Subject: Re: clavoscopy of everyones land advances<br/>
Date: Aug 16, 2001 @ 17:06<br/>
Author: Peter Smaardijk (&quot;Peter Smaardijk&quot; &lt;smaardijk@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="3640.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="3645.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic3630.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="3643.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="3645.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-2014451611">Just remember that Norway may claim Peter I Isl. as a &quot;biland&quot; (+/- <br/>
possession), but that it is well inside the Antarctic Treaty area, <br/>
and therefore no different to, say, Queen Maud Land. I don&#39;t think <br/>
EEZ&#39;s are an issue in the Ant. Treaty area.<br/>
<br/>
Peter S.<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="qreply"> --- In BoundaryPoint@y..., &quot;Jan Krogh&quot; &lt;jakro64@y...&gt; wrote:<br/>
&gt; Grant,<br/>
&gt; Thanks for the list. But what about Peter I Isl. (Norway)?<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; Jan </span></blockquote></div>