USGS Analysis of the Australian UNCLOS Submission 

By Deborah R. Hutchinson and Robert W. Rowland 

Open-File Report 2006-1073 


U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 
U.S. Department of the Interior 

Gale A. Norton, Secretary 

U.S. Geological Survey 

P. Patrick Leahy, Acting Director 

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 

For Additional Information: 


See the United Nations web page on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea at 


http://www.un.org/Depts/los/index.htm, and the Executive Summary of the Australian UNCLOS submission 


at http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new?submission_files/submission_aus.htm. 


Contact 


Deborah R. Hutchinson 


U.S. Geological Survey 

384 Woods Hole Road 

Woods Hole, MA, 02543 

dhutchinson@usgs.gov 

508-457-2263 

Robert W. Rowland 

U.S. Geological Survey, Retired 

55825 River Shore Lane 

Elkhart, IN 46516 

rrowland1@attglobal.net 

For product and ordering information: 


World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod


Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS 


For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, 


its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: 


World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov 


Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS 


Suggested citation


Hutchinson, D.R., and Rowland, R.W., 2006, USGS Analysis of the Australian UNCLOS Submission: U.S. 


Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1073, 19 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1073. 


Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 


endorsement by the U.S. Government, nor does the interpretation presented here reflect official U.S. 


Government policy. 


Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual 


copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. 


ii 
Contents 

Contents 

Abstract................................................................................................................................................................................1 


Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................................2 


Limitations in Analysis .......................................................................................................................................................4 


CLCS Decisions ...................................................................................................................................................................5 


Relevance to the U.S. Margin ..........................................................................................................................................6 


Region by Region Analysis................................................................................................................................................8 


Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................................................16 


Acknowledgments............................................................................................................................................................17 


References Cited ..............................................................................................................................................................17 


Figures 

1. Map showing the 200-nm Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of Australia excluding the 

Australian/Antarctic Territory. Names for the 10 areas with extended continental shelf regions 

correspond to names used in Table 1. For actual ECS regions, see 

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/aus04/Maps/aus_map_es_1.pdf. 

Bathymetry from ETOPO2; Australian maritime boundaries from (AMBIS, 2001) ........................... .......3 

2. Relative ECS land area of regions 1-10 of the Australian submission using areas from Table 1. 

Colors proceed in a clockwise direction from the 12 o’clock position around the diagram (note that 

Argo is barely discernible) ........................................................................................ ........4 

3. Comparison of the color gradations used to depict bathymetry in the 10 ECS regions of the 

Australian submission. Numbers are the same as the regions described in the Australian Executive 

Summary and used in this report. The bars are aligned on the 0-m and 2,500-m depths ................... .......5 

4. Kerguelen EEZ (white) and approximate extended continental shelf boundary (pink). Points shown 

are S1 (at the intersection of the westernmost point of the France-Australia bilateral boundary and 

the Australian EEZ) and point 2 (the first ECS point). Dashed line shows an alternative method of 

linking the ECS to the EEZ. McDonald Island is a small volcanic rock feature near Heard Island and 

is not visible at the scale of this map .............................................................................. .......7 

5. Bathymetric map of the Kerguelen Plateau region using a different color scheme than that of the 

Australian submission. NKP – Northern Kerguelen Plateau; CKP – Central Kerguelen Plateau; SKP – 

Southern Kerguelen Plateau. Land areas are shown as gray: Heard and McDonald Islands are 

immediately beneath and to the left of CKP; the Îles Kerguelen (Îles de Désolation) archipelago is just 

below the “P” in NKP. This color scheme emphasizes water depths less than 2,500 m (in greens) and 

greater than 2,500 m (in blues). The 2500-m isobath is shown as a dotted contour. In this image, the 

color scaling minimizes the appearance of connectivity from the CKP to either Elan Bank or SKP This 

map was created in a Geographic Information System using ETOPO2 bathymetry ........................ ......10 

6. Map showing the location of Elizabeth and Middleton Reefs relative to Lord Howe Island. Contour 

Interval is 1,000 m ................................................................................................... ......13 

iii 
7. Bathymetry around the Wallaby and Exmouth Plateaus showing the extension of Joey Rise north 

of the Exmouth Plateau. The linear morphologic boundary formed by Wombat Plateau and Platypus 

Spur is created by a fault separating oceanic crust to the north from continental transitional crust of 

the Exmouth Plateau. Contour Interval 1,000 m ........................................................................16 

Tables 

1. Statistics for the Australian UNCLOS Submission ............................................................ .......2 

2. Relative Land Areas of the Australian UNCLOS Article 76 Submission ................................... .......3 

Conversion Factors 

Inch/Pound to SI 

Multiply By To obtain 

Length 

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m) 

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km) 

mile, nautical (nmi) 1.852 kilometer (km) 

Area 

square mile (mi

2

) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) 

SI to Inch/Pound 

Multiply By To obtain 

Length 

meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft) 

kilometer (km) 0.6214 mile (mi) 

kilometer (km) 0.5400 mile, nautical (nmi) 

meter (m) 1.094 yard (yd) 

Area 

square kilometer (km2) 

square kilometer (km2) 

247.1 

0.3861 

acre 

square mile (mi

2

) 

iv 
USGS Analysis of the Australian UNCLOS Submission 

By Deborah R. Hutchinson and Robert W. Rowland 

Abstract 

In November 2004, the Government of Australia made a submission to the Commission on 

the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) for 10 extended continental shelf (ECS) regions, 

utilizing Article-76 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). With 

information provided in the Australian Executive Summary, the USGS examined the 10 regions of 

the submission from geological, morphological, and resource perspectives. By their own request, 

the Australians asked that CLCS take no action on the Australian-Antarctic Territory. The major 

limitation in this analysis is that no bathymetric soundings or detailed hydrographic profiles were 

provided in the Australian Executive Summary that might show why the Foot of the Slope (FOS) 

was chosen or where the 2,500-m contour is located. This represents a major limitation because 

more than half of the 4,205 boundary points utilize the bathymetric formula line and more than 

one-third of them utilize the bathymetric constraint line. 

CLCS decisions on the components of this submission may set a precedent for how ECSs are 

treated in future submissions. Some of the key decisions will cover (a) how a “natural 

prolongation” of a continental margin is determined, particularly if a bathymetric saddle that 

appears to determine the prolongation is in deep water and is well outside of the 200-nm limit 

(Exmouth Plateau), (b) defining to what extent that plateaus, rises, caps, banks and spurs that are 

formed of oceanic crust and from oceanic processes can be considered to be “natural 

prolongations” (Kerguelen Plateau), (c) to what degree UNCLOS recognizes reefs and uninhabited 

micro-islands (specifically, rocks and/or sand shoals) as islands that can have an EEZ (Middleton 

and Elizabeth Reefs north of Lord Howe Island), and (d) how the Foot of the Slope (FOS) is chosen 

(Great Australian Bight). 

The submission contains situations that are relevant to potential future U.S. submissions and are 

potentially analogous to certain features of the US margins. The Australian margin has significant 

geological and morphological variety, similar to the US margin and gives a good idea of the 

complexity of issues related to the U.S. margin. Decisions about basins and ridges in the Lord 

Howe Rise and Three Kings Ridge regions will likely bear on the status of ridges in the Arctic, 

such as Lomonosov Ridge. The Naturaliste Plateau and the South Tasman Rise appear to have 

parallels with the Chukchi Plateau in the Arctic and the Blake Plateau off the southeastern U.S. The 

ECS on Macquarie Island/Ridge may determine how boundaries along ridges such as the 

Mariannas are treated. 

1

Introduction 

On 15 November 2004, the Government of Australia made a submission to the Commission 

on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) for 10 extended continental shelf (ECS) regions. 

This submission utilized the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and 

specifically relied on Article 76 “The Definition of a Continental Shelf.” The total area of the 

Australian submission seaward of the 200-nm limit as measured from the territorial sea baseline is 

large: 3,371,990 km2 as summarized in Table 1 and Fig. 2. Excluding the Australian/Antarctica 

Territory, these regions add a (submerged) land area to Australian jurisdiction that is nearly 30 % 

of the 200-nautical mile (nm) Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) or 45 % of the total area of 

terrestrial Australia and its islands (Table 2). The ECS Australian Antarctic Territory (region 2) is 

the second largest land area of the submission, but Australia requested that the CLCS take no action 

for the time being. This report is primarily an examination of the 10 ECS regions of the Australian 

UNCLOS submission. 

Prefacing this analysis are three over-riding issues that are considered in greater detail: 

(a) Limitations in Analysis: No bathymetric soundings or detailed hydrographic profiles were 

provided in the Executive Summary. Notwithstanding this limitation, we have strived to evaluate 

each region, with respect to the text of Article 76. 

(b) CLCS Decisions: CLCS decisions on the components of this submission may set a precedent 

for future ECS submissions by other nations, potentially including the U.S. 

(c) Relevance to the U.S. margin: The submission contains features that are potentially analogous to 

submarine geological and morphological features on the U.S. margin and to island commonwealths 

and territories of the U.S. 

Table 1: Statistics for the Australian UNCLOS Submission 

Area 

Statistics Formula Lines Constraint Lines Other Points 

Area 

Expanded km2

 Total 

No. Pts 

 Sediment 

Thick Bathy 350 nm 2500+ 

EEZ 

Pts 

 Intl 

Bound. 

Argo 4,736 3 1 1 1 

Australia-Antarctica 686,821 157 60 69 19 9 

Great Australian Bight 68,837 89 1 86 2 

Kerguelen Plateau 1,185,038 1,396 555 837 2 1 

Lord Howe Rise 265,717 118 1 113 1 2 1 

Macquarie Ridge 81,719 402 400 1 1 

Naturaliste Plateau 154,331 424 322 10 90 2 

South Tasman Rise 311,640 647 4 641 2 

Three Kings Ridge 48,420 3 2 1 

Wallaby/Exmouth Pl. 564,731 966 190 231 543 2 

Total 3,371,990 4,205 66 2,379 261 1,470 23 5 

2

Figure 1. Map showing the 200-nm Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of Australia excluding 

Antarctica. Names for the 10 areas with extended continental shelf regions correspond to names 

used in Table 1. For actual ECS regions, see 

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/aus04/Maps/aus_map_es_1.pdf. 

Bathymetry from ETOPO2; Australian maritime boundaries from (AMBIS, 2001). 

Table 2: Relative Land Areas of the Australian UNCLOS Article 76 Submission* 

Location Land Area (km2) EEZ Area (km2) ECS Area (km2) 

Heard and McDonald Is. 370 410,722 1,185,038 

Christmas Island 1 325,021 0 

Cocos Islands 14 463,371 0 

Norfolk Island 35 428,618 48,420 

Macquarie Island 128 471,837 81,719 

Australia 7,659,861 6,048,681 1,369,992 

Subtotal 7,692,024 8,148,250 2,685,169 

Antarctica 5,896,500 6,100,000 686,821 

Total 13,588524 14,248,250 3,371,990 

*Sources: 

Land Area: http://www.ga.gov.au/education/facts/dimensions/externalterr/index.htm 

EEZ Area: http://www.ga.gov.au/education/facts/dimensions/oceans.jsp 

Macquarie Island area: http://www.ga.gov.au/education/facts/landforms/largisle.htm 

Note: Total land area includes islands that do not have separate EEZ boundaries. “Australia” EEZ area 

includes the EEZ around Lord Howe Island, which is continuous with the EEZ of the mainland. 

3 
Land Area Beyond 200 M Argo 

Australia-Antarctica 

Great Australian Bight 

Kerguelen Plateau 

Lord Howe Rise 

Macquarie Ridge 

Naturaliste Plateau 

South Tasman Rise 

Three Kings Ridge 

Wallaby/Exmouth Pl. 

Figure 2. Relative ECS land area of regions 1-10 of the Australian submission using areas from Table 

1. Colors proceed in a clockwise direction from the 12 o’clock position around the diagram (note 

that Argo is barely discernible). 

Limitations in Analysis 

No bathymetric measurements or hydrographic profiles are provided in the Executive 

Summary. Determination of the base of the continental slope and the location of the 2,500 meter 

isobath are required to utilize Article 76, paragraph 4 (a) (ii) (hereafter referred to as bathymetry 

line). More than half, or 2,379 of the 4,205 boundary points utilized by the Australians in defining 

the outer limits of their submission used this paragraph. There are not adequate data to fully 

evaluate the foot-of-the-slope (FOS) picks. Article 76, paragraph 4, (a) (i) (hereafter referred to as 

the sediment thickness line), relies on sediment thickness calculations. Only 66 of the ECS points 

use this criterion, and 60 of those are in the Australian/Antarctic region which is “not presently 

under consideration”. 

Because no FOS information is provided in the tables or Executive Summary we were not able 

to conduct a detailed analysis of the reasoning behind these points. This means we cannot 

determine whether the FOS is chosen consistently, whether it is based on “evidence to the 

contrary,” and where it might be ambiguous and therefore subject to alternative interpretation. Part 

of the problem in evaluating the FOS criterion is also that the Lambert Conic Conformal Projection 

used in the regional maps will have small distortion in the scale bar related to distance from the two 

standard parallels where scale is true. This contributes to overall uncertainty in trying to “back out” 

either the FOS or 2,500-m location by measuring landward from the relevant outer limit points. 

The 2,500-meter isobath is also used as part of the constraint limit. However, neither this 

isobath nor any other bathymetric contours are presented. Bathymetry is shown in color gradations, 

and the colors are not displayed consistently. Without the ability to redisplay the depth data more 

precisely, we are limited by color palettes that the Australians use in their maps. The 2,500-m 

contour, as summarized in Fig. 3, is variously shown as green (Great Australian Bight), yellow 

green (Argo, South Tasman Rise), yellow (Antarctica, Kerguelen, Lord Howe Rise), and yelloworange (Macquarie, Naturaliste, Wallaby). By stretching or shrinking the colors in the bar, slopes 

can look steeper or more gradual, and therefore create misimpressions about continuity and 

boundaries. 

4

Figure 3. Comparison of the color gradations used to depict bathymetry in the 10 ECS regions of the 

Australian submission. Numbers are the same as the regions described in the Australian Executive 

Summary and used in this report. The bars are aligned on the 0-m and 2,500-m depths. 

CLCS Decisions 

The Australian Submission raises major issues concerning the implementation of Article 76. 

In its evaluation and recommendation, the CLCS may set a precedent for how future submissions 

from other coastal States will be handled. The salient points are: 

(1)	 How a “natural prolongation” of a continental margin is determined, particularly if a 

bathymetric saddle that appears to determine the prolongation is in deep water and is well 

outside of the 200-nm limit (see discussion on “Region 10: Wallaby and Exmouth 

Plateaus”). The continental margin around the Australian continent contains numerous 

examples of bathymetric saddles that connect features used to extend the continental-shelf 

boundary. One extreme example is Joey Rise at the north end of the Exmouth Plateau, a 

feature of unknown origin on oceanic crust. The Joey Rise has been used to extend the base 

of the continental slope (and therefore the continental-shelf boundary) north onto the Argo 

Abyssal Plain. The bathymetric saddle connecting Joey Rise to the Exmouth Plateau is in 

greater than 4,000-m water depth and lies more than 250 km outside the EEZ boundary. 

(2)	 Defining to what extent that plateaus, rises, caps, banks and spurs that are formed of 

oceanic crust and from oceanic processes can be considered to be “natural prolongations” 

of continental margins (see discussion on “Region 4: Kerguelen Plateau”). The ECS for the 

Kerguelen Plateau originates with two exposed islands, Heard and McDonald Islands, 

which sit on a fossil oceanic spreading ridge now called the Central Kerguelen Plateau. 

The ECS includes two features that are geologically and morphologically distinct: Elan 

Bank and the Southern Kerguelen Plateau. Elan Bank is a micro-continental fragment of 

India that abuts the Central Kerguelen Plateau on its west in water depths of 2,500 – 3,000 

m. Southern Kerguelen Plateau is an older plume-related, subsided volcanic edifice 

adjacent to the Central Kerguelen Plateau on its south, also in water depths of 2,500 – 3,000 

m. The extent to which these features can be considered natural prolongations of the 

geologically, morphologically, and perhaps bathymetrically distinct Central Kerguelen 

Plateau, may set a precedent for how oceanic features are determined to be part of a 

5

continental margin. How the base of the continental slope is chosen and what is considered 

“deep ocean floor” are also key considerations in this decision. 

(3) To what degree UNCLOS recognizes reefs and uninhabited micro-islands” (specifically, 

rocks and/or sand shoals) as islands that can have an EEZ (see discussion on “Region 5: 

Lord Howe Rise”). North of Lord Howe Island, it appears that the two reefs, Middleton 

Reef and Elizabeth Reef, were used as baselines to define the 200-nm EEZ boundary. It is 

not addressed in the Executive Summary whether these reefs sustain “human habitation or 

economic life” and therefore qualify to be islands under UNCLOS. By admission of an 

Australian Government web site: “At high tide, when the Elizabeth and Middleton Reefs 

are almost totally submerged, they appear as only rings of white breakers, except for a 

small sand cay at Elizabeth Reef.”1 

(4) How the Foot of the Slope (FOS) is chosen (see especially discussion on “Region 3: Great 

Australian Bight”). The bathymetric scales on the maps of each region utilize different 

colors that are stretched different amounts and therefore can be misleading about sea-floor 

slope, continuity, and depth. Removing these effects is absolutely essential to permit 

understanding how robust and consistent FOS estimates are. The Great Australian Bight 

represents a case where the FOS appears to be in water depths in excess of 4,000 – 5,000 m, 

depths more typical of continental rises. 

Relevance to the U.S. Margin 

A few general points can be made both about the Australian submission and its potential 

analogy to certain features of the U.S. margins. 

(1) The Australian margin has great geological and morphological variety, similar to the U.S. 

margin: parts are passive margins; the north is under compression; some areas were formed 

by shear; extensive continental fragmentation has occurred in other areas; parts have 

undergone extensive volcanism; a few regions are non-volcanic; sediment thicknesses can 

be very large, or very small; buried plateaus lie adjacent to the margin. All of these 

situations also occur around the U.S., although the details and scales of features vary. 

Hence, this submission gives a good idea of the complexity of issues related to the U.S. 

continental margin. 

(2) The Lord Howe Rise and Three Kings Ridge regions contain mixtures of continental crust, 

stretched continental crust, and mixed continental/oceanic crust. If CLCS makes any 

decisions regarding the basins and ridges in this region, those decisions may, in turn, bear 

on future submissions relating to the ridges and basins that underlie the Arctic Ocean (such 

as the Lomonosov Ridge). 

(3) The Naturaliste Plateau and the South Tasman Rise appear to have parallels with the 

Chukchi Plateau in the Arctic and the Blake Plateau off the southeastern U.S.. These 

regions all share characteristics of complex tectonic histories, extended continental crust, 

1

 Source: (http://www.deh.gov.au/coasts/mpa/elizabeth/features.html) 

6

displaced fragments, and juxtaposition with the continental margin. In as much as these 

Australian regions appear justified in having an ECS around them, the Chukchi Plateau 

(Borderland) may also be so justified. 

(4) The ECS on Macquarie Island/Macquarie Ridge out to near or beyond 350 nm2 indicates 

that similar boundaries can be drawn on oceanic ridges that intersect the U.S. continental 

margin. The analog on the U.S. margin is the Gorda Ridge, although this ridge appears to 

lie totally within the U.S. EEZ. The Marianas Islands also lie on an oceanic ridge feature 

that deserves additional scrutiny. 

(5) The large numbers of points defining the outer limit of the Australian ECS (4,205) are used 

to define arcs, rather than straight lines. This strategy maximizes the area considered part 

of the shelf and is worth noting. 

(6) The 60-nm “line-segment” length from Article 76, paragraph 7 can be used to expand 

potential ECS. The best example from the Australian submission joins points S1 (FranceAustralia boundary) to point 2 (Figure 4). Otherwise, the boundary would wrap around to 

intersect the 200-nm limit. The area gained is small, but serves to maximize the ECS. 

Figure 4. Kerguelen EEZ (white) and approximate extended continental shelf boundary (pink). Points 

shown are S1 (at the intersection of the westernmost point of the France-Australia bilateral 

boundary and the Australian EEZ) and point 2 (the first ECS point). Dashed line shows an alternative 

method of linking the ECS to the EEZ. McDonald Island is a small volcanic rock feature near Heard 

Island and is not visible at the scale of this map. 

2 It is not clear in the Executive Summary what the exact distance is, only that it is very close to 350 nm. 

7

Region by Region Analysis 

Region 1: ARGO (For ECS locations, see: 

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/aus04/Maps/arg_map_es2.pdf ) 

Only three points in the Argo area are not based on international maritime boundaries with 

Indonesia: points 1 and 3 are on the 200-nm limit from Australia’s territorial sea baseline. Point 2 

looks reasonable as 60 nm from the base of the slope. 

The Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste (East Timor) submitted strong objections to the 

Australian submission based on the lack of agreement on a mutual maritime boundary. TimorLeste is just east of the edge of the Australian map of the Argo region. Australia signed several 

maritime boundary agreements with Indonesia. When Timor-Leste achieved independence in 2002, 

some of these agreements upon which these boundaries were defined were nullified, bringing into 

question how revenues from shared energy and mineral resources, such as the Greater Sunrise 

petroleum field, will be divided. In mid-2005, the Timor and Australian governments were close 

to negotiating a revenue sharing plan, and were possibly deferring establishing a maritime 

boundary between the two nations in favor of an agreement on sharing revenues from petroleum 

and other seabed resources. 

Region 2: AUSTRALIAN ANTARCTIC TERRITORY (For ECS location, see 

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/aus04/Maps/ant_map_es2.pdf ) 

The most significant portion of the Australian submission on Antarctica is its attached 

diplomatic note 89/2004, which requests the CLCS “not to take any action” regarding the Antarctic 

extended continental shelf. The United States, as well as other countries, also submitted a note 

acknowledging with appreciation Australia’s request that the CLCS not take action on the Antarctic 

aspects of the submission, in light of Article IV of the Antarctic Treaty and the fact that the U.S. 

does not recognize any country’s claim to territory in Antarctica. 

None of the Antarctic boundary points lie beyond the 350 nm limit and the locations of 

most are based on the sediment thickness formula. There are very few public domain data for 

independently verifying sediment thicknesses or resources in these remote regions. Identification 

of the Antarctic extended continental shelf will be relevant to the Kerguelen Plateau because the 

boundary utilized for the south end of the Kerguelen Plateau is the 200 nm boundary for the 

Antarctic continental margin. 

Region 3: GREAT AUSTRALIAN BIGHT (For ECS location, see 

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/aus04/Maps/gab_map_es2.pdf ) 

The extended continental shelf boundary essentially forms the base of a triangle that is 

formed by the northward sweep of the 200-nm limit to an apex in the Great Australian Bight. The 

ECS is defined by 89 points, points 1 and 89 being on the 200-nm boundary. The rest of the points, 

excepting point 87, are based on the bathymetric formula of 60-nm from the FOS. Point 87 uses 

the sediment thickness criterion. Color designations on the figures in the Executive Summary are 

insufficient to determine where the foot of the slope lies, only that it must be well seaward of the 

200-nm boundary in water depths of about 4,000 – 5,000 m. These depths are more typical of the 

continental rise than the continental slope. 

8

The Great Australian Bight region is the trailing margin formed when the continents of 

Antarctica and Australia separated. A large sedimentary basin, the Bight Basin, underlies the 

margin and contains up to 15 km of sediments. Four sub-basins make up this part of the margin, of 

which the Ceduna contains the greatest sediment thicknesses (Hill and others, 2001). The 

geological, inner continental shelf is cut by numerous submarine canyons, and the extended 

continental shelf is underlain by often-faulted Cretaceous and Tertiary sediments (Krassay and 

Totterdell, 2003). The seabed added to the continental shelf contains the seaward extension of the 

Recherche and Ceduna Subbasins. Petroleum potential for the Ceduna Subbasin is considered 

promising (Krassay and Totterdell, 2003; Longley and others, 1999). 

Region 4: KERGUELEN PLATEAU (For ECS location, see 

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/aus04/Maps/ker_map_es2.pdf ) 

 The extended-continental-shelf boundary of the Kerguelen Plateau consists of 1,622 points 

that define the largest single region of the Australian submission that is beyond 200 nm: 1,185,038 

km2. The points are roughly split between the bathymetric formula and the bathymetric constraint 

line, i.e., morphology rather than geology appears to control the boundary. At its greatest extent, 

reaching to the 200-nm boundary of Antarctica, the boundary is more than 400 nm south of the 

Heard/McDonald Islands 200-nm boundary, indicating the Australians have interpreted the plateau 

as a submarine elevation with a natural prolongation that is not limited by either of the constraint 

lines. This region will test interpretations of ridges, submarine elevations, and natural 

prolongations. Decisions by CLCS may set a precedent for how Article 76 is applied to these large, 

mostly submerged features in other geographic locations. 

Even though the Kerguelen boundary is defined exclusively by bathymetric factors, geology 

plays a role in understanding possible “evidence to the contrary” and whether the submerged 

portions of the plateau are natural prolongations of the Heard/McDonald Islands. As long ago as 

1982, the Kerguelen Plateau was classified as an oceanic plateau (Nur and others, 1982). The 

Kerguelen Plateau and similar features are now classified as Large Igneous Provinces or LIP 

(Coffin and Eldholm, 1994). Both classifications acknowledge that oceanic plateaus and large 

igneous provinces are essentially oceanic, but may contain some continental crust. Three Ocean 

Drilling Program (ODP) legs have been devoted to understanding the Kerguelen Plateau: ODP 

Legs 119 and 120 in1987-1988 and Leg 183 in 1998-1999 (Coffin and others, 2000). This scientific 

drilling added significantly to our understanding of the rocks and the geologic processes which 

form the Kerguelen Plateau. For the purposes of this report we recognize the North Kerguelen 

Plateau, the Central Kerguelen Plateau, the South Kerguelen Plateau and Elan Bank (Coffin and 

others, 2000; Frey and others, 2000), as illustrated in Fig. 5. This division reflects the bathymetry 

and underlying geology. Each segment is examined in terms of its relationship with adjacent pieces 

and the applicability of UNCLOS Article 76, “the Continental Shelf”. 

The North Kerguelen Plateau (NKP) underlies the French-owned Îles Kerguelen (Îles de 

Désolation) archipelago. Most of this area is encompassed by the 200 nm radius of the Exclusive 

Economic Zone (EEZ) extending out from these islands. As the youngest of the Kerguelen Plateau 

segments, the NKP consists of oceanic volcanic rocks that erupted approximately 45-35 million 

years ago (Coffin and others, 2002). The Îles Kerguelen (Îles de Désolation) and the Australianowned Heard and MacDonald Islands to the south are separated by about 120 nm of open sea. As a 

result of overlapping EEZs, in 1982 France and Australia signed a Maritime Delimitation Treaty. 

9

Figure 5. Bathymetric map of the Kerguelen Plateau region using a different color scheme than that 

of the Australian submission. NKP – Northern Kerguelen Plateau; CKP – Central Kerguelen Plateau; 

SKP – Southern Kerguelen Plateau. Land areas are shown as gray: Heard and McDonald Islands 

are immediately beneath and to the left of CKP; the Îles Kerguelen (Îles de Désolation) archipelago 

is just below the “P” in NKP. This color scheme emphasizes water depths less than 2,500 m (in 

greens) and greater than 2,500 m (in blues). The 2500-m isobath is shown as a dotted contour. In this 

image, the color scaling minimizes the appearance of connectivity from the CKP to either Elan Bank 

or SKP This map was created in a Geographic Information System using ETOPO2 bathymetry. 

The Central Kerguelen Plateau (CKP) is the keystone of the Australian submission, for 

without Heard and MacDonald Islands on it, there would be no basis for an Australian claim. They 

are the only Australian islands in the South Indian Ocean. While most of the NKP is within 100 m 

of sea level, most of the CKP is deeper (excepting the small area that encompasses 

Heard/McDonald Islands). The geologic boundary between the NKP and the CKP is marked by 

differences in age as well as crustal structure and composition (Frey and others, 2000). The NKP, 

including the archipelago, is composed of Hawaiian-type flood basalt rocks that are less than 45 

10

million years old. In addition, the seismic velocity and thickness of the crust are also characteristic 

of a mid-plate volcanic island, such as Hawaii (Charvis and others, 1995). To the south, the CKP is 

composed mostly of older rocks that were emplaced during a short time in the Cretaceous (around 

100 Ma) contemporaneously with Broken Ridge, a submarine plateau further north in the Indian 

Ocean (Coffin and others, 2002; Wallace and others, 2002). Heard and McDonald Islands are 

formed by recent volcanism, and may indicate that the modern Kerguelen plume has migrated 

southward from the Îles Kerguelen (Îles de Désolation) archipelago to the present location of 

Heard/McDonald Islands (Weis and others, 2002). The crustal rocks beneath the CKP are thicker 

and strongly suggest excessive volcanism related to an active spreading center site over a hotspot, 

similar to the geologic setting of Iceland (Charvis and others, 1995). 

The NKP and CKP, therefore, are two domains resulting from two distinctly different 

processes (mid-plate volcanism and oceanic-ridge spreading), which occurred at different times. 

Both processes are completely oceanic, and no continental rocks have been found in or on the NKP 

and the CKP. The EEZ boundaries that surround the Îles Kerguelen (Îles de Désolation) and 

Heard and MacDonald Islands are relatively straightforward. UNCLOS A 76 specifically excludes 

from the continental shelf the deep ocean floor with its ridges. The islands of the Kerguelen Plateau 

are the result of deep ocean floor processes. 

The CKP has natural bathymetric boundaries separating it from the two other major 

segments of the Kerguelen Plateau: the Southern Kerguelen Plateau (SKP) and Elan Bank. In 

addition, the CKP has little or no geologic ties or continuity to either the SKP or Elan Bank. 

The boundary between the CKP and the SKP lies along a series of bathymetric depressions 

at about 2,600 – 3,000 m water depth near 55o S (Frey and others, 2000). There are no islands on 

the SKP part of the greater Kerguelen Plateau region, and it is more deeply submerged than the 

CKP. One small portion is shallower than 1000 m; otherwise it is generally at 1,300-1,500 m. The 

ocean floor dips gently away from the plateau at about 3500 m (Fig. 5). The SKP is the oldest part 

of the Kerguelen Plateau, having formed between approximately 120 Ma and 110 Ma (Coffin and 

others, 2002). It is about 20 million years older than the CKP and has an entirely different crustal 

structure (Coffin and others, 2000; Frey and others, 2000). There are subtle traces of continental 

crust material within the drill cores recovered from the SKP (Neal and others, 2002). These 

findings clarify plume, plate, and magma processes in the region, but they do not demonstrate 

geologic or morphologic continuity that is essential for establishing natural prolongation. 

To the south of the NKP and to the southwest of the CKP lies Elan Bank, which, like the 

SKP, rises only to depths of about 1,300 m, except for one small area on the western side of the 

bank less than 1,000 m. Drilling on the bank at ODP site 1137 yielded “clasts of garnet-biotite 

gneiss, a rock type that is commonly found only in continental crust,” (Coffin and others, 2000). 

This information is important because it shows that Elan Bank was likely a piece of India during 

the separation of India from Antarctica that became isolated on the Australian plate by a mid-ocean 

ridge jump (Borissova and others, 2003; Ingle and others, 2002). While it has been affected by 

volcanism that occurred simultaneously with or slightly more recently than in the nearby SKP, its 

geologic history is unrelated to the adjacent pieces of the Kerguelen Plateau. It is bathymetrically 

and geologically distinct (Coffin and others, 2000; Coffin and others, 2002). Its continental-type 

rock is neither above sea level nor is it a natural component of any adjacent continental margin. 

11

As discussed earlier, the Kerguelen Plateau submission does not illustrate the bathymetry in 

adequate detail. The color shading does not provide a clear depiction of the morphologic 

boundaries, the FOS, or the 2,500-m contour. The Australians appear to extend their claim seaward 

100 nm from the 2,500 m isobath around the western and southern reaches of Elan Bank. It is 

clearly important to determine without question whether Elan Bank is geologically and perhaps 

bathymetrically part of the NKP or the CKP. 

A final note on the Kerguelen Plateau submission is that a 60 Nmi line is used to connect 

point S1, the westernmost point defining the France-Australia bilateral boundary, to point 2, which 

is positioned using Article 76, 4(a) (ii), 60 Nmi from the foot of the continental slope (of Elan 

Bank). An alternative and more restrictive designation of the boundary would be to continue the 

60-nm points until they intersected with the 200-nm boundary around Heard/McDonald Islands 

(dashed line on Figure 5). 

Region 5: LORD HOWE RISE (For ECS location, see 

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/aus04/Maps/lhr_map_es2.pdf ) 

The submission on Lord Howe Rise expands the 200-nm boundary both to the south, north, 

and east around Lord Howe Island. To the south, the boundary is extended along the Lord Howe 

Rise until it connects with the Australia-New Zealand 2004 treaty boundary. To the north, it is 

extended to the Australia-France 1982 treaty boundary. To the east, these international boundaries 

encompass the eastern extension of the Lord Howe Rise to connect with the Norfolk Island 200-nm 

boundary of Three Kings Ridge (Region 9). Because of these bilateral agreements, there is little to 

inspect about Article-76 issues in the Lord Howe region. 

Three points are worth noting. First, Lord Howe Island and the nearby Ball’s Pyramid are 

volcanic islands, constructed of basalt by hot-spot volcanic activity. They are believed to have 

formed over a mantle plume similarly to the origin of the Hawaiian Islands. They differ from 

Hawaii, however, because they formed on the western edge of the Lord Howe Rise, which is 

determined to have originated from thinned continental crust that rifted away from eastern 

Australia about 75 Ma by short-lived sea-floor spreading in the Tasman Sea (Gaina and others, 

1998). We assume that the continental origin for the Lord Howe Rise is the basis for extending the 

continental shelf across the gap between the Lord Howe and Norfolk Island 200-nm limits. The 

continental origin for the Lord Howe rise provides the justification for generating a continental 

slope and rise seaward of the 200-nm limit and incorporating them into the ECS the region that lies 

beyond the 200-nm limit up to the bilateral boundaries with France (to the north, points R18-R20) 

and New Zealand (to the south, points ANZ 23-25 and ANZ 20-21). 

Second, the southwest boundary of the Lord Howe Rise is formed by points 1 to 117a, 

which are mostly identified as being 60 nm from the foot of the continental slope. The sketchy 

bathymetry shown in the Executive Summary appears to support these points. However, as noted in 

the discussion of the Kerguelen Plateau region, the bathymetric coloring does not permit clear 

distinctions. 

Finally, the rationale behind the hour-glass shape of the 200-nm boundary associated with 

Lord Howe Island is unclear. The shape is presumably derived from combining the 200-nm 

circular boundary from Lord Howe Island and the 200-nm circular boundary of 2 reefs north of 

Lord Howe Island (Fig. 6). These reefs are Elizabeth Reef, about 90 nm to the north, and 

12

Middleton Reef, about 30 nm north of Elizabeth Reef. It is unclear in the Executive Summary 

whether these reefs sustain “human habitation or economic life,” and therefore qualify to be islands 

under UNCLOS. A Geoscience Australia web site dated 08 March 2004 states that the Coral Sea 

Islands “are still uninhabited today ... Unmanned weather stations, beacons, and a lighthouse are 

located on several other islands and reefs. ...There is no fresh water.”3 However, the Australian 

Coral Sea Islands Territory east of the Great Barrier Reef goes well beyond 200 nm from the most 

farthest-offshore barrier reefs and offshore weather station islands (Stagg and others, 2002). It 

appears that Willis Island (near 16o

S and 150oE), which has a permanent weather station, serves as 

the basis for placing the maritime boundary halfway between Australia and Papua New Guinea. To 

the east, the Australians show their extended boundary out to the vicinity of 15oS and 158oE, based 

on the Coral Sea Islands Act of 1969. Presumably the Australians were able to claim all this area 

by taking advantage of UNCLOS Articles 122-123 on Enclosed and Semi-enclosed Seas. These 

articles allow the bordering states to divide among themselves a gulf, basin, or sea that is 

surrounded entirely or primarily by the territorial seas or 200-nm boundaries of the coastal States. 

The Coral Sea is not nearly as enclosed or semi-enclosed as the Bering Sea or the Gulf of Mexico, 

which are regarded by the U.S. and its neighbors as enclosed or semi-enclosed seas. The question 

is whether CLCS will let stand the boundaries set by Australia and other coastal States using 

Articles 122 and 123 to divide up the international sea floor in this region. 

Figure 6. Map showing the location of Elizabeth and Middleton Reefs relative to Lord Howe Island. 

Contour Interval is 1,000 m. 

Some parts of the western margin of Lord Howe Rise are underlain by continental rift 

basins. These may contain as much as 3 km of sediment that are potential hydrocarbon source rocks 

3

 Source: http://www.ga.gov.au/education/facts/dimensions/externalterr/coral.htm 

13

because of elevated thermal histories. East of Lord Howe Island, a more conventional continental 

shelf and slope petroleum province could exist in association with a basin containing more than 2 

km of terrigenous sediments. However, the prospects are listed as “unknown” north of Lord Howe 

Island, “fair to poor” for the western rift basins of Lord Howe Rise, and “fair” for the eastern Lord 

Howe Rise (Hill and others, 2001). 

Region 6: MACQUARIE RIDGE (For ECS location, see 

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/aus04/Maps/mac_map_es2.pdf ) 

The continental shelf boundary for Macquarie Island consists approximately one third of 

bilateral boundary points with New Zealand (the north and east), approximately one third of points 

that use the 60-nm formula estimation (southeast, south, and southwest), and approximately one 

third that are the 200-nm boundary of Macquarie Island (west and northwest). 

The Article 76 issue with Macquarie Island is the legitimacy of using the 60-nm formula to 

extend the “continental margin” of the island beyond 200 nm, and possibly beyond 350 nm 

(southernmost points of the boundary). Macquarie Island is composed primarily of oceanic 

volcanic rocks and their eroded equivalents in local sedimentary deposits. It sits on a linear 

topographic ridge that follows with the Australia-Pacific plate boundary south of New Zealand 

(Meckel and others, 2003). Transpression along this plate boundary has resulted in uplift of the 

1,500-km long Macquarie Ridge complex, of which Macquarie Island is the only subaerial 

exposure (Daczko and others, 2003). The crust on both sides of the Australia-Pacific plate 

boundary is oceanic. Macquarie Island is unique on Earth for being the only “ subaerial exposure 

of non-plume-related-oceanic crust that still lies within the basin in which it formed,” (Daczko and 

others, 2003). Macquarie Island is therefore indisputably oceanic in its origin and present state, and 

lies wholly along an oceanic ridge, albeit not a mid-ocean spreading ridge. 

Region 7: NATURALISTE PLATEAU (For ECS location, see 

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/aus04/Maps/nat_map_es2.pdf ) 

Naturaliste Plateau is probably the least questionable area of the Australian submission. 

This plateau is a submerged extension of the southwest Australian landmass. Of the 424 points 

defining the extended shelf boundary, 100 are set by the constraint lines (90 by the depth constraint 

line; 10 by the 350 nm constraint line). The rest are based on the bathymetric formula line. Clearly 

this region is entitled to the full benefit of Article 76. 

The composition of the plateau is mixed, with the western part consisting of sediments. 

(Symonds and Wilcox, 1989). These authors rate the petroleum prospects as poor. 

Region 8: SOUTH TASMAN RISE (For ECS location, see 

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/aus04/Maps/str_map_es2.pdf ) 

The South Tasman Rise is a submerged portion of the southern Australian landmass making 

this a relatively uncontroversial area of the Australian submission. All but four of the 647 points 

defining this boundary are based on the 60-nm formula; the four points on the eastern boundary are 

based on the sediment thickness formula. This region appears to be entitled to the full benefit of 

Article 76. 

14

This region has two contiguous components, the South Tasman Rise and the East Tasman 

Plateau. A deep water saddle at about 3,000 m exists between the continental shelf and slope of 

Tasmania and both the southerly Rise and eastern Plateau regions. This saddle is clearly inside the 

200-nm line, thus any issues of structural continuity are probably moot. Two ocean-drilling legs 

have greatly contributed to understanding the South Tasman Rise and East Tasman Plateau: DSDP 

Leg 29 in 1973 and ODP Leg 189 in 2000. 

This region of Australia underwent multiple rifting events, plume-volcanism episodes, and 

adjustments in sea-floor spreading directions during the continental break-up around eastern and 

southern Australia (Hill and Exon, 2004). The South Tasman Rise is a continental fragment 

stranded on the Australian plate during the separation of Australia and Antarctica between 

approximately 80 and 33 Ma (Lawver and Gahagan, 2003). It initially developed as a complex, 

extended, faulted regime separating north-south sea floor spreading between Australia and 

Antarctica and east-west spreading between Australia and the Lord Howe Rise (and eastern) 

regions. The westernmost section of the South Tasman Rise probably broke off the Coates Land 

margin of Antarctica (Lawver and Gahagan, 2003). 

The East Tasman Plateau is considered to be a continental fragment from either the Lord 

Howe Rise (Gaina and others, 2003) or from Tasmania (Hill and Exon, 2004) which has been 

overprinted by younger volcanism (Cascade Seamount) that affected this entire region of the 

southeastern Australian continental margin. 

Region 9: THREE KINGS RIDGE (For ECS location, see 

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/aus04/Maps/tkr_map_es2.pdf ) 

Most of the Three Kings Ridge region is bounded by bilateral boundaries with neighboring 

nations. Only two points on the northeast utilize the 60-nm bathymetric formula. If we grant 

legitimacy to those boundaries, including the short segment of boundary labeled “200 M from 

territorial sea baseline of an opposite or adjacent State,” there is not much to question here. These 

international boundaries are used without additional information to extend the ECS boundary (e.g., 

points ANZ 2 – ANZ 8). 

Like the Lord Howe Rise region, the Three Kings Ridge region has a complicated tectonic 

history because of the multiple episodes of rifting, volcanism, and sea-floor spreading that occurred 

during the continental break-up that left Australia as an independent continent (Bernardel and 

others, 2002). The picture is further complicated by plate boundary interactions to the east with the 

Pacific Ocean along the compressional boundary now at the Tonga-Kermadec trench (Bernardel 

and others, 2002). This complex geology is manifested by the complicated morphology of the 

region. Both the Norfolk Ridge and the Three Kings Ridge are considered to have thinned 

continental crustal roots, although the continental rocks inferred in Three Kings Ridge are mixed 

with the more voluminous island arc complexes. As with other regions noted in the Australian 

submission, the criteria used to pick the foot of the slope in this area of complex bathymetry are 

unclear. 

Region 10: WALLABY AND EXMOUTH PLATEAUS (For ECS location, see 

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/aus04/Maps/wep_map_es2.pdf ) 

15

The Wallaby and Exmouth Plateaus lie adjacent to western Australia (Fig. 1). The 966 

points used to define the extended continental shelf are a mix of the 60-nm bathymetric formula 

(132 points), the depth constraint line (543 points) and the 350-nm constraint line (230 points). 

This region of the Australian submission appears to be similar to the Naturaliste Plateau to the 

south; i.e., it is an extension of the western Australian landmass. 

The Wallaby Plateau represents either a submarine volcanic plateau (Colwell and others, 

1994) or a microcontinent associated with intense volcanism and ridge jumps during the continental 

separation between northwestern Australia and India (Brown and others, 2003; Gaina and others, 

2003). The hydrocarbon potential of the Wallaby Plateau is considered negligible because of the 

volcanic activity and large water depths (Sayers and others, 2002). 

Figure 7. Bathymetry around the Wallaby and Exmouth Plateaus showing the extension of Joey 

Rise north of the Exmouth Plateau. The linear morphologic boundary formed by Wombat Plateau 

and Platypus Spur is created by a fault separating oceanic crust to the north from continental 

transitional crust of the Exmouth Plateau. Contour Interval 1,000 m. 

Like the Wallaby Plateau, the Exmouth Plateau is probably underlain by stretched 

continental crust (Brown and others, 2003) and can be considered an extension of the Australian 

landmass. One concern is the interpretation of the 60-nm formula line in the northern Exmouth 

Plateau and how the bathymetric extensions of the plateau are treated. These features are, from the 

continent on the east to the ocean on the north, the Wombat Plateau, the Platypus Spur, and the 

Joey Rise (Fig. 7). The linear morphologic boundary on the northern side of the Wombat Plateau 

16

and the Platypus Spur forms an escarpment that marks the continent-ocean boundary that was once 

a transform fault during sea-floor spreading (Brown and others, 2003). The Joey Rise, however, 

lies on oceanic crust, based on identification of marine magnetic anomalies and results from ODP 

Leg 123, hole 765, which drilled into oceanic basaltic crust slightly to the east of the Rise in the 

Argo Abyssal Plain (Sayers and others, 2002). It is therefore presumably formed by oceanic 

volcanism. However, it appears that points 2-149 of the extended continental shelf boundary use 

the base of the Joey Rise as the foot of the continental slope. The bathymetric saddle that connects 

Platypus Spur to Joey Rise is at about 4,200 m, or at deep ocean depths and lies completely outside 

the Australian 200-nm boundary. The issue is whether the Joey Rise, located above a different 

crustal type and only connected to the larger Exmouth Plateau at deep ocean depths that are well 

outside the 200-nm limit, can be considered an extension of the continental landmass. When the 

CLCS reviews this boundary, a precedent is likely to be set on allowable extensions of the 

landmass. 

It is also interesting to note that the extended continental shelf in the region is significantly 

larger in the final submission than on earlier extended continental shelf drawings (Symonds and 

Wilcox, 1989). Apparently new geologic data or a more aggressive interpretation of Article 76 has 

caused the Australians to extend their submission lines in this area. 

Conclusions 

The continental shelf submission of Australia presents the CLCS with a large and 

complicated delimitation of ECS boundaries. How the CLCS resolves these issues may set 

precedents for future submissions under UNCLOS. The Australian submission also offers many 

analogies for understanding how the U.S. might define extended continental shelf around its 

continental margin. 

Acknowledgments 

Maps in this report were prepared using ArcGIS 9.0 and ETOPO2 bathymetry. We thank 

Richie Williams and Jeff Williams for critical reviews of the draft of this report. We thank Jon 

Childs, Ginger Barth, Mark Simonoff, and Bob Smith for enlightening discussions. 

References Cited 

AMBIS, 2001, Australian Maritime Boundary Information System (AMBIS): Geoscience 

Australia, http://www.ga.gov.au/nmd/products/thematic/ambis.jsp. 

Bernardel, G., Carson, L., Meffre, S., Symonds, P., and Mauffret, A., 2002, Geological and 

morphological framework of the Norfolk Ridge to Three Kings Ridge region: Australian 

Geological Survey Organization Record 2002/08, 76 pp. 

Borissova, I., Coffin, M.F., Charvis, P., and Operto, S., 2003, Structure and development of a 

microcontinent; Elan Bank in the southern Indian Ocean: Geochemistry, Geophysics, 

Geosystems - G (super 3), v. 4, no. 9, 16 pp. 

17

Brown, B., Mueller, R.D., Gaina, C., Struckmeyer, H.I.M., Stagg, H.M.J., and Symonds, P.A., 

2003, Formation and evolution of Australian passive margins; implications for locating the 

boundary between continental and oceanic crust, in Hills, R.R., and Mueller, R.D., eds., 

Geological Society of America, Special Paper, v 372, p. 223-243. 

Charvis, P., Recq, M., Operto, S., and Brefort, D., 1995, Deep structure of the northern Kerguelen 

Plateau and hotspot-related activity: Geophysical Journal International, v. 122, no. 3, p. 

899-924. 

Coffin, M.F., and Eldholm, O., 1994, Large igneous provinces; crustal structure, dimensions, and 

external consequences: Reviews of Geophysics, v. 32, no. 1, p. 1-36. 

Coffin, M.F., Frey, F.A., Wallace, P.J., and others, 2000, Leg 183 summary; Kerguelen PlateauBroken Ridge; a large igneous province: Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Part 

A; Initial Reports, v. 183, p. 101. 

Coffin, M.F., Pringle, M.S., Duncan, R.A., Gladczenko, T.P., Storey, M., Mueller, R.D., and 

Gahagan, L.A., 2002, Kerguelen hotspot magma output since 130 Ma: Journal of Petrology, 

v. 43, no. 7, p. 1121-1139. 

Colwell, J.B., Symonds, P.A., and Crawford, A.J., 1994, The nature of the Wallaby (Cuvier) 

Plateau and other igneous provinces of the West Australian margin: AGSO Journal of 

Australian Geology and Geophysics, v. 15, no. 1, p. 137-156. 

Daczko, N.R., Wertz, K.L., Mosher, S., Coffin, M.F., and Meckel, T., 2003, Extension along the 

Australian-Pacific transpressional transform plate boundary near Macquarie Island, in 

Reddy, S.M., Fitzsimons, I.C.W., and Collins, A.S., eds., Abstracts - Geological Society of 

Australia, v. 72, p. 23. 

Frey, F.A., Coffin, M.F., Wallace, P.J., Weis, D., Zhao, X., Wise, S.W., Jr., Waehnert, V., Teagle, 

D.A.H., Saccocia, P.J., Reusch, D.N., Pringle, M.S., Nicolaysen, K.E., Neal, C.R., Mueller, 

R.D., Moore, C.L., Mahoney, J.J., Keszthelyi, L., Inokuchi, H., Duncan, R.A., Delius, H., 

Damuth, J.E., Damasceno, D., Coxall, H.K., Borre, M.K., Boehm, F., Barling, J., Arndt, 

N.T., and Antretter, M., 2000, Origin and evolution of a submarine large igneous province; 

the Kerguelen Plateau and Broken Ridge, southern Indian Ocean: Earth and Planetary 

Science Letters, v. 176, no. 1, p. 73-89. 

Gaina, C., Mueller, D.R., Royer, J.-Y., Stock, J., Hardebeck, J.L., and Symonds, P., 1998, The 

tectonic history of the Tasman Sea; a puzzle with 13 pieces: Journal of Geophysical 

Research, B, Solid Earth and Planets, v. 103, no. 6, p. 12,413-412,433. 

Gaina, C., Mueller, R.D., Brown, B.J., and Ishihara, T., 2003, Microcontinent formation around 

Australia, in Hills, R.R., and Mueller, R.D., eds., Geological Society of America, Special 

Paper, v. 372, p. 405-416. 

Hill, P., Rollet, N., and Symonds, P., 2001, Seafloor mapping of the South-east Marine Region and 

adjacent waters - AUSTREA final report; Lord Howe Island, south-east Australian margin 

(includes Tasmania and South Tasman Rise) and central Great Australian Bight: Australian 

Geological Survey Organization Record 2001/08, 83 pp. 

18

Hill, P.J., and Exon, N.F., 2004, Tectonics and basin development of the offshore Tasmanian area 

incorporating results from deep ocean drilling: Geophysical Monograph, v. 151, p. 19-42. 

Ingle, S., Weis, D., and Frey, F.A., 2002, Indian continental crust recovered from Elan Bank, 

Kerguelen Plateau (ODP Leg 183, Site 1137): Journal of Petrology, v. 43, no. 7, p. 1241­

1257. 

Krassay, A.A., and Totterdell, J.M., 2003, Seismic stratigraphy of a large, Cretaceous shelf-margin 

delta complex, offshore southern Australia: AAPG Bulletin, v. 87, no. 6, p. 935-963. 

Lawver, L.A., and Gahagan, L.M., 2003, Evolution of Cenozoic seaways in the Circum-Antarctic 

region, in Florindo, F., Cooper, A.K., and O'Brien, P.E., eds., Palaeogeography, 

Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, p. 11-37. 

Longley, I.M., Bradshaw, M.T., and Hebberger, J., 1999, Australian petroleum provinces of the 

21st century: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 83, p. 2037. 

Meckel, T.A., Coffin, M.F., Mosher, S., Symonds, P., Bernardel, G., and Mann, P., 2003, 

Underthrusting at the Hjort Trench, Australian-Pacific plate boundary; incipient 

subduction?: Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems - G (super 3), v. 4, no.12, 30 pp. 

Neal, C.R., Mahoney, J.J., and Chazey, W.J., III, 2002, Mantle sources and the highly variable role 

of continental lithosphere in basalt petrogenesis of the Kerguelen Plateau and Broken Ridge 

LIP; results from ODP Leg 183: Journal of Petrology, v. 43, no. 7, p. 1177-1205. 

Nur, A., Ben-Avraham, Z., 1982, Oceanic plateaus, the fragmentation of continents, and mountain 

building: Journal of Geophysical Research, B, v. 87, no. 5, p. 3644-3661. 

Sayers, J., Borissova, I., Ramsay, D., and Symonds, P.A., 2002, Geological framework of the 

Wallaby Plateau and adjacent areas: Australian Geological Survey Organization Record 

2002/21, 85 pp. 

Stagg, H.M., Alcock, M.B., Borissova, I., and Moore, A.M., 2002, Geological framework of the 

southern Lord Howe Rise and adjacent areas: Australian Geological Survey Organization 

Record 2002/25, 104 pp. 

Symonds, P.A., and Wilcox, J.B., 1989, Australia's petroleum potential in areas beyond an 

Exclusive Economic Zone: Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics, v. 11, 

p. 11-36. 

Wallace, P.J., Frey, F.A., Weis, D., and Coffin, M.F., 2002, Origin and evolution of the Kerguelen 

Plateau, Broken Ridge and Kerguelen Archipelago; editorial: Journal of Petrology, v. 43, 

no. 7, p. 1105-1108. 

Weis, D., Frey, F.A., Schlich, R., Schaming, M., Montigny, R., Damasceno, D., Mattielli, N., 

Nicolaysen, K.E., and Scoates, J.S., 2002, Trace of the Kerguelen mantle plume; evidence 

from seamounts between the Kerguelen Archipelago and Heard Island, Indian Ocean: 

Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems - G (super 3), v. 3, no.6, 16 pp. 

19