The Arctic is Opening Up: Offshore Drilling and Melting Sea Ice

By Roberta Attanasio, IEAM Blog Editor

The heat is on in the Arctic. This region is now warming at a rate faster than twice the global average—known as Arctic amplification. Consequently, the ice that covers the North Pole and surrounding areas, and melts to its lowest extent each September, has been disappearing at an alarming rate.

6211138097_03aa7135e9_o

Arctic Sea Ice Continues Decline, Hits 2nd-Lowest Level. NASA satellite data reveals how the Sep. 9, 2011 minimum sea ice extent declined to a level far smaller than the 30-year average (in yellow) and opened up Northwest Passage shipping lanes (in red). Credit: NASA, CC BY 2.0.

In September 2016, the National Snow & Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, released a report stating that the Arctic sea ice extent was at its lowest—tied with 2007 as the second lowest extent on record since satellite imaging began in 1979. Center director Mark Serreze told The Guardian that even though this year didn’t set a record, the overall downward trend has been reinforced and there is no evidence of recovery. He added that he wouldn’t be surprised if, in summers, the Arctic becomes essentially ice-free by 2030. However, Andrew Revkin recently pointed out that there is persistent uncertainty about how long it will take to reach a September with an ice-free Arctic Ocean.

As of now, scientists can confidently say that there is much more open ocean in the Arctic than there used to be. This new open ocean provides opportunities for development and exploitation, spawning environmental and political debates that reveal shortcomings in the lack of centralized protection and control in the region—a region packed with untapped natural resources.

9842439324_8b00f3093d_o

Aerial photo of the Arctic sea ice pack north of Alaska, USA (Sep. 2013). Cloud formation to the lower left. Credit: NASA, CC BY 2.0.

Sea ice is frozen ocean water. In contrast to glaciers, ice shelves, and icebergs, which originate on land but may float in the ocean, sea ice forms and grows in the ocean. It reflects most of the solar heat back into space and provides a natural air conditioning system, thus playing an important role in keeping the polar region cool and moderating global climate. It also makes most of the Arctic inaccessible to navigation and, therefore, exploitation. However, as climate change alters the region’s topography, accessibility is starting to change.

A few days ago, a luxury cruise ship completed a historic 32-day Northwest Passage journey via the Canadian Arctic and Greenland—a route that has traditionally been blocked by ice. As reported by the Washington Post, “The once forbidding Arctic region, home to polar bears and ice-covered seas, has melted enough that this summer it’s open not only for shipping but high-end tourism.”

Interestingly, the luxury cruise ship completed its journey only few days after Canadian explorers announced they had discovered the wreck of the HMS Terror, a vessel that got stuck in ice and sank while trying to get through the Northwest Passage 168 years ago. According to The Guardian, the search for the HMS Terror “was launched by Canadian former prime minister Stephen Harper as part of a broader plan to assert Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic and promote development of its resources—including vast reserves of oil and natural gas, which will be easier to exploit as the Arctic warms and sea ice disappears.”

Indeed, as the ice keeps dwindling, combined pressure to control, exploit, and protect the Arctic increases on Russia, Canada, the United States, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, and Denmark. These eight countries—or Arctic Nations—are those with territory above the Arctic Circle. Russia, the United States, Canada, Denmark and Norway have all been trying to assert jurisdiction over parts of the Arctic, which is believed to hold, among other riches, up to a quarter of the Earth’s oil and natural gas reserves. In August, the Russian government announced that it had delivered ample scientific data to the United Nations to back its claim to 463,000 square miles of Arctic territory, with the expectation that their bid will start to be assessed in the fall. Altogether, the United Nations is currently evaluating Russian, Danish, and Canadian claims to own considerable areas of the Arctic seabed.

16682605244_565640625d_o

Kayaktivists from sHellNo! Action Council greet Shell’s Arctic Destroyer in the Port Angeles, Washington. Credit:
Backbone Campaign, CC BY 2.0

Drilling to exploit oil and natural gas reserves in the Arctic makes it vulnerable to major environmental risks, including oil spills and releases of methane and black carbon, two potent greenhouses gases. Last year, Shell halted drilling in the Arctic amid slumping oil prices and continuous protests, including those led by activists in kayaks, or “kayaktivists,” who paddled in front of an icebreaker to block its path. At around the same time, citing current market conditions and low industry interest, the Obama administration canceled planned lease sales to oil companies in the Arctic and denied extensions to existing leases.

This year, Norway awarded Arctic drilling licenses to 13 oil companies, leading to a public outcry motivated by concerns over possible spills. A few days ago, plans to allow drilling near the Lofoten Islands, located across the turbulent waters of the Norwegian Sea and far above the Arctic Circle in an area crucial to fish spawning and containing the largest cold-water coral reef in the world, were halted by the Norwegian government following pressure by environmentalists and local fishermen. At the same time, Statoil ASA, a Norwegian multinational oil and gas company, said that it was pushing deeper into the Arctic, shopping for Barents Sea drilling licenses in a bid to “add resources and maintain output” over the coming decades. In contrast, the Russian government recently announced, in light of macroeconomic instability, a temporary moratorium on new offshore oil and gas licenses for drilling on the country’s Arctic shelf.

Arctic drilling seems to follow a pattern of stop and go and, as it involves different economies and different regulations, will move according to complex ups and downs depending on both regional and global conditions. For example, Russia and Norway—energy-producing economies—are more likely to keep drilling at larger scale. At the same time, the oil exploration efforts of Russia and Norway differ in term of regulatory stringency. Because of the extreme climatic and topographical Arctic conditions, along with the downturn in oil prices, drilling in the Arctic is not particularly attractive yet—despite the melting of the sea ice, it remains spotty. Short days, harsh cold climate, strong winds, rough seas, and absence of roads, rails, and ports make the Arctic inaccessible most of the year. Even at the height of summer, wind chills and moving sea ice create inhospitable conditions. So, what keeps the industry moving ahead with its erratic plans to drill in treacherous waters? The simple answer is proven reserves—the promise of unknowable amounts of oil still under the seafloor, and the hope that this oil could be recoverable, when the Arctic opens up even more.

kulluk

Kulluk oil rig being towed from Kiliuda Bay near Kodiak Island, Alaska, Feb. 26, 2013. Credit:
US Pacific Command, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Therefore, drilling continues at selected locations. The United States government in August gave Royal Dutch Shell the final permit to drill for oil in the Arctic Ocean off Alaska’s northwest coast for the first time in more than two decades. White House spokesman Frank Benenati said the administration has invested heavily in renewable energy so that the U.S. can transition off fossil. He added: “But it’s also true that we cannot make that transition overnight, which is why we have taken steps to ensure safe and responsible development of our domestic energy resources that benefits our economy and enhances global energy security, with safety remaining paramount.” This new drilling operation may harm Arctic wildlife and lend a hand to the increased likelihood of oil spills. Moreover, the memory of the Kulluk wreck is still fresh and reminds of other dangers linked to oil exploration and drilling in the Arctic; Kulluk, Shell’s drilling rig, went aground on a small island south of Kodiak, Alaska, at the end of 2012 after the towing line parted in heavy Arctic weather. In 2014, the U.S. Coast Guard said in its final report that the accident was due to the company’s “inadequate assessment and management of risks.”

In addition to the unproven ability of oil companies to prevent oil spills, there is another concern that needs to be emphasized for all Arctic drilling: as pointed out in a recent research article, Arctic drilling is incompatible with the Paris Agreement’s goal of keeping average global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels. When it comes to climate change, the thinning of the Arctic sea ice can be viewed as the “canary in the coal mine.” Therefore, let’s keep the Arctic oil under the seafloor.

 

Disclaimer—The views expressed on this website are those of the authors and do not represent those of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Full disclaimer here.

This post was updated on 27 Sep. 2016. Due to an editorial error, the original text incorrectly referred to the Kulluk wreck as an oil spill.

4 thoughts on “The Arctic is Opening Up: Offshore Drilling and Melting Sea Ice

  1. Ray Kinney

    Wasn’t there an hypothesis in the early ’60s (Ewing and Dawn, or Don?) that asked if the opening of arctic waters would increase moisture into very cold air much of the year,,, to produce massive snowfall on adjacent cold land, thereby initiating another cycle of glaciation before further warming could open the arctic waters further?

    Reply
  2. Ray Kinney

    As ice melts to freshwater rivers and lakes, lots of contaminants, that migrated northward, and became sequestered in the ice through time, is quickly liberated to contaminate water once again. Is there any adequate monitoring of the adverse accumulative effects on the biota, and the people that eat food from those waters?
    Politicians typically see environmental and pollution causative influence on health decline as being inherently politically and fiscally subversive. Grant funding for associative, pointedly investigative assessment is pervasively restricted. Politicians fear election funding cuts from industry lobby sources in the industry if they are displeased. Yet, accurate monitoring and assessment is essential for scientific method and public health to be done with integrity and best societal gain. The profit motive is killing us by controlling just what science gets done, and what does not. Read the research that does manage to get funded, to begin to grasp just how much important (essential) research goes unfunded or hidden from view. Our great great grandchildren beg us to overcome this bias against science.

    Reply
  3. Richard Wenning

    Climate change in the Arctic is particularly intense. The changes are already reshaping the polar landscape and influencing a wide range of human activities – e.g., tourism, resource development, and transportation. The new and changed assumptions required in environmental models to account for climate-related changes will have a profound influence on impact assessment and other planning work supporting human activity now and into the future. Impact assessment methods and current knowledge of Arctic ecology and the ecosystem prepare us to meet these challenges. Although modest at this moment given current low market prices for energy and minerals, Arctic resource exploration and development investment will, undoubtedly, increase as global demand for raw material drives construction of infrastructure in the polar region over the next decade. A science-forward approach to planning, implementation and preparedness for expected/undesirable outcomes will be important to understanding the new Arctic frontier made available by the consequences of climate change (e.g., reduction in late summer sea ice extent and degrading permafrost).

    IEAM, a publication dedicated to bridging the narrowing (?) gap between science and environmental management, is well positioned to highlight research focused on the many challenges confronting Arctic development…. such as the impact of building and maintaining public infrastructure on thawing permafrost; the effects of increased resource development activity on Arctic wildlife and habitat; and, the environmental consequences of increased demand for year-round land and sea transportation corridors.

    Reply
  4. Ashley

    Full cost analysis is a method of accounting for costs, both direct and indirect, to arrive at a real cost for a good or service. In the case of off shore drilling, I would venture to say that the FCA leads us to believe that this practice is not worth the costs incurred. Oil spills harm countless animals though contact with their habitat, and can even take their lives, causing a huge impact on the ecosystem and the food chain. With a segment of the animal population significantly impacted by oil spill disasters, it has a ripple effect that can be felt at all levels within the food chain within an ecological niche. Disappearance of the types of animals that are effected by spills is a cost that should be taken into account when calculating the FCA of projects like oil drilling stations. Beyond this, FCA should always include the negative impact of activities on the environment, as well as the positive aspects of a decision. For instance, when an oil spill does occur, it can taint international waters and cause widespread issues. It can be a common occurrence for the company responsible to claim it does not need to clean the international waters and since it falls outside of the jurisdiction of any one country, this can be a problem as no country is able to enforce the cleanup of these international areas. Again, the potential negative situations must be included in a full analysis of the costs of projects of this nature and many times, if honestly accounted for, will provide a very clear answer on whether the project should move forward or if the cost to us, and to the surrounding ecosystem, is simply too great.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s