Arctic Offshore Oil & Gas Exploration: The Race to Ruin our Last Frontier
The Arctic has long been a known hotspot for hydrocarbon resources (Gulas et al. 2017). The first major energy discoveries in the region were made in Sibera and Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, in the 1960’s (Council on Foreign Relations, 2014). Although its harsh environment has always posed a challenge in regard to the accessibility of offshore drilling recent warming trends are changing this senecio (Gulas et al. 2017). The Arctic is warming nearly twice as fast as the rest of the planet, a rate far faster than scientists expected (Council on Foreign Relations, 2014)(Allen et al, 2017). Satellite monitoring of the Arctic began in 1979 (Mueller et al, 2018). Since then the polar ice caps have retreated by roughly 40%, a steady decline over the past 30 years. It is known that natural climate cycles cause global warming and cooling patterns, however, these changes have been brought about through anthropogenic influences, of which the burning of fossil fuels is a huge component. With our rate of consumption and our lack of significant action addressing climate related issues science predicts only further increases in global temperature and further decline in Arctic sea ice in the future (IBID). In this paper I will argue that offshore oil and gas exploration in the Arctic is dangerous and unethical. I will use scientific evidence and ethical reasoning to back up my claims and will demonstrate that, instead of wasting resources exploiting some of our last fossil fuel reserves, we should be investing in alternative energy solutions.
The average annual temperature in the Arctic is 8ºF warmer than it was between 1961-1990 (Allen et al, 2017). Fall temperatures, in October and November, have increased to 9ºF above average. These increasing temperatures are melting Arctic sea ice causing the sea level to rise. Consequently these events are likely to displace low lying communities around the globe. Decreased ice mass will limit habitat for many of the Arctic’s keystone species, such as the Arctic fox, polar bear, and ice seals (World Wildlife Fund, 2018). Sustenance hunting and fishing for Arctic communities will be affected as well (IBID). Sea level rise will change the face of our planet in ways we can only imagine.
Warmer temperatures are also causing the thawing of permafrost, a substantial carbon sink (Natural Resource Defense Council, 2018). Permafrost consists of soil and bedrock which has been frozen for thousands of years. This frozen ground has trapped the greenhouse gasses released from the decay of plant and animal life dating back far beyond the time when woolly mammoth roamed the earth. As this frozen soil thaws it is releasing more carbon and methane in to the atmosphere, only exacerbating the already problematic rise in global temperatures (Allen et al. 2017). One pound of methane has the ability to trap 25 to 33 times more heat that one pound of CO2 (IBID). Today global greenhouse gas emissions are increasing at a staggering rate (Muller et al. 2018). According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), emissions have climbed 70% between 1970 and 2004, and CO2 release increased by 80%. We are now experiencing the highest annual increase in carbon pollution in history.
Many Arctic communities have been built on this perpetually frozen ground (Allen et al. 2017). The thawing of permafrost is already posing serious challenges for existing infrastructure in the Arctic region. Buildings are crumbling and roads are sagging. Storms are eroding the Arctic coastline, no longer protected by thick sheets of ice. In Alaska many tribal Alaskan lands are already under threat from coastal erosion. Thirty-one indigenous communities may soon become uninhabitable and twelve have already relocated, leaving the traditional ways of their people dashed on the rocks (IBID).
The consequences of melting ice are not isolated to the Arctic (Allen et al. 2017). Coastal areas in many tropical regions are especially vulnerable to sea level rise caused by the melting Greenland ice sheet and Arctic ice in general. Miami-Dade County, FL, for example, is expected to see a four to seven inch increase in sea level by 2030. This low lying city is already feeling the effects of these changes, as flooding has plagued the streets of many neighborhoods on normal, sunny days. The worlds largest naval base in Norfolk, VA is also experiencing frequent floods, and the New York and New Jersey shorelines are expected to experience at least a one foot rise in sea level, possibly as early as 2030. Still, conservative local governments are reluctant to call a spade a spade (IBID). Low lying communities around the world are already seeing their homes threatened. Many are in third world countries and are desperately poor, unable to afford to take temporary mitigation measures or pick up and move to higher ground. The Greenland ice cap alone could increase global sea levels as much as 20 feet (Allen et al. 2017). Some island nations stand to lose everything. Though a moratorium on Arctic drilling will not prevent many of these tragedies which have already been set in motion, it will certainly help alleviate further loss.
So how much oil and gas does the Arctic really have? In 2008 the United States Geological Survey (USGS) conducted an assessment of the unexploited oil and natural gas resources in the area know as the Arctic Circle, using probabilistic geology based methodology (Gautier et al, 2009). The results of the study concluded that approximately 30% of the world’s untapped gas and 13% of the world’s untapped oil may be found in the region. Most of these fossil fuels lie offshore at depths of less than 500 meters. Of the abundance of gas projected by the survey the majority lies in Russian territory. Oil resources being much less abundant is likely “not sufficient to substantially shift the current geographic pattern of world oil production,” according to Daniel Gautier and his team from the USGS (IBID).
The study located 61 potential oil fields in the region, with 60% of the total petroleum potential isolated to just six sites (Gautier, et al. 2009). Among those six 31% (27.9 billion barrels) is projected to lie in Alaskan waters. Forty-three sites in total are in Russian territory. The remaining 12 are dispersed among the other Arctic nations. In all just under 60 billion barrels are projected to be in the Arctic region (IBID). To put this into perspective, according the U.S. Energy Information Association, the U.S. alone consumed 7.28 billion barrels of gas in 2017. Global consumption projections for 2018 are at 99.6 billion barrels (EIA, 2018). The 60 billion barrel projection for the Arctic region is, therefore, a flash in the pan. The estimated 27.9 billion barrels in U.S. waters would only sustain the US for a little more than 3 years. Furthermore this gas will not be cheap. Operating costs in the Arctic are substantially higher than offshore drilling in less temperate waters, or on land. Those who stood in solidarity in recent years to chant “drill here, drill now” will be sorely disappointed when their U.S. gas makes it to the pump.
Global consumption of natural gas was 110 BBOE per year in 2008 (Gautier et al. 2009). By 2017 consumption rates had increased by 3% (BP Global, 2017). The Arctic is projected to contain three times more natural gas than oil (Gautier et al. 2009). The largest reserve is thought to contain 22.5 BBOE (billions barrels of oil equivalent, a measure commonly used to quantify natural gas), almost as much as the total amount of oil projected in region. In total as much as 2990 BBOE could be added to the global natural gas pool, therefore, natural gas has a higher probability of being developed here. Though substantial gas reserves were located in Alaska, Canada and Greenland, the majority lie in Russian territory. This discovery further reinforces Russia’s position in the Arctic as the primary resource holder (nearly half of the Arctic coastline belongs to Russia) and will likely prevent the country from diversifying their energy portfolio with alternative sources any time soon (IBID). Russia has been the largest investor in Arctic infrastructure, having spent tens of billions of dollars on new ports and nuclear ice breakers (Council on Foreign Relations, 2014). Russian activities in the Arctic have also long been associated with widespread pollution. Though they have a Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment, environmental protection seems low on their priority list (Gulas et al. 2017). It should be noted that all the projections by the USGS do not take into consideration the accessibility of these resources, but simply their existence. Many may prove too difficult or too expensive to ever be exploited (IBID).
The Arctic is not just a playground for wealthy oil companies. The Arctic Ocean is both one of the most pristine places on earth and one of the most fragile (World Wildlife Fund, 2018). It also may be one of the world’s last great frontiers and home to a myriad of endemic species and wildlife communities which have called the region home for thousands of years (Council on Foreign Relations, 2014). The Arctic terrain includes vast areas of intact marine and terrestrial habitats teeming with wildlife (Allen, et al. 2017). Millions of birds flock to the region every year from all over the world. Many whale species can be found in the frigid waters at various times of the year, including bowhead and gray whales (IBID).
Rising global temperatures and melting sea ice is changing the habitat conditions and range for many endemic and important Arctic species. Many scientists and ecologists have stated that offshore drilling will have detrimental affects on several wildlife communities (World Wildlife Fund, 2018). Arctic foxes, polar bears, ice seals, walruses, and beluga whales will all be detrimentally effected by an increase in Arctic activity. Noise pollution from increased shipping traffic and drilling operations may disorientate marine mammal and cause them to veer off course and may hinder communication between social species like the beluga. Decreasing sea ice will further disrupt the pupping grounds of the walrus, who raise their young on floating ice in shallow waters. Polar bears will also feel the effects as they spend a fair amount of time out on the sea ice hunting for prey. The intrusion by human activity will restrict an increasingly fractured habitat for land mammals. A spill would be deadly for all of these creatures, as ingestion is highly probable with their food web contaminated. These hearty marine mammals are a vital source of sustenance for some indigenous human communities. A decrease in animal populations would trickle down to the humans, who rely on them heavily with the very limited resources provided in the harsh Arctic environment (IBID).
Aside from the obvious concern over oil spills other byproducts of the oil and gas industry will change the Arctic ecology and endanger animals just through their daily activities (Allen, et al. 2017). Boat strikes from increased shipping activity is one example, but also pollution from the operation of these vessels, which would include sewage discharge, diesel fumes, and the unintentional transport of invasive species (IBID).
The unique geography and difficult conditions posed by the Arctic climate, coupled with the lack of infrastructure, make the probability of an oil spill an ecological disaster waiting to happen. Because all offshore oil and gas exploitation and shipping run the risk of oil spill, it is not a matter of “if,” but of “when”.(Vergeynst et al, 2018). Even with the decrease in persistent sea ice the Arctic is fraught with challenges. Petroleum exploration and development in this area face intense weather, prolonged periods of darkness, sea ice, ice storms, and desolate land and sea scapes far from civilization and help should the need arise (Gulas et al. 2017). Thick expanses of sea ice have made much of the area unnavigable (Knol, Arbo, 2014).
In spite of these challenges offshore drilling began in the region in the 1970’s, and history has not withheld examples of such catastrophes (Gulas et al. 2017). In 1977 the Ekofisk Bravo Platform experienced a blowout in Norwegian waters spilling 80–126 thousand barrels of oil (Vergeynst et al, 2018). In 1989 the Exxon Valdez tanker spilled 10.8 million barrels off the coast of Alaska. The Braer tanker spilled 84 thousand barrels in 1993, and the Sea Empress tanker ran aground, subsequently spilling 74 thousand barrels in the same location north of Scotland in 1998 (White, Baker, 1998).
The Arctic poses specific challenges for containing and cleaning oil spills (White, Baker, 1998). How spills behave and where the oil ends up is determined by many factors; Weather condition, sea conditions, and the physical, biological and socioeconomic characteristics of the spill location, as well as, time of year in which the spill occurs, and clean up methods used all have great effect on the efficiency of the decontamination efforts. Arctic water temperature alone causes the oil to act very differently than in warmer seas where the biodegradation of oil can occur rather efficiently (Vergeynst et al. 2018)(McFarland et al. 2014). Furthermore the varying geography of coastlines may have a significant impact on the length of time oil will persist in the environmental. Sandy beaches clean up rather quickly due to the continuous action of waves washing the shore. In marshes, on the other hand, oil has been know to persist for decades (IBID). Various forms of sea life can survive after oil ingestion, however, for many it will stay in their bodies until their demise. The application of mitigation technologies, such as oil dispersal agents, are also not without their negative affects (Chang et al. 2014). Studies have shown that these added chemicals, which may be applied in quantities of thousands of gallons at a time, are also proving to have toxic affects on marine life well after their use. Many of these creatures are low on the food chain, making bioaccumulation a big concern for both Arctic wildlife and humans.
Over the last 20 years melting sea ice, advances in technology, and globally increasing demand for petroleum have caused a resurgence of interest in the Arctic (Council on Foreign Relations, 2014). With arctic ice at a record low the big five coastal countries, U.S., Russia, Norway, Canada, and Denmark (through its autonomous constituent country of Greenland) have all sounded the rallying cries for arctic expansion. Several forecast the Arctic will be free of summer ice in just a few short decades. This environmental disaster equates to little more than dollar signs for the industries anxious to profit from the region’s change in circumstance.
Proponents of Arctic offshore exploration are eager to see cheaper and more American-made gas at the pumps. They claim Arctic oil will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and decrease the pressure to maintain relationships with hostile countries in the Middle East. Furthermore reduced sea ice will open up shipping routes making it faster, easier, and cheaper to get goods from China; all of which will stoke the American economy. The European Arctic nations have similar interests in the region, with an emphasis on decreasing their dependence on geopolitically risky relationship with many of their current suppliers such as Russia, Africa, and the Middle East (Petrick et al. 2017). Additional benefits would be the high paying, yet dangerous, jobs added to the market and the increased presence in a region that is feared to vulnerable to territorial disputes due to currently low populations and political oversight.
Furthermore a study of the competitiveness of European Arctic offshore oil and gas production on the world market concluded that, as of 2016, market prices did not justify the cost of oil exploration in the region from an economic perspective (Petrick et al. 2017).
Tough the 2008 USGS assessment of Arctic oil resources reported that the amount of oil perceived to be in the region insignificant, natural gas exploration appears to be much more profitable(Gautier et al. 2009). An industry-backed UK firm, Lloyds’ of London, expects Arctic oil and gas to account for a “relatively small but strategically significant” portion of global investment in the coming decades, and that pursuing the Arctic could “transform local economies and global energy dynamics” (Council on Foreign Relations, 2014). Additional analysis of the competitiveness of the European Arctic offshore oil and gas production on the world market did not justify the cost of oil exploration in the region from an economic perspective based on 2016 oil and gas prices. Furthermore one has to remember that although natural gas resources in the Arctic are far more abundant the majority lies within Russian territory, a country from whom many national leaders have stated they are trying to distance themselves.
Further development of fossil fuels will indisputably contribute to the warming of the planet. At a time when nations should be looking to renewable resources and alternative energy many are rushing to plunder some of what may be among the last remaining fossil fuel reserves on the planet. Global leaders are concerned that along with increased access to resources, the more accessible Arctic may also serve as a source of contention between Arctic states and others wishing to cash in on its treasures. Territorial disputes and resource completion are feared to ignite armed aggression and have raised concerns over a new “Cold War” (Council on Foreign Relations, 2014).
As our current president turns back the protections of administrations past many environmentalist, scientists, and industry experts are skeptical that the United States has the capabilities to handle an Arctic oil spill. If a spill were to occur in the late summer or start of winter if may have to be allowed to spill freely for up to eight months until conditions improve enough for human intervention (Gulas et al. 2017). Though some Arctic nations have more experience working in these conditions the tone of this presidency hardly invites bilateral cooperation (IBID).
Offshore drilling in the Arctic will have far reaching consequences. Not only will it contribute to the further demise of one of the world’s last great frontiers, it will also displace and endanger wildlife, and potentially destroy indigenous Arctic cultures. Oil and gas activities in the region are certain to contribute to further global warming and sea level rise. This has serious consequences for distant people, future people, and on our current timeline, each and everyone of us on the planet today. All of this for a few more years oil and gas? Instead of continuing on a path we know will lead to destruction we must shift the energy narrative to one of true energy independence. This is not the time for the “drill here, drill now” pro-US-oil chants previously invoked by industry executives. Instead of using billions of dollars to pursue a few years worth off shore oil, lets redirect those funds into a real energy future with renewable sources. Let’s truly move forward not just continue on a path of repeating past mistakes.