Samuel Corwin: The Case against Arctic Resource Exploration

Despite vast potential for Arctic energy resources, the Arctic should remain unexplored due to considerable environmental effects that resource exploration would have on the Arctic, and the world, as a whole. Arctic resource exploration will have considerable effects on Arctic ice, global warming, and the risk of environmental disaster.

 

As nations seek to increase national revenue and decrease dependency on foreign oil, various organizations increasingly look towards the Arctic for resource exploration. The Arctic contains an estimated 13% of undiscovered international oil, and approximately 30% of undiscovered international gas (Berdanier, 2015). Of total Arctic energy resources, gas comprises 67.7%, with oil making up 22.4%, and natural gas liquids (NGL) coming in at 10% (Praprotnik, 2013). These Arctic resources could account for an estimated 412,157 million barrels of oil equivalent (Praprotnik, 2013). Potential Arctic resources could thus provide a variable amount of energy and revenue for the five coastal states in the Arctic: Canada, the United States, Russia, Norway, and Greenland. The issue, however, is the severe environmental degradation that could result from Arctic resource exploration.

 

Due to increased global warming over the past few decades that has manifested in the form of increased global mean temperatures and more extreme weather patterns, Arctic ice has decreased considerably, a process that will greatly be exacerbated by resource exploration in the area. As shipping vessels travel through the Arctic, the incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons emits black carbon, which becomes lodged in Arctic snow and ice (Ebinger and Zambitakis, 2009). This black carbon darkens the ice and snow, allowing it to absorb more sunlight, thus melting it at a faster rate (Ebinger and Zambitakis, 2009). Considering the difficulty in navigating dense ice in the Arctic, an increased rate of ice melt would make shipping through the region easier. Increased ease of shipping would increase the amount of vessel traffic in the area, further exacerbating the rate of ice melt (Ebinger and Zambitakis, 2009).

 

In addition to the issues of increasing the rate of melting ice in the Arctic, resource exploration in the area will also aggravate global warming. The ice-capable ships needed to navigate the Arctic burn more fuel than comparable transport ships because extra fuel is required to push through the ice, causing an unnecessary rise in shipping-related emissions (Ebinger and Zambitakis, 2009). Furthermore, environmental scientists tend to agree that to prevent irreversible and devastating effects of global warming, the average global temperature increase cannot exceed 2° Celsius (McGlade and Ekins, 2015). In a recent study examining the effects of burning fossil fuels on global warming, scientists explored various feasible scenarios in which global temperature rise does not exceed 2° C by 2050 (McGlade and Ekins, 2015). In all of those scenarios, they determined that all Arctic resources needed to be classified as unburnable in order to prevent a 2° C global temperature increase (McGlade and Ekins, 2015).

 

Besides the exacerbation threat of global warming posed by Arctic resource exploration, searching for oil and gas in the region also poses the risk of environmental disaster, likely in the form of an oil spill. As evident from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, catastrophic spills can occur in warm, easily-navigable waters with a long history of resource extraction. The risk of such spills is much higher in the Arctic than in warmer and iceless environments such as the Gulf of Mexico, as the Arctic is harder to access and new, yet-to-be-proven technology is required. These risks are heightened by the uncertain weather patterns in warming Arctic waters, the challenge faced by navigating broken ice, and the lack of maritime traffic management (Ebinger and Zambitakis, 2009). Furthermore, should a spill occur in the Arctic, the environmental effects can be even more devastating than if it were to occur elsewhere; ice interferes with the natural decomposition of oil, enabling the spill to persist for a longer time (Ebinger and Zambitakis, 2009).

 

Despite the potential for economic and energy resources, the Arctic should be classified as off-limits to resource exploration. This verdict results from the increased rate of ice melt, the exacerbation of global warming, and the high potential for an oil spill that all result from Arctic energy exploration.

 

Jennifer Comment:

 I completely agree that the potential economic and political benefits of arctic energy development do not seem to justify the many associated environmental risks. Given the many barriers to and high costs associated with arctic energy development, as well as the currently low price of oil, it will be interesting to see whether investments in arctic energy exploration continue at their current rate, or begin to decline. I also wonder what the alternatives to US development of arctic oil and natural gas are. It seems unlikely that the alternative would be to invest in renewable energy sources, although this would obviously be the best alternative from an environmental perspective. I imagine that if these regions are closed to oil exploration, there will be greater investment in offshore oil and gas development in other coastal US waters. Since these waters are home to greater biodiversity than arctic waters, an oil spill associated with drilling in these areas could have potentially worse ecological effects. On the other hand, cleaning up an oil spill in more temperate regions is arguably easier than in the arctic, where ice coverage is incredibly dynamic and unpredictable. There are also greater political and economic incentives to quickly address an oil spill in a region like the Gulf of Mexico, where many coastal residents will be impacted. By contrast, in an area like the Arctic, where there are few residents, and many are indigenous peoples with relatively little political clout, there are fewer incentives for the government or oil companies to work quickly to clean up a spill.

Noah:

At the end of your blog, you touch on an issue that is critical to issue of oil and gas exploration in the arctic.  This is the issue of the potential for environmental disaster.  Wherever there is an oil spill, the surrounding ecosystem almost always suffers significant degradation.  However, some ecosystems are more valuable than others in terms of their genetic diversity and the ecosystem services they provide.  For example, an oil spill in the middle of the Nevada desert would certainly be troubling.  However, although we would not want any oil spills, if we were given the choice between oil spilling in Nevada and a comparable oil spill occurring in the Amazon rainforest, most of us would (or at least should) take the spill in Nevada.  This is because the Amazon contains significantly more genetic diversity and is critical in regulating the Earth’s climate.  In the case of the arctic, wildlife reserves such as ANWAR have been made wildlife preserves because they are designed to protect sensitive ecosystems and species that are critical to ecosystem stability and genetic diversity.  Drilling in the arctic ocean, or any ocean for that matter, poses an even higher risk due to the ocean’s ability to disperse an isolated spill over a large area and thus affect more ecosystems and species.

Sunny:

It’s easy to say that we shouldn’t harm the environment, but there are also obvious benefits to exploring the Arctic. Do you believe that there should be an international body that governs exploration programs or sets moratoriums on exploration? How can we best prevent economic pressure from affecting our decision that have environmental effects?

Anita:

I agree that Arctic resource exploration should be avoided due to environmental risks, but unfortunately economic pressure will likely have more weight than environmental. You also did not mention any alternative solutions to prevent the desire to drill in the Arctic. Should we just continue drilling within our countries and off coastlines, or should we move away from drilling all together? Also, there is no country in particular that controls the Arctic. Should the Arctic Council set the regulations for the arctic region to prevent drilling or should they just reevaluate the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy?

Colm:

I completely agree with everything in this blog post. The environment of the Arctic is already rapidly degrading with global warming, global concentration of persistent organic pollutants, and the subsequent loss of biodiversity. Oil and gas exploration and exploitation would only exacerbate these issues. The risks associated with arctic G & G surveys and extraction are large and less well- known than the risks associated with, say, offshore oil drilling in the southeastern Atlantic (which are also great). I think that the rhetoric surrounding the need to decrease reliance on foreign oil is largely overblown and is used by the oil and gas industry as a ruse to go after reserves with smaller and smaller EROIs. One of the reasons that the federal government should stop trying to exploit these small, economically questionable, and environmentally dangerous reserves is that it creates a continued inertia and national reliance on the oil and gas industry. If these reserves are exploited, and the subsequent infrastructure is built, all that does is create that many more reasons for oil and gas companies to resist moving into more renewable sources of energy (because of sunk costs). Sure, this would create jobs, but are they sustainable jobs? And at what cost? It just seems like oil and gas companies are becoming increasingly desperate and also willing to exploit reserves that simply don’t make sense. I think your article nicely delineates the absurdity of trying to go after arctic oil and natural gas.

 

Jen comment:

You make a compelling and strong argument for preventing future resource exploration in the Arctic. Clearly, this unique and vulnerable ecosystem must be protected and regulated in order to prevent further/potential degradation. However, I’m discouraged by the clear logistical challenges associated with limiting Arctic exploration and resource use. Who should be responsible for implementing and enforcing such a policy? While you make valid arguments that are well-supported with evidence, I think it would be extremely challenging to obtain support for such a policy given the potential economic benefits. If something like this were implemented, I wonder where and how the line would be drawn with relations to resource exploration limitation in other ecosystems. To draw on Noah’s comment, the Amazon is also a very critical ecosystem; could a similar policy be enacted in this region? How would we prioritize protecting all of the essential yet diverse ecosystems that are critical for environmental health and stability?

Eva comment:

I wholeheartedly agree with you on this issue. Potential disastrous environmental effects should absolutely be taken into account when considering economic opportunities such as this one. Another potential effect (I say potential because the science to prove this could happen cannot yet be said to be concrete) is one that is associated with Arctic warming’s possible effect on global ocean circulation systems. Before the end of the last Ice Age, an event called the Younger Dryas Cooling Event occurred in Europe which changed temporary warming of the Earth back into Ice Age conditions. It is speculated that this occurred because of glacial melting and a large amount of freshwater entering the Atlantic Ocean, thus disrupting the flow of the oceans that is based on patterns of temperature and salinity. This may have caused the Gulf Stream to stop circulating to Europe, pushing this area back into cold temperatures. If this were to happen now and the Gulf Stream were to be affected again, countries would be disrupted both in terms of living conditions and economic reliance on ocean resources worldwide. Potential impacts like these make the amount of economic gain and natural resource independence that could be gained from Arctic drilling not worth the risks in the long run.

 

Nate:

I enjoyed your blog post as you provided a wealth of information behind why oil and gas exploration in the Artic would be a catastrophic idea. Luckily, I think recent changes in the economics of oil and gas exploration will prevent petroleum companies from drilling in the Artic. Oil and gas prices have dropped to historic lows over the last few months, with many analysts forecasting trouble for petroleum companies throughout the world. OPEC, a once strong cartel of oil producing nations, has lost much of its price controlling clout. In fact, low oil prices have driven a wedge between smaller oil producing nations, such as Nigeria, and historic petroleum powerhouses like Saudi Arabia. To maintain future profit margins, Saudi Arabia has gone as far as stating their willingness to drop current crude prices and push other nations out of the market. Lastly, recent million dollar ventures into the North Sea and area’s of the Artic have proven largely inefficient; the cost of deep sea exploration and drilling, as well as the relatively small returns such ventures bring are beginning to convince many petroleum companies that drilling in the Artic is simply not worth the costs. If these economic factors continue to impact the global petroleum market, the Artic should remain safe from the clutches of international oil and game companies.

 

Josh comment:

I really enjoyed reading your post, and didn’t realize the vast potential for energy resources that lie in the Arctic. Knowing that, it is easy to see why the Arctic remains such an appealing source for further energy exploration and development. I agree with your assessment that global warming is inherently the biggest issue associated with the melting of Arctic ice, and that, if the area were opened to development, the potential rise in global temperature would be too dire to abate.

I think another argument that could be made against exploration lies in the other environmental and ecosystem impacts that would be generated from energy exploration. As you mentioned toward the end of your post, oil spills and other associated accidents could cause even greater harm to the environment, particularly to any endemic wildlife. In fact, these are problems that would be easier to focus on and utilize as an effective argument against Arctic exploration due to their increased visibility and perception in the public. Global warming, although almost universally accepted among scientists, remains controversial due partly to its inherent slow and less visible nature. However, many people have seen the World Wildlife Foundation commercials of Polar Bears floating on small chunks of ice and feel much more compelled to take a stance against anything that would threaten their habitats. Thus, I feel that, in terms of political feasibility, the Arctic will continue to remain off-limits.

 

 

Bibliography

Berdanier, A., 2-12-15 Class Lecture, Integrating Science and Environmental Policy, ENV201, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University.

Ebinger, C., and Zambetakis, E. (2009). “The geopolitics of Arctic melt.” International
Affairs 85 (6): 1215-1232. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2346.2009.00858.x.

McGlade, C., and Ekins, P. (2015). “The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when
limiting global warming to 2° C.” Nature 517: 187-190. doi: 10.1038/nature14016.

Praprotnik, T. (2013) “Arctic Offshore Energy Resources: Distribution across International
Boundaries and Climatic Impact” (Master’s thesis, Duke University).