merican and Nordic Perspectives, by S. Jer vell, & K. Nyblom, and (3) Delimitation Arangements in Arctic Seas: Cases of Precedence on Securing of Strategic/Economic Interests, by W. Ostreus. While these three books serve as the basis for this examination, other works are also cited as appropriate.
PETROLEUM ENERGY RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS
The area of the continental shelf in the Barents Sea is rich in deposits of both crude oil and natural gas (Paxton, 1989). For economic reasons, the resources are highly impor tant to both Norway and the Soviet Union. In a strategic con text, these energy resources are significant for both NATO and the Soviet Union (Bergesen, 1987).
Even with the Barents Sea, North Sea, and North American resources, NATO depends heavily upon energy sources which are not under the direct control of one of its members. Such 3internal dependency, however, is not NATO's only energy related security concern. The organization is also concerned with the energy surplus and deficit characteristics of its potential enemies. The NATO countries have a collective 35.9 percent deficit in total energy production, while the Soviet Union andEastern Europe have a small surplus. For NATO, therefore, the denial of access to the Soviets to any of the Barents Sea petroleum energy resources is as important as is its own access to any of those resources (Rothstein, 1985).
NATO dependence on external energy sources causes the locations of world energy reserves to be of as crucial a con cern as are the energy surplus and deficit characteristics of the world's regions. Existing production/consumption patterns might be able to be altered in an emergency situation, depend ing upon energy reserve characteristics. These considerations are equally as important to the Soviets.
Norway and the Soviet Union have reached limiting agree ments with respect to the extraction of petroleum resources from the Barents Sea area (Ostr...