Riches in the Arctic: the new oil race
New geological surveys show as much as a fifth of the world's undiscovered but exploitable gas and oil reserves lie under the Arctic ice. As the ice melts, the pristine wilderness could become 'the new Houston'. By Michael McCarthy
Friday, 25 July 2008
AP
It is the increasingly rapid melting of the Arctic sea ice which is opening up the possibility of the once frozen wasteland providing a natural resources and minerals bonanza
The future of the Arctic will be less white wilderness, more black gold, a new report on oil reserves in the High North has signalled this week. The first-comprehensive assessment of oil and gas resources north of the Arctic Circle, carried out by American geologists, reveals that underneath the ice, the region may contain as much as a fifth of the world's undiscovered yet recoverable oil and natural gas reserves.
This includes 90 billion barrels of oil, enough to supply the world for three years at current consumption rates, or to supply America for 12, and 1,670 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of gas, which is equal to about a third of the world's known gas reserves.
The significance of the report is that it puts firm figures for the first time on the hydrocarbon riches which the five countries surrounding the Arctic – the US, Russia, Canada, Norway and Denmark (through its dependency, Greenland) – have been eyeing up for several years.
It is the increasingly rapid melting of the Arctic sea ice, which last September hit a new record summer low, and of land-based ice on Greenland, which is opening up the possibility of the once frozen wasteland providing a natural resources and minerals bonanza, not to mention a major new transport route – last year the fabled North-West Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific along the top of Canada was navigable for the first time.
Scientists consider that global warming is responsible for the melting, with the high latitudes of the Arctic warming twice as fast as the rest of the world.
Environmentalists see this as a massive danger, with the melting of Greenland's land-based ice adding to sea-level rise, while the melting of the sea ice uncovers a dark ocean surface that absorbs far more of the sun's heat than the ice did, and thus acts as a "positive feedback" reinforcing warming. The melting of Greenland's ice sheet has accelerated so dramatically that it is triggering earthquakes for the first time, with movements of gigantic pieces of ice creating shockwaves with a magnitude of up to three.
Conservationists are also concerned about the threat to the Arctic's unique ecosystems and wildlife.
The Arctic countries' governments, on the other hand, see it as a massive opportunity, and are already positioning themselves to claim stakes in the seabed of the Arctic Ocean, if – as many climate scientists now believe will happen – it becomes ice-free in summer within a couple of decades.
Just a year ago, to much media fanfare, the Russians planted a flag on the seabed some 2.5 miles beneath the ice at the North Pole, and dispatched a nuclear-powered icebreaker to map a subsea link between the Pole and Siberia, as part of an effort to circumvent a UN convention limiting resource claims beyond 200 miles offshore.
Canada said earlier this month that it plans to counter the Russian overture with "a very strong claim" to Arctic exploration rights.
This week's oil and gas study, carried out by the US Geological Survey, does not raise the national competitive stakes appreciably as it reveals that most of the reserves are lying close to the shore, within the territorial jurisdiction of the countries concerned. Much of the oil is off Alaska; much of the natural gas off the Russian coastline. There appear to be only small reserves under the unclaimed heart of the Arctic.
However, what the report does do is to indicate a very different future for one of the world's last remaining pristine and utterly unspoilt regions. If the oil is there, countries which own it will be very likely to seek to extract it, whatever the environmental cost.
"Before we can make decisions about our future use of oil and gas and related decisions about protecting endangered species, native communities and the health of our planet, we need to know what's out there," said the US Geological Survey's (USGS) director, Mark Myers, in releasing the report. "With this assessment, we're providing the same information to everyone in the world so the global community can make those difficult decisions," he said.
"Most of the Arctic, especially offshore, is essentially unexplored with respect to petroleum," said Donald Gautier, the project chief for the assessment. "The extensive Arctic continental shelves may constitute the geographically largest unexplored prospective area for petroleum remaining on Earth."
The geologists studied maps of subterranean rock formations across the 8.2 million square miles above the Arctic Circle to find areas with characteristics similar to oil and gas finds in other parts of the world. The study also took into account the age, depth and shape of rock formations in judging whether they are likely to contain oil.
More than half of the undiscovered oil resources are estimated to occur in just three geologic provinces: Arctic Alaska (30 billion barrels), the Amerasia Basin (9.7 billion barrels) and the East Greenland Rift Basins (8.9 billion barrels). More than 70 per cent of the undiscovered natural gas is likely to be in three provinces: the West Siberian Basin (651 tcf), the East Barents Basins (318 tcf) and Arctic Alaska (221 tcf), the USGS said. The study took in all areas north of latitude 66.56 degrees north, and included only reserves that could be tapped using existing techniques. Experimental or unconventional prospects such as oil shale, gas hydrates and coal-bed methane were not included in the assessment.
The 90 billion barrels of oil expected to be in the Arctic in total are more than all the known reserves of Nigeria, Kazakhstan and Mexico combined, and could meet current world oil demand of 86.4 million barrels a day for almost three years. But the Arctic's oil is not intended to replace all the supplies in the rest of world. It would last much longer by boosting available supplies and possibly reducing US reliance on imported crude, if America developed the resources.
The report did not include an estimate for how long it might take to bring the reserves to markets, but it would clearly be a substantial period. Offshore fields in the Gulf of Mexico and west Africa can take a decade or longer to begin pumping oil. But clearly, the massive amount of industrial infrastructure necessary to find the oil, extract it, and transport it to where it is wanted will come with a very considerable environmental cost. Senior US oil executives are urging the relaxation of prohibitions against offshore drilling, including much of Alaska, although Democratic leaders in both houses of Congress rejected President George Bush's effort on 14 July to end a 25-year moratorium on drilling in most coastal waters. But change may well be coming now.
Frank O'Donnell, president of the US environmental group Clean Air Watch, said not only do polar bears and other wildlife within the Arctic Circle face losing their habitat due to global warming, they would be hurt by companies searching for oil. "On the one hand you may see this region more accessible [for getting energy supplies], but we're definitely going to pay a different kind of price... you may lose species," Mr O'Donnell said. "The oil industry goes up there and industrialises what has been a pristine area... suddenly it becomes the new Houston."
Staking a claim
United States
The last country to formally stake its claim will be the first to start large-scale drilling. Thanks to its vast Alaskan territory the US will be confident of a huge oil bonanza. The White House resisted giving endangered status to the polar bear as long as it could to keep freedom to drill.
Russia
Dramatically upped the stakes in the race for the Arctic last year by planting its flag on the seabed at the magnetic pole with the help of an experimental submarine. The country least likely to baulk at the environmental cost of drilling in the wilderness.
Greenland (Denmark)
The island is financially dependent on its mother country, Denmark. Oil could change all that. Its tiny population of 50,000 fears being over-run by outsiders in a future oil rush. Denmark was the first to stake its claim to the North Pole.
Canada
Canada was affronted by Danish claims to the North Pole and has conducted military exercises over its vast northern territories to strengthen its claim to the Arctic. Ottawa has sent naval vessels and specialist troops to the far north.
Norway
The country does not want to be left out of an Arctic carve-up. But it backs a UN treaty to demilitarise the region and protect its pristine environment.

Reduce your global impact.
Comments
27 Comments
maybe we'll start going to war with those countries now
Posted by george | 30.07.08, 17:36 GMT
The author said the Russian expedition planted a flag at the North Magnetic Pole. Not so it was the geophysical North Pole. The magnetic pole is firmly in Canadian territory.
Canada's big problem is not with Danes over Hans island but with the US over the extention of the border offshore between Alaska and the Yukon. Canadian charts show Long 141W continuing offshore. US charts show the border perpendicular to the coast claiming a large wedge of Canadian waters.
The other problem Canada has with the US is the NW Passage is Canadian internal waters. The US calls it an international waterway.
Posted by Grant | 29.07.08, 16:48 GMT
it's not just the planet we nrrd to worry about but the conflict between countries fighting to claim the rights if some one sends troops then some one else sends troops where will it end? instead of killing each other for oil maybe we should be helping each other find a better way. its not the goverments that live together but the people.
Posted by Dave | 27.07.08, 16:06 GMT
Canada and Denmark will come to some mutually agreeable compromise with respect to their ownership of Arctic resources because that's what civilized parties do. On the other side of the Arctic, Canada will have to be on alert against U.S. greed and duplicity as they will steal anything that is not nailed down. If the U.S. starts drilling near the demarcated border of Canada and Alaska then Canada will have to be right behind otherwise the U.S. would drain any potential pool of oil underlying the border area. Most of the world now realizes that you can never deal with the U.S. on a good faith basis and that you always have to be watching over your shoulder so you don't get knifed in the back.
Posted by Archie1954 | 25.07.08, 18:07 GMT
Here we go again! More short term minded greed and confromtation from the planets most deadly primates. What next?
Will it be competing/fighting for the diminishing areas of dry land left after the idiots have melted every glacier and ice sheet on the globe?
Will their bank accounts and economic theories insulate them from sea water, starvation and tropical parasites and diseases that warming brings.
I shudder at their stupidity.
Posted by un-typical primate | 25.07.08, 16:45 GMT
Relax, the world is cooling off. I work in the Arctic and the last two winters were brutally cold.
Posted by Stan | 25.07.08, 16:06 GMT
Maxim Brussels 25 July 07
Ninety billion barrels of oil and 1.670 trillion cubic feet of gas: decidedly, too much money at stake and let's forget about the "preserved" wilderness even if we all regret it . Offshore drilling and terminals at sea with a fleet of tankers should be better from a conservation point of view but in winter time, packs of ice should be back and sweep away the most robust offshore platforms ! To top it all, with McCain of Hussein Obama, the results will be the same: too much demand and a fast growing world population!
There is only a way out: a substitute fuel and in the present state of technology, I only see liquid hydrogen as possible surrogate. But then we need non-polluting energy i.e. nuclear reactors ( nimby syndroms). Europe is desperately sticking to the "water-pressurized " systems whilst South Africa, the States, Russia and of course China are developing Helium-cooled nuclear plants. What are our supremos doing in the meantime ?
Posted by Maxim | 25.07.08, 15:05 GMT
Well, the global warming is already upon us whether we drill in the Arctic or not.
And a new Houston in the Arctic could hardly have a worse climate than the existing Houston.
Sounds like a plan.
/snark/
Posted by Ralph | 25.07.08, 14:21 GMT
As an American, it's my opinion that our country is presently hostage to Bush/Cheney's unholy neoCrusade for oil, launched out of their addiction to greed. Americans in general are desperate for new energy technologies, but the Junkie-in-Chief will have none of that while there's some crude $$$$$$$$$ left for the top 0.05% to reap.
Carve up and lay waste to the Arctic environment for a few years of oil to be supplied a decade or two from now?! And who ultimately profits? The bank accounts of a selected few meta-national industrialists.
Only junkies would regard such a desperate effort as worthwhile to satisfy the jones.
Crazy is as crazy does, and the insanity level in humanity is deafening. Little wonder Gaia's fighting back. (Note to the planet: Millions of everyday people are working to heal the madness. www.wecansolveit.org )
Posted by SuSu | 25.07.08, 13:33 GMT
Does this mean that the Arctic was once covered in profuse jungle allowing all that rotten vegetation to create oil/gas in vast quantities?
If so, surely it is wise to move back to that situation to start to lay down ample energy reserves for distant generations, maybe by warming the earth a little so that all that useless ice melts and things return to normal?
Posted by Charles | 25.07.08, 13:31 GMT
27 Comments