Warsaw DRAFT Defence

Information Paper
Russian earth science research in the Antarctic

in context of Article 7 of the Madrid Protocol
During XXIV ATCM held in 2001in St. Petersburg, Russia, some delegations expressed
concern about the nature of Russian earth science research performed in Antarctica. As
noted in item 126 of the Final Report, “the English language translation of the Working
Paper XXIV ATCM/WP27 tabled by Russia could give rise to a perception that some of
the geological research being undertaken was mineral exploration, contrary to Article 7
of the Madrid Protocol”. Despite clarifications made by Russia “that this was not the case
and the research was, in fact, scientific”, similar inquires were made during some
subsequent meetings and personal communications. Russian delegation therefore feels
appropriate to provide additional clarifications in regard to its interpretation of Article 7
of the Madrid Protocol and related Antarctic activities.
The wording of Article 7 is too simple and straightforward to afford any

misinterpretation. It contains no limitation whatever with regard to scientific research
associated with mineral resource expectations in Antarctica, thus demonstrating a full
compliance with the freedom of scientific research provided by the Antarctic Treaty and
a true understanding of the nature of geological science that ultimately invariably leads to
mineral resource exploration. Indeed, just as ANY scientific research contains a
prognostic component, the results of EVERY geological investigation can be interpreted
in terms of mineral resource predictions. A bedrock geologist working in the field will
always link a quartz vein with potential gold mineralization, an occurrence of alkaline-
ultramafic rocks with probable vicinity of diamond-bearing kimberlite pipes, the presence
of Permian or Triassic clastic sequences with likely appearance of coal measures, etc.,
etc. Similarly, a geophysicist who has applied remote sensing technologies to establish a
considerable thickness of subsoil sediments, whether on land or especially on the
offshore continental margin, will claim the existence of a sedimentary basin prospective
for hydrocarbon discoveries. In fact, years before the marine seismic exploration began in
the Weddell Sea this area had been claimed to match the Gulf of Mexico in oil and gas
reserves – at that time a purely speculative assumption based exclusively on the similarity
of geographic and tectonic positions of these basins.
Obviously, the Protocol never intended to ban ALL geological and geophysical activities
just because they provide, in addition to fundamental scientific information, the evidence
relevant to assessment of the mineral resource potential of Antarctica and its surrounding
seas. Mineral-related predictions cannot in principle be prohibited, because they contain
no immediate threat to the Antarctic environment and are derived by a mental process
largely from global analogies, satellite surveys, theoretical analysis, etc., with in situ
observations providing only confirmation or disproval of these provisional conclusions.
A clue to distinction between earth science investigations that can be categorized as
“scientific research” and those that fall under “mineral resource activities”(“mineral
exploration”) in the sense of Article 7 of the Protocol is provided in the “Convention on
the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities” (CRAMRA) that unequivocally
defines the mineral resource activities as consisting of prospecting, exploration and
development, i.e. three successive stages of a continuous economic process aimed at
commercial production of mineral wealth. These activities in frontier regions would
normally be funded and conducted by the industry and follow a strictly established
systematic procedures commonly accepted by the majority of geological
surveys/companies and leading to discovery of mineral deposits (fields), their economic
evaluation and cost-effective development.
Any preceding geological and geophysical observations, however relevant they might
have appeared for the decision to proceed commercially, may NOT be considered
mineral resource activity and must be classified as advanced scientific research. The
latter can be subdivided into an earlier (reconnaissance) stage and a later (regional) stage.
The methods and technologies applied during both stages are similar, the main difference
being the density of observation coverage – random reconnaissance lines (tens and
hundreds kilometers apart) at the first stage allowing the initial recognition of geological
features along individual profiles, and more systematic and closer spaced (5 – 20 km)
intersections focused on the correlation of the revealed features between the lines. In
general, and particularly in the Antarctic terra incognita, the means and methods of the
advanced earth science research are indistinguishable in the studies of a purely academic
nature (e.g. Lake Vostok project, tectonic evolution of the Antarctic lithosphere and
Gondwana breakup, etc.) and those relevant to mineral resource speculations in the
frontier regions (such as structural history of sedimentary basins on the Antarctic
continental margin, metamorphic and magmatic processes and their metallogenic
significance, etc.)
Summary. The Russian earth science programs in the Antarctic, both on land and
offshore, correspond precisely to reconnaissance and regional stages of geological
investigations and must not be mistaken for mineral exploration. The results of these
studies are regularly reported to SCAR, freely exchanged and widely published, and
mainly used in fundamental context (global tectonics, Precambrian geology,
environmental change, etc.) but also interpreted to support generalized scientific
predictions of subsoil resources believed to occur in Antarctica and its surrounding seas
by analogy with other mineral-rich Gondwana continents and their submarine margins.
Such scientific mineral resource assessments are fully consistent with Article 7 of the
Protocol and in agreement with national geological tradition requiring the mineral
resource characterization of the study region, if even the activities related to actual
utilization of the Antarctic mineral wealth may only occur in the indefinitely remote
future.

Warsaw DRAFT Defence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Warsaw DRAFT Defence

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Warsaw DRAFT Defence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Information Paper

Russian earth science research in the Antarctic

The wording of Article 7 is too simple and straightforward to afford any

You might also like