows the location of the contiguous Canadian continental shelf. Overall, the shelf is located within the 200 nautical miles of the exclusive use zone. What is being debated are the extensions of this shelf. The Lomonosov ocean ridge and the Alpha ridge are extensions, but the contiguous shelf is clearly defined and does not extend to the North Pole.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Are there any underwater areas that do not belong to anyone? For example, Canada, Russia and the United States can show where their continental shelf ends. However, is there a grey area where there are no extensions and where negotiations could be required to determine how they should be handled?

[Dr. Marc St-Onge]

That is another good question. You are right. All the zones with an ocean crust—and I am not speaking about the continental crust we live on—that are located on the seabed are international, for example the North Atlantic. The Eurasian basin to which I was referring is the real ocean crust. It is located beyond the continental shelf as it is perceived by any country. It would remain international.

In other regions where the crust is neither continental nor oceanic, but rather hybrid, from what I understand from the UNCLOS specifications, there is a limit to what a country may claim. If everyone were to claim as much territory as possible, even 350 nautical miles along the ridges and all the rest, there would still be large areas in the middle of the Arctic ocean that would not be claimed and that would remain international.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Does that open the door to possible international negotiations regarding the sharing of the natural resources in these areas?

[Dr. Marc St-Onge]

I imagine that is what should happen.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Our study must be ready by 2013. The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf has just recognized an extra 230,000 kilometres for Norway. Do we have to wait until the commission sets the limits of the shelf before we look at the remaining grey area?

It is my impression that we will have to wait for the commission's decision. We cannot start negotiating about natural resources until it has ruled on the limits of the continental shelf of one country or the other. Is that correct?

[Dr. Marc St-Onge]

You are right. As you know, Canada is to submit its case in 2013. Denmark will do the same in 2014, I believe. We don't know how long the commission will take after that. I have seen estimates ranging from 5 to 10 years in order to rule on the different requests, so I have the impression that it will take some time.

However, the encouraging thing is that there is a great deal of advertising on the scope of natural resources, that is ore and energy, in the Arctic Ocean. The United States Geological Survey published a study last year identifying the energy resources in the Arctic Ocean. According to my interpretation of this study, their outlook is overly optimistic.

For example, to calculate their estimates of oil and natural gas reserves, they considered, among other things, the entire Davis Strait as being a continental margin type of geological feature, whereas that is not the case. A large part of the Davis Strait seabed is actually oceanic crust, and this type of geological feature does not contain oil or gas. So that's why I'm saying that the United States Geological Survey estimates are overly optimistic.

The other thing to keep in mind is that the majority of energy resources will be found near the coast, simply because that is where the thickest sedimentary rocks are found. These rocks are what make up the continental shelf. That is where oil and natural gas companies traditionally explore, because that is where the majority of these reserves are found. There might be a bit more in the slope, but the farther they get from the coast, the less likely they will be to find anything.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you, Mr. St-Onge.

I will now turn the floor over to Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you for your presentation.

I have a couple of questions on the significance of the work you're doing.

This work is continuing, obviously. Will the data that you're collecting between now and 2013 be used as part of the claim?

[Dr. Marc St-Onge]

It's not me, personally--

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Not you, but the Geological Survey of Canada.

[Dr. Marc St-Onge]

Yes, and I'll ask my colleague Dave to elaborate on that.

[Dr. David Boerner]

We actually have two programs related to the north. One is specifically designed to provide data for the UNCLOS submission. We will collect the best data we possibly can to make the best submission for Canada. That's the aim of that entire program. And it will finish in 2013, for the claim.

We have another program called geo-mapping for energy and minerals, which is specifically designed to try to determine the potential in the north for energy and minerals. It's based partly on the correlations of Dr. St-Onge's work around the world.

The geology acts to concentrate minerals sometimes. The plate tectonic motions that we talk about, plates moving back and forth, form these places where you can get concentrations of minerals. We try to use analogs from different places around the world to find those places in the geological record in Canada.

So we have two different objectives and two separate programs. One is specifically aimed at UNCLOS.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I have another question. I'm trying to get a simplified answer as to the role this information will play.

The geological information, for example, whether this bridge or feature is attached to Canada or attached to the other side—and I guess we're looking at Russia—when does that come in? Are we talking about an equal distance principle first, and this information as an exception to that? Or are we talking about establishing that these oceanic features are in fact an extension of or a part of our continental mass?

Can you simplify that for us?

[Dr. David Boerner]

Yes, and I appreciate that it's a complicated set of formulas that determine this. The first one is a definition of how deep the continental platform really is underwater. That's a part of it, because at some depth it's considered too deep to be part of the platform. The second part of the equation is how thick the sediments are. So it's the combination of how deep the water is and how thick the sediments are that tells us how much distance we can go out from the continental shelf's sharp drop-off to claim additional territory. That's the simple formula.

The complicated part that I think you're referring to is that there's a possibility that the land mass extends away from the continental shelf we would draw as a very steep drop-off. This is the question about things like the Lomonosov Ridge and whether it's physically connected to Canada's land mass. If it is, then you can use that formula of distance and depth and thickness of sediments. The geology here sets the context for that discussion, but it doesn't necessarily answer the question itself. We have to make other measurements to try to prove that it's connected to the land mass.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you.

I liked your map. I'm not a geologist, but the information is fascinating.

Maybe you can comment on the recent National Geographic maps they've shown of the Arctic. I've seen them, and they're a little easier to read for lay people. They have very good depth information. They show the claims, etc., and also show retreating ice. What do you think of them? They're fairly recent--maybe from March or February--National Geographic fold-out maps. They look very readable. Could you comment on those? Are they of value for us to look at?

[Dr. David Boerner]

I think they're absolutely of value to demonstrate the principles and ideas. They're again too coarse. They don't have enough detailed information to be the real definitive things that the UN commission will use for its determination, but they absolutely convey the general perception of what exists and how the claims are being proposed.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I have one last question, if I can get it in.

In conducting this research up until now and into the future--I know the Canadian government has invested a fair amount of money on it, and you can comment on that--can you tell us whether or not there's agreement between what you're doing in terms of the data and the methodology? For example, you put a lot of work into this. Obviously you're covering 60° north all around the cap of the earth. Do you have agreement with scientists from other countries as to the methodology? In other words, is someone going to say, “Well, we don't agree with your methodology. We don't agree with your data sets. We don't agree with your seismic information. We don't agree with this, because we have our own way of doing it.” And the fight is going to be about that as opposed to being about legitimate questions that are pre-agreed?

[Dr. David Boerner]

That's an excellent question, and the whole purpose behind this map is to have one solid, consistent scientific database on which to make policy decisions. We're trying absolutely to avoid the question of different people having different protocols and different ideas. This collaboration was specifically to try to get agreement from all the circumpolar nations that this is the way to compile one geological map, and we've done that.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

So we've had that throughout.

[Dr. David Boerner]

Yes, we've had that discussion. Some of the work we do under the UNCLOS work is jointly with the Danes, or with the Americans, or with whomever, to try to collect one set of data that is definitive according to both countries' standards.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Do you get cooperation from the Russians in terms of this, as well?

[Dr. David Boerner]

I'm not sure we have had collaboration on collecting data, but we certainly have had collaboration on the standards that went into these maps.

Marc.

[Dr. Marc St-Onge]

I would just add, with respect to this map, that the geological surveys of all the polar nations contributed, and they're co-authors of the map. Each--the Russians, the Americans, the various countries--provided us with their national data sets for bathymetry, for geology, for seismic data. They were very open. Data was compiled by the Canadians but reviewed by everyone else. In that sense, yes, there was full agreement on how it was done, and what ended up being shown or not shown.

Where there was maybe a slight bit of friction was not on how the geology was compiled or shown, or on the data shown, but on how to orient the map. That was of greater concern for most people, because most people wanted their country, when you hold the map on a wall, to be facing the right way up. So, the Russians wanted Russia here, the Americans wanted Alaska here, etc. To get out of that pickle, we had to resort to showing Greenwich as the reference frame. But that was minor. Other than that, I think there's full agreement in terms of techniques and methodologies.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Well, congratulations on the magnificent project. It obviously seems to be ongoing, so good luck in the future.