The facts in Broad\u2019s report appear to come almost entirely from an interview Broad had with Dr.\u00a0William B. F. Ryan, a marine geologist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University,\u00a0including the maps showing each littoral country\u2019s Law of the Sea exclusion zones.\u00a0 Ryan\u2019s facts are not in dispute.<\/p>\n
A point not mentioned by Broad is that no geographic location in either the Black Sea or the Sea of Azov is more than 200 NM from a coastline of the six littoral nations \u2014 Russia, Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, or Georgia.\u00a0 This can be seen by superimposing the 200 NM scale on the map below (Figure 1).\u00a0 \u00a0The overlap of all the \u201cexclusion\u201d zones covers 100% of both seas, with the six areas divvied up according to the separation rules codified by the Law the Sea.\u00a0 The extensive overlap means that the change in the Ukraine-Russian border produces a profound shift in the exclusion zones belonging to Russia and Ukraine, as shown in \u00a0Dr. Ryan\u2019s before and after maps (Figure 2 below).<\/p>\n
![\"SPINNEYMAP1\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.counterpunch.org\/wp-content\/dropzone\/2014\/05\/SPINNEYMAP1.jpg?resize=510%2C398\")
<\/a><\/div>\nFigure 1<\/em><\/p>\n The division of exclusion zones in the Black Sea is a big deal, because\u00a0many geologists believe<\/a>\u00a0the floor of the Black Sea, like that of the North Sea, contains massive reserves of oil and gas, especially in\u00a0deep water<\/i>. \u00a0 We have added the 600 foot depth contour in red on Figure 1.\u00a0 This contour marks the beginning of the medium blue\u00a0transition zone between the shallow coastal shelf waters and the deep sea waters outlined by the 6000 feet contour enclosing the deep blue area in Figure 1. (note: the contour lines in Figure 1 are in fathoms; 1 fathom = 6 feet.)\u00a0 With the exception of the northwestern portion of the Black Sea, coastal waters with depths of less than 600 feet cover only small distances from the national coastlines.<\/p>\n Now let\u2019s turn our attention to the exclusion zones. The Ryan maps in Figure 2 break up the Black Sea and Sea of Azov into the six exclusion zones introduced above.\u00a0 They show how Russia\u2019s annexation of Crimea did not change anything for Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, or Georgia.<\/p>\n Figure 2.<\/em><\/p>\n According to Ryan\u2019s maps, the annexation of Crimea added 36,000 square miles, more than doubling Russia\u2019s legal claims from 26,000 square miles in the Black Sea and Sea of Azov\u00a0to 62,000 square miles. Ukraine lost a corresponding amount. \u00a0More importantly, the overlay of the 600 foot contour shows that Ukraine no longer has access to\u00a0any<\/i>\u00a0deep water. \u00a0This change is a verifiable consequence of annexation.<\/p>\n And it has profound implications.\u00a0 Dr. Ryan also speculates the deep regions gained by Russia may be \u201cthe best\u201d of the Black Sea\u2019s deep oil reserves, although it must be remembered these reserves are not fully explored.\u00a0 In fact, as of 2012, less than 100 exploratory wells have been drilled in the Black Sea\u2019s deep water, and only one well has struck pay dirt.\u00a0 That well, \u201cDomino 1,\u201d drilled in Romanian waters at a depth of 3200 feet, lies beyond the 600 foot contour line near the NE edge of the Romanian exclusion zone, close to what is now the Russian exclusion zone.<\/p>\n So, at first glance, it is easy to accept the picture slyly suggested by Broad\u2019s charged verbs, adverbs, and adjectives:\u00a0the annexation of Crimea by Russia was, at least in part, an aggressive energy grab by the Machiavellian Russian chess master, \u201cVlad the Bad\u201d Putin.\u00a0 Such a conclusion is certainly comforting to those in the US neoliberal establishment intent on starting a new cold war and grabbing control of even more state property of the former USSR via privatization, austerity economics, and good old fashioned bribery.<\/p>\n But putting aside the tendentious verbiage, there are facts in Broad\u2019s reportage that suggest quite a different picture. \u00a0Note Broad\u2019s several references to Exxon\u2019s involvement and investment in Ukraine during 2012. \u00a0Does this not raise the possibility that the US and EU-inspired putsch in Ukraine may have been allied with the lust of western oil and gas multinationals for a stranglehold on European energy supplies?\u00a0 If so, the figures compiled by Dr. Ryan may show how that coup blew up in our face.<\/p>\n To fully savor the possible dimensions of a US-EU-Exxon screw-up, let\u2019s look at a chronology of the recent, none-too-subtle moves on the EU-Ukraine-Russian chessboard.<\/p>\n The EU started openly pushing Ukraine for a really raw, exploitative trade deal in March 2012. A month later, in April 2012, Putin signed up with ENI-Italy to explore Russian Black Sea oil\/gas. In August 2012 Exxon put up big bucks to outbid Russia\u2019s Lukoil for exploring Ukrainian Black Sea oil\/gas (a deal crucial to Exxon\u2019s breaking of Russia\u2019s stranglehold on gas supplies for Europe). Over the next year, Yanukovych (no doubt convinced by massive contributions to his Bahamian bank accounts) pushed the Ukrainian parliament to pass all the laws required to meet the EU\/IMF\u2019s draconian austerity requirements. (see Michael Hudson\u2019s\u00a0\u201cNew Cold War Ukraine Gambit\u201d<\/a>\u00a0for an explanation of neoliberal\u00a0looting economics.)\u00a0<\/b>When it looked like he might succeed, Putin quickly imposed the gas\/trade embargo on Ukraine in August 2013, starting a precipitous drop in the Ukrainian economy\u2013and Yanukovych started backing away from the EU deal.<\/p>\n That\u2019s when the EU-US-EXXON made their monumentally stupid move of unleashing the coup against Yanukovych, beginning with the November 2013 Maidan protests leading to the neo-fascist incited riots that ended in the coup of 27 February 2014.\u00a0 The US-EU inspired coup, of course, gave Putin the perfect opening to welcome the grateful Crimeans back into the Russian fold\u2013thereby swelling Putin\u2019s domestic approval ratings enough to keep him in power for the next ten years. (For a good analysis of how Putin may view the world, see Mark Ames\u2019\u00a0\u00a0analysis<\/a>\u00a0of how he is exploiting the politics of resentment in Russia, Nixon-style.) And, perhaps not coincidentally, welcoming the grateful Crimeans also happened to more than double Putin\u2019s Black Sea oil\/gas holdings, while ruining Exxon\u2019s chances for breaking his stranglehold on European gas supplies.<\/p>\n Putin certainly isn\u2019t the greatest European strategist since Bismarck. But it doesn\u2019t take much to win when\u00a0opposed by\u00a0dumb, ultra-greedy opponents guided by the arrogance of ignorance.\u00a0 All Putin needed was seeing one tiny move further ahead.<\/p>\n The only thing dumber than the transparent US-EU-Exxon moves was the American and European media\u2019s slavish coverage of the same.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Pierre M. Sprey<\/strong>, together with Air Force Cols John Boyd and Everest Riccioni, brought to fruition the F-16; he also led the design team for the A-10 and helped implement the program.\u00a0 He is one of a very small number of Pentagon insiders who started the military reform movement in the late 1960s.<\/i><\/p>\n Source<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" by PIERRE M. SPREY and FRANKLIN C. SPINNEY On 17 May, William Broad\u2019s piece,\u00a0\u201cIn Taking Crimea, Putin Gains a Sea of Fuel Reserves\u201d, appeared in the New York Times.\u00a0 Broad explained\u00a0 how the annexation of Crimea by Russia changed the … Continue reading ![\"spinneymap2\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.counterpunch.org\/wp-content\/dropzone\/2014\/05\/spinneymap2.jpeg?resize=510%2C642\")
<\/a><\/div>\n