Subject: Re: clavoscopy of everyones land advances<br/>
Date: Dec 03, 2001 @ 07:46<br/>
Author: orc@orcoast.com (orc@...)<br/>
<a href="4851.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="4887.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic3630.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="4881.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="4883.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-675074040">--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., &quot;Grant Hutchison&quot; &lt;granthutchison@b...&gt; wrote:<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; Michael:<br/>
<br/>
&gt; &gt; now my maps are primitive as usual but there does appear to be at<br/>
<br/>
&gt; least one place in the world where the antarctic & maritime regimes<br/>
<br/>
&gt; are in conflict  so it will make at least a good research & test case<br/>
<br/>
&gt;  & this is an island or group of unknown name & probably argentine or<br/>
<br/>
&gt; chilean ownership in drake passage at about long w70 & lat s58  or in<br/>
<br/>
&gt; other words only about 120nm north of lat s60<br/>
<br/>
&gt; <br/>
<br/>
&gt; I&#39;ve read a fair bit around the topic of sub-Antarctic islands, and<br/>
<br/>
&gt; I&#39;ve never heard of these, or seen them on a map. <br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>it or they are on the most recent 6 cia maps of antarctica at perry castaneda  & could easily be a dead fly on the master map which no one has noticed or thought of removing  but neednt detain us now that the south sandwiches can serve as our model<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; And they&#39;re not in<br/>
<br/>
&gt; the right place to be a last dyng echo of the great &quot;lost&quot; islands of<br/>
<br/>
&gt; the region, Macy and Swain and the Auroras. <br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>but that is even more interesting<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
can you give us the skinny on these<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; Are you looking at some<br/>
<br/>
&gt; indication of the Sars Seamount, which sits almost exactly on this<br/>
<br/>
&gt; spot, albeit 218m down?<br/>
<br/>
&gt; But a while back, in some posting or other, I think I did wonder aloud<br/>
<br/>
&gt; (atext?) about whether I should be clipping off the southern extension<br/>
<br/>
&gt; of the South Sandwich Islands&#39; EEZ. I hunted down some information<br/>
<br/>
&gt; about the Antarctic Treaty at that time, and I think I gathered from<br/>
<br/>
&gt; it that it prohibited the creation of maritime zones based on<br/>
<br/>
&gt; territorial claims south of 60S - which seemed to leave open the<br/>
<br/>
&gt; possibility of maritime zones based on claims *north* of 60S. So I<br/>
<br/>
&gt; left the SSI EEZ intact on my map. <br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>it looks like veridian agrees with you about this  tho it is hard to see on their website map  <br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; But all this is now just a vague<br/>
<br/>
&gt; impression, and I&#39;d be glad to hear from anyone who can give chapter<br/>
<br/>
&gt; and verse.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>me too<br/>
<br/>
m</div>