Talk:Beaufort Sea

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Canada argues it extends in a straight line from the Yukon-Alaska border to the North Pole. The United States contends that the border extends due north from the meeting point of the two countries. Currently most international law experts favour Canada's claim

Is there a source for this? I would find it hard to believe that such experts would agree with Canada's claim here in the Beaufort (extending straight from shore) and not have honoured the U.S. claim in the 1984 Gulf of Maine boundary case where they were "essentially" claiming the same thing (which would have had their boundary running about 50 km west off Yarmouth. Gulf of Maine may have been a bit more complicated than Beaufort, but Canada argued that one had to include the shoreline of the Bay of Fundy along with the Gulf of Maine in determining the size of shoreline and the bearing which the maritime boundary would follow. Experts bought Canada's case and sent the line angled from the NB/Maine border to a point halfway between NS & Mass. and then out to 200 NM EEZ... Cheers, Plasma east 23:24, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't even see a difference between the statement of the two contentions. presumably one of they is in fact that coastline beyond the meeting point has to be taken into account, or the angle of the land frontier needs to be considered, but I cannot tell which. I assume that a "straight line" is a great circle - perhaps not. --Henrygb 10:21, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I guess I just find the statement about "experts favour Canada's claim" in this entry to be confusing. The boundary along the northern part of Yukon-Alaska follows 141ºW (I think) for the most part, although it might "waver" ever so slightly. Canada claims the maritime boundary continues straight from where it meets the coastline of the Beaufort Sea, along 141ºW to 90ºN - all well and good, it would appear. The U.S. appears to be claiming what Canada had claimed in 1984 in the Gulf of Maine, ie. take into account the shape of the coastline in determining how the seaward claim is delimited... Interestingly in 1984, the U.S. took the position that Canada is claiming now in Beaufort. They wanted the maritime boundary in the Gulf of Maine to continue due south, more or less continuing the trend of the boundary between New Brunswick-Maine, thus placing it not far from the western tip of Nova Scotia. I'm no expert in the area but it just seems to me that the "international experts" agreed with Canada's position in 1984, and awarded our (Canada's) claim as such, but now with both nations appearing to have reversed their positions, the experts still side with us (Canada)? Obviously in the 1984 case, the U.S. took their position since it would give them a bigger claim, ditto for Canada and it would appear to be the case here in Beaufort, except to achieve the better claim, each nation has reversed the logic upon which the Gulf of Maine was delimited... I'd just like to know who the "experts" are and on what basis this support is given - or at a minimum, more detail on the actual maritime boundary dispute. Cheers, Plasma east 02:44, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Caption "A map showing the vertically running Trans-Alaska Pipeline colored in red" is in need of rephrasing[edit]

The caption "A map showing the vertically running Trans-Alaska Pipeline colored in red" means that the pipeline is vertical and the oil flows up or down. This is obviously wrong. The pipeline is horizontal and the oil flows from north to south. It does not flow vertically very much (except, perhaps, when the pipeline goes up or down a hill or transitions between buried and above ground).

It merely *appears* vertical on the map, because the computer monitor is held vertically, with north above south. If the computer monitor is tipped to lie on its back, and face the ceiling, with its top facing north and its bottom facing south, then the line on the monitor will be parallel to the real pipeline.71.109.147.56 (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was quite obvious to me that "vertical" referred to the map, not to the pipeline, but removed anyway. Materialscientist (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

30kya?[edit]

30kya? Sheer nonsense. What's your evidence for this absurd and fantastic claim? --AGFoster — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.50.104.162 (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom of p. 217. Materialscientist (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Must be a typo. Does this supposed culture have a name? At which sites is it represented? What sorts of tools did they use? Could we get a quote straight from McGhee rather than a quote of somebody misquoting McGhee? This 30ky figure remains fantastic nonsense. 67.128.133.10 (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)AGFoster 11/24/14[reply]

Nonsense figures[edit]

"About 50,400 km3 (12,100 cu mi) of oil was produced in 1986." This is just plain loopy. One km3 is equal to 6,300 million barrels of oil. The world consumes about 75 million barrels of oil a day, or around 27,000 million barrels a year. Theeurocrat (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks odd. 50,400 cubic kilometres (3.17×1014 bbl) but 50,400 cubic metres (317,000 bbl) so it could be a typo. Can't see the reference so it is hard to check. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 20:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Beaufort Sea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Beaufort Sea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beaufort Sea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Human activities section[edit]

According to the map in the infobox former Beringia is not part of the Beaufort Seat
  • There is, currently, a Beaufort Sea#Human activities section. It is a mess. It starts with a quote - no context - from the middle of an academic paper, that is talking about an obscure point about when the first paleo-Indians crossed Beringia, tens of thousands of years ago. Shouldn't this be covered in an article on Beringia? Is the former Beringia even part of the current day Beaufort Sea? Geo Swan (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Moratorium on commercial fishing of the Beaufort Sea into Beaufort Sea[edit]

Content fits perfectly fine at Beaufort Sea, absolutely no reason to need a separate article for this. Reywas92Talk 18:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  checkY Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beaufort_Sea&oldid=1194435136"