# Mystery Blast in CAN Arctic?



## The Bread Guy (7 Aug 2008)

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the _Copyright Act._

*Military probes mystery blast in Arctic*
Ed Struzik, Canwest News Service, 7 Aug 08
Article link

The Canadian military is sending a long-range Aurora aircraft to investigate reports of a mysterious explosion along Canada's Northwest Passage that may have killed several whales.

The drama apparently began in the early-morning hours of July 31, when an Inuit hunting party at an outpost camp at Borden Peninsula on northeastern Baffin Island was alerted to the sound of an explosion, followed by a cloud of black smoke.

An Inuit member of the Canadian Rangers, a military reservist unit stationed in the far North, reported the incident, and said a hunter at the camp saw several dead whales on shore when he went over to investigate.

In a preliminary investigation, DND's Joint Task Force Northern headquarters determined there were no known vessels operating in the area, and it did not know of any activity that could have caused an explosion.

"At this point, we really have very little else to report," says Summer Halliday, a spokeswoman for the Joint Task Force in Yellowknife.

"But we will be sending an Aurora aircraft to do a flyover. The plane is currently up north in the Mackenzie Valley on a routine exercise supporting the RCMP's Operation Nunakput."

Parks Canada will also be on the scene with a boat that's being dispatched from Sirmilik National Park on Bylot Island.

(....)

"Until we hear from Parks Canada and the military, there's nothing we can confirm or deny," says Keith Pelley, a Fisheries and Oceans Canada official based in Nunavut.

"All we have is a report that an explosion occurred. It may be something or it could be nothing at all. Right now, we just don't know.".....

More on link


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Aug 2008)

Thank god we have Parks Canada to defend our borders, I see it clearly now, PC is a front for a quasi-military organization that has been quietly maintaining our coastal defences and fortifications in disguise. gee who would have thunk Canadians were so devious?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Aug 2008)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Thank god we have Parks Canada to defend our borders, I see it clearly now, PC is a front for a quasi-military organization that has been quietly maintaining our coastal defences and fortifications in disguise. gee who would have thunk Canadians were so devious?



On the reverse side of the coin, our Rangers seem to be doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing. Observing and reporting. Who'd have thunk, with such a vast territory and so few dedicated Rangers, we would have even known about this, but we do. I guess the system works after all eh?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Aug 2008)

The Rangers are great, but we will soon need more assets up there if we want to have a say in the Arctic's future.


----------



## Snafu-Bar (8 Aug 2008)

A fleet of canoes,whale and seal boats isn't going to be enough for the Russian sub fleet.

 I'm guessing the russians are going to try to push all the way to coast line in a bid to secure any offshore goodies they can get thier mittens on.

 Hopefully Canada will have an easier time PEACEFULLY allocation thier claims to atleast OUR side of the Prime meridian back. This would atleast be a global split to the polar region allowing for multi-national claim to the area without having to fight over it.

 A piece of the pie to the nations having a stake in the region- Canada,Greenland,US,Russia,Iceland and Norway should be the only ones making claim to any waters leading upto the pole as far as i see it.


----------



## Sigger (8 Aug 2008)

*U.N. to decide Arctic borders*
Article Link (With video)

May 29 - Five Arctic coastal nations have agreed to let the United Nations rule on conflicting territorial claims on the region's possibly energy-rich seabed.

The Arctic Ocean may hold up to a quarter of the world's undiscovered hydrocarbon reserves. 

Ministers from Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia and the United States have been meeting in Greenland to discuss sovereignty over the Arctic Ocean seabed. 

More on link


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Aug 2008)

As long as Russia gets most of what it wants, that approach will work, but don't be surprised if they use a little muscle here and there. The US is not that keen on our claims and may take a backseat if they feel it's in their interests to do so.


----------



## Snafu-Bar (8 Aug 2008)

Considering we already generously coughed up Alaska to the US, i don't think Canada needs to allocate anything else to anyone regarding our territories.

 If anyone gets first dibs on anything up there, it should be to 1st nations people already living there. What they decide gets done with it should be taken into consideration above anyone elses greedy aspirations.

 Otherwise it should be kept as IS, untouched and left to the natives that have lived there peacefully for eon's.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 Aug 2008)

Didn't Russia sell Alaska to the U.S.?


----------



## Michael OLeary (8 Aug 2008)

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> *Considering we already generously coughed up Alaska to the US*, i don't think Canada needs to allocate anything else to anyone regarding our territories.



Huh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_purchase


> The Alaska Purchase (otherwise known as Seward's Folly or Seward's Icebox) by the United States from the Russian Empire occurred in 1867 at the behest of Secretary of State William Seward. The territory purchased was 586,412 square miles (1,518,800 km²) of the modern state of Alaska.


----------



## Franko (8 Aug 2008)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> Didn't Russia sell Alaska to the U.S.?



Yes. Wanna clarify your statement Snafu-Bar?

Regards


----------



## Haggis (8 Aug 2008)

So, what about the explosion?

Errant satellite?
Meteor?
Subterrainean nuclear test?
Alien spacecraft?

C'mon, people... speculate!!!


----------



## Snafu-Bar (8 Aug 2008)

Read here, i'm sure some are shrugging thier shoulders but here's the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Alaska

 more one the deal posted here.

http://memory.loc.gov/intldl/mtfhtml/mfak/mfaksale.html

Always more to the story....


Cheers.


----------



## dangerboy (8 Aug 2008)

Both those links back up the claim that Russia sold Alaska to the USA.  Neither one say anything about Canada giving Alaska up.


----------



## Franko (8 Aug 2008)

Haggis said:
			
		

> So, what about the explosion?
> 
> Errant satellite?
> Meteor?
> ...



Me snapping like a rusty torsion bar because of the weather....      ;D

Regards


----------



## RangerRay (8 Aug 2008)

There was a boundary dispute between us and the US over the Alaskan Panhandle...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_boundary_dispute

But we had no claims on the rest of Alaska.


----------



## Snafu-Bar (8 Aug 2008)

The 2nd link gives a more detailed account on the brits desire to purchase the lands but due to less than favourable standing we lost out to the US, the brits did not try to fight for the land though they probably thought pretty damn long and hard about it.

 But none the less Coughing it up meant not aquiring the land from the Russians initially.

That sufficient in explaning my less than "perfectly clear" use of terminology or do i need to make a public apology in triplicate?

 ;D


----------



## Haggis (8 Aug 2008)

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> Me snapping like a rusty torsion bar because of the weather....      ;D
> 
> Regards



I hear ya!  Three weeks of leave and only three consecutive dry days.  Then I got a flat on my bike.  I go back to work on Monday and the weather will be GREAT!!!


----------



## Franko (8 Aug 2008)

Haggis said:
			
		

> I hear ya!  Three weeks of leave and only three consecutive dry days.  Then I got a flat on my bike.  I go back to work on Monday and the weather will be GREAT!!!



As a matter of fact....they're calling for sun on Monday.      

Regards


----------



## Michael OLeary (8 Aug 2008)

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> The 2nd link gives a more detailed account on the brits desire to purchase the lands but due to less than favourable standing we lost out to the US, the brits did not try to fight for the land though they probably thought pretty damn long and hard about it.
> 
> But none the less Coughing it up meant not aquiring the land from the Russians initially.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure how you got all that out of the article.  A simple admission that you were initially mistaken would have been sufficient.


----------



## Snafu-Bar (8 Aug 2008)

:

 Due to facts not 100% relaible due to old age and lack of DNA evidence i retract any comments and opinions on the territory known as Alaska.

 you may continue on without me....



p.s The explosion was due to build up of natural gas venting from new volcano's unleashed from seizmic upheaval in china.... or some such other scientific drabble ... (pure specualtion on my part)

Cheers.


----------



## Haggis (8 Aug 2008)

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> The explosion was due to build up of natural gas venting from new volcano's unleashed from seizmic upheaval in china.... or some such other scientific drabble ... (pure specualtion on my part)



OK, now we're getting somewhere with this thread.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Aug 2008)

Punishment for our sins as a nation?    ;D

_Kidding, kidding....._


----------



## Michael OLeary (8 Aug 2008)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> Punishment for our sins as a nation?    ;D
> 
> _Kidding, kidding....._



Not bad.  Now let's ship the members of The Church of Unbound Antagonism north to picket the whales' funerals.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 Aug 2008)

http://www.alaska.com/about/facts/faq/culture/v-include/story/4777721p-4721848c.html

well straight from the States own website:

"The United States and Russia signed a treaty on March 30, 1867, to transfer Alaska to the United States. The deal was completed the following Oct. 18, when the Americans raised the Stars and Stripes over Sitka."

I'll speculate it was a breach of a submarine nuclear reactor.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Aug 2008)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> I'll speculate it was a breach of a submarine nuclear reactor.



Anybody going to risk speculating what language the crew was swearing in when it happened?


----------



## Michael OLeary (8 Aug 2008)

Nah, the radiation would have been detected and reported on.

How about an exploding pirate meth lab in a black market acquired ex-Russian submarine.  The whales OD'd.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Aug 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> How about an exploding pirate meth lab in a black market acquired ex-Russian submarine.  The whales OD'd.



Good one - very Ludlum-Forsyth-Clancy'esque....

My guess - research vessel problem...


----------



## Michael OLeary (8 Aug 2008)

Continuing in a Clancy-esque vein - 

Explosion of deteriorated ammunition in a sea-bed cache emplaced during the Cold War by the Russians in anticipation of supporting an over-the-Pole invasion of North America.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Aug 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> Nah, the radiation would have been detected and reported on.
> 
> How about an exploding pirate meth lab in a black market acquired ex-Russian submarine.  The whales OD'd.



I prefer plot-line A.  Add in the presence of Osama on board and I think you have a blockbuster.  ;D


----------



## Blackadder1916 (8 Aug 2008)

How about mammalian flatulence?  Whale farts.   Throw in a  Russian researcher who had a bit too much vodka and wanted to conduct the juvenile experiment of igniting digestive tract produced methane and you have as logical an explanation as some here.  Whatever the cause, something about this incident doesn't smell right.


----------



## dapaterson (8 Aug 2008)

Personally, I blame the StoneCutters.


----------



## cavalryman (8 Aug 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Personally, I blame the StoneCutters.



No real evidence to connect the Stonecutters, is there

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdaRuTwWl9I

or _is there?_


----------



## dapaterson (8 Aug 2008)

The lack of evidence is all the proof I need!

... off to find some tinfoil for a hat...


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Aug 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The lack of evidence is all the proof I need!



The absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, right?


----------



## Michael OLeary (8 Aug 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The lack of evidence is all the proof I need!
> 
> ... off to find some tinfoil for a hat...



That's what they want you to do.

http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/



> *The helmets amplify frequency bands that coincide with those allocated to the US government between 1.2 Ghz and 1.4 Ghz. According to the FCC, These bands are supposedly reserved for ''radio location'' (ie, GPS), and other communications with satellites (see, for example, [3]). The 2.6 Ghz band coincides with mobile phone technology. Though not affiliated by government, these bands are at the hands of multinational corporations.
> 
> It requires no stretch of the imagination to conclude that the current helmet craze is likely to have been propagated by the Government*, possibly with the involvement of the FCC. We hope this report will encourage the paranoid community to develop improved helmet designs to avoid falling prey to these shortcomings.


----------



## dapaterson (9 Aug 2008)

Ah yes, but MIT takes government funding.  Therefore, their reports telling you not to wear the hats are really part of a ploy to get you to remove your hat.

They're cunning.  Very cunning.  But I won't fall for it...


----------



## karl28 (9 Aug 2008)

Probably just a small meteorite from space nothing big


----------



## gillbates (9 Aug 2008)

dynamite fishing?


----------



## geo (9 Aug 2008)

Check the dead whale for their a$$holes - to see if they've been blown out !

I go for the whale flatulence


----------



## karl28 (9 Aug 2008)

geo  

            I think your out of luck on that one . Pretty sure that the Ranger that reported it would have smelt that much Gas LOL


----------



## Spanky (9 Aug 2008)

karl28 said:
			
		

> geo
> 
> I think your out of luck on that one . Pretty sure that the Ranger that reported it would have smelt that much Gas LOL



Not if it was all burned off.


----------



## Shec (9 Aug 2008)

The answer lies in market displacement.   This is clearly a blatant act of aggression by Denmark; not in reaction to Hans Island but to loss of export market share due to Canada's increasing domestic self-sufficiency in Blue and Havarti cheeses.  And it's only the opening round.  Beware of surprise attack from Switzerland and France for similar reasons.  Yes friends our country will soon be fully engaged in a vicious and brutal cheese war. 

Let's pre-empt them by seizing St. Pierre & Miquelon to deny this European Cheese Coalition of a southern staging base.


----------



## greenjacket (9 Aug 2008)

Who knows it might be an alian invasion that was stoped in the north by the cold, they picked a bad place to land and they all died because of the cold.  Similar to Hittler in Russia in 1941.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (9 Aug 2008)

This has definitely been winding into radio chatter, but here's something more substantial...well, not really, it's still a mystery.

*Mystery of Arctic explosion and dead whales likely to remain*


> The Edmonton Journal Saturday, August 09, 2008
> 
> An explosion that allegedly killed several whales in Canada's Northwest Passage in late July will likely remain a mystery.
> 
> ...


----------



## ArmyRick (9 Aug 2008)

Would be interesting to see if this does ever turn out to be a natural phenomnon.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Aug 2008)

I'll go with the possibility of Volcanic activity.  We have active volcanoes in Iceland and numerous underwater volcanoes are known to exist within the Arctic Circle.  

If this is true, then it would be fairly easy for some scientific teams to go and verify it.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Aug 2008)

Good call George  ....
I was actually wondering if it could be tied to Climate Change (stop laughing).

The Scandinavians have a tradition of Ragnarok - a period of Fire and Ice - that some associate with the melting of the ice over Scandinavia.
The melting ice reduced the over burden on the land.  The ice had gradually depressed the land as it accumulated.  When the ice melted the land popped, literally, back up to its earlier level.  Often with catastrophic impact on the crust.  

In Sweden there is a fault called the Parvie Wave that was created over a very short period of time - It ruptured over 160 km of Precambrian rock to a depth of some kilometers with a displacement of 10 m.  This would be like an earthquake greater than anything Vancouver expects happening in Cochrane, Ont.
There is a picture of it in this University of Calgary Slide Show.

In other places this type of displacement contributed to increased volcanic activity.

Another possibility is somebody cooked off a methane hydrate bubble.  Be careful where you light a match up there.



> Methane Hydrates - Feb 28
> by Staff
> Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
> 
> ...


http://www.energybulletin.net/node/26624


----------



## Spanky (9 Aug 2008)

THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE!


----------



## Strike (9 Aug 2008)

The problem with the volcanic acivity theory is that you would likely NOT see black smoke, but only the steam from the heat travelling to the surface.  Most of the solids (which would cause the black smoke) would likely be scrubbed by the water it is passing through.


----------



## Snafu-Bar (9 Aug 2008)

What if the "event" happened to catch an unlucky Sub or other vessel in it's proximity...thus allowing for the plume of smoke.


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Mar 2009)

The plot thickens...

Military scrambled over foreign sub sighting
Forces tried to keep August sighting, explosion in High Arctic under wraps 


OTTAWA — The Canadian Forces quietly scrambled an investigative team to the High Arctic last August to probe what it considered a "reliable" report of a foreign submarine sighting near the eastern entrance of the Northwest Passage - all the while trying to keep a public-relations lid on the matter, documents show.
The sub sighting occurred kilometres away from the location of a mysterious explosion that had been reported to authorities 10 days earlier and made news across Canada.
Today, the military refuses to discuss what it found last summer after probing the sub incident, citing operational security. Its silence on the possible underwater incursion - of a sort Canada is relatively powerless to detect or stop - stands in stark contrast to the clamour Ottawa makes when NORAD detects and intercepts approaching Russian bombers.
The sub sighting is a reminder of Canada's difficulty with enforcing its sovereignty in the increasingly contested Arctic. The incident occurred even as officials in Ottawa were planning a trip for Prime Minister Stephen Harper to the region. It was only three weeks later that he tried to reassert Canada's claims over the Passage and Arctic, announcing Ottawa would now require foreign vessels entering Canadian waters to report their presence.
Documents obtained by The Globe and Mail under access to information law say it was hunters - rather than Canadian authorities - who spotted the sub and relayed it to the Canadian Rangers, lightly armed reservists paid to keep a lookout for foreign intrusions.
The vessel was spotted at the northern end of Baffin Island near a hunting camp early on Aug. 9, and the hunters were adamant about what they saw, the military was told. "[They] reported it was very close and [there] does not appear to be any thoughts on the part of the person reporting that it was not a sub," one soldier's e-mail said later that day.
The sighting took place only days after the explosion was witnessed in the same area - an incident that was reported across the country after Parks Canada staff talked to journalists. The report of this July 31 detonation in the waters off Borden Peninsula came from a location only 10 to 15 kilometres away from the later submarine incident, one military e-mail said.
A husband and wife team of hunters who witnessed the July 31 explosion said their "whole cabin shook" from the blast and thick black smoke - "the type ... seen at a garbage dump" - rose from the water.
But as the Canadian Forces fielded questions on the explosion, the military was careful to try to keep the later sub sighting under wraps, documents show. It rewrote planned responses to journalists about the explosion to remove references to the submarine - "we are separating the two incidents" - and instructed staff to be in "reactive ... posture" on the vessel sighting, meaning they only were to broach the issue if asked directly about it.
Yesterday, naval Lieutenant Jordan Holder, a spokesman for Joint Task Force North, said he could not divulge what soldiers found during their probe of the sub sighting. "I am not at liberty to discuss the investigation or results." However, he said no link was found between the submarine sighting and the earlier explosion.
Rob Huebert, associate director of the University of Calgary's Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, said it's possible U.S., British, Russian or even French subs could have been operating in the area.
"Nobody wants to face up to the fact that in the Arctic we're starting to see everybody resuming naval operations again," he said.
Last summer, Russia announced plans to increase the "operational radius" of its northern sub fleet.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090320.wsubmarine20/BNStory/National/home


----------



## CBH99 (21 Mar 2009)

I tried to follow up on this story just a few weeks ago, to see whatever came of that incident...and there was nothing to report at all.

Interesting how the plot thickens...a large explosion, then a submarine being spotted?  And by hunters no less, not even authorities??  Hmmmmmmmmm...


----------



## gun runner (21 Mar 2009)

Probably just a meteor strike that killed the whales. So what... are we to speculate the Russians did this just to test our defensive strategy? I wouldn't put all the eggs in that basket yet. Ubique


----------



## Rigger052 (21 Mar 2009)

Whatever the cause of the explosion, be it seismic activity, or someone lighting whale farts on fire one thing stands out throughout this thread. The ranger's (or someone) reported this explosion to authorities, and *it took them a week to get up there to investigate.* Innocent or not, if we as a nation are to make a credible claim to arctic resources, should we not show a bit more interest in a possible threat? Even if it was nothing it would display a more serious stance than what was evidently shown.


----------



## gun runner (23 Mar 2009)

Good call RIGGER052,as a nation we need to show a more aggressive demeanor in regards to our national sovereignty. There should be a team up there right now, not just investigating this action, but showing the world that we are indeed in control of our lands. Ubique


----------



## aesop081 (23 Mar 2009)

lots of experts around here...... :


----------



## chrisf (23 Mar 2009)

gun runner said:
			
		

> So what... are we to speculate the Russians did this just to test our defensive strategy?



By hurling meteors at us?


----------



## Rigger052 (23 Mar 2009)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> lots of experts around here...... :


 seeing as it's an open forum, what would you suggest?


----------



## Journeyman (29 Mar 2009)

I'll do my bit to feed the conspiracy theories......

Here's a pic...taken _just last week_.....of the USS Annapolis (USS 760), home-ported in Groton, Connecticut, sitting in the eastern Arctic Ocean.....

 Coincidence?  op:









> The Los Angeles-class submarine USS Annapolis (SSN 760) rests in the Arctic Ocean March 21, 2009, after surfacing through three feet of ice during Ice Exercise 2009. The two-week training exercise, which is used to test submarine operability and war-fighting capability in Arctic conditions, involves two Los Angeles-class submarines, USS Helena (SSN 725) and USS Annapolis (SSN 760), the University of Washington and personnel from the Navy Arctic Submarine Laboratory. (DoD photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Tiffini M. Jones, U.S. Navy)


----------



## Rifleman62 (29 Mar 2009)

And how did they get the aerial photo?


----------



## aesop081 (29 Mar 2009)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> And how did they get the aerial photo?



Could have come from many sources but most likely from one of their own aircraft. It was an exercise after all.


----------



## Rifleman62 (29 Mar 2009)

Thought it may be one of thoes hand launched UAV's the USMC has.


----------



## aesop081 (29 Mar 2009)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Thought it may be one of thoes hand launched UAV's the USMC has.



It could have been but mind you, thats a USN submarine, not a USMC one.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (29 Mar 2009)

Sayyyy- isn't that *ICE* surrounding the USS ANNAPOLIS?  I thought that global warming had taken care of all that...


----------



## Rifleman62 (30 Mar 2009)

CDN Aviator 

Really. Perhaps you can post a picture of a USMC sub.


----------



## bender (30 Mar 2009)




----------



## Rifleman62 (30 Mar 2009)

Good one bender! I was going to remove my silly comeback, but your post beat me.


----------



## coyote@u (4 Apr 2009)

I feel more surveillance assets needed up there.


----------



## Michael OLeary (4 Apr 2009)

coyote@u said:
			
		

> I feel more surveillance assets needed up there.



What would you suggest?


----------

