tag:theconversation.com,2011:/ca/topics/arctic-oil-21755/articlesArctic oil – The Conversation2021-04-19T12:27:36Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1493412021-04-19T12:27:36Z2021-04-19T12:27:36ZCompetition heats up in the melting Arctic, and the US isn’t prepared to counter Russia<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/395568/original/file-20210417-15-1qcv628.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=235%2C770%2C3695%2C2051&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Russia has been beefing up its Arctic icebreaker fleet to take advantage of the changing climate.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/the-50-let-pobedy-50th-anniversary-of-victory-nuclear-news-photo/1135830248">Lev Fedoseyev\TASS via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>For decades, the frozen Arctic was little more than a footnote in global economic competition, but that’s changing as its ice melts with the warming climate.</p>
<p>Russia is now attempting to claim <a href="https://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/submission_rus_rev1.htm">more of the Arctic seabed</a> for its territory. It has been rebuilding Cold War-era Arctic military bases and recently announced plans to test its Poseidon nuclear-powered, <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russia-sends-doomsday-nuclear-powered-torpedo-for-test-in-the-arctic-wf5ttr260">nuclear-armed torpedo</a> in the Arctic. In Greenland, the recent election ushered in a new pro-independence government that opposes foreign <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/07/world/europe/left-wing-greenland-election-mine.html">rare earth metal mining</a> as its ice sheet recedes – including projects counted on by China and the U.S. <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-us-is-worried-about-its-critical-minerals-supply-chains-essential-for-electric-vehicles-wind-power-and-the-nations-defense-157465">to power technology</a>. </p>
<p>The Arctic region has been warming <a href="https://theconversation.com/100-degrees-in-siberia-5-ways-the-extreme-arctic-heat-wave-follows-a-disturbing-pattern-141442">at least twice as fast</a> as the planet as a whole. With the sea ice now thinner and disappearing sooner in the spring, several countries have had their eyes on the Arctic, both for access to <a href="https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/archive/2009/arctic/index.html">valuable natural resources</a>, including the fossil fuels whose use is now <a href="https://science2017.globalchange.gov/">driving global warming</a>, and as a shorter route for commercial ships. A tanker carrying liquefied natural gas from northern Russia to China tested that shorter route this past winter, <a href="https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/russian-lng-carrier-completes-winter-trips-on-the-northern-sea-route">traversing the normally frozen Northern Sea Route</a> in February for the first time with the help of an icebreaker. The route cut the shipping time by <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-novatek-cnpc-lng/russias-novatek-ships-first-lng-cargo-to-china-via-arctic-idUSKBN1K90YN">nearly half</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/395412/original/file-20210416-17-15qz7tp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A round map with a view centered on the North Pole showing shipping routes" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/395412/original/file-20210416-17-15qz7tp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/395412/original/file-20210416-17-15qz7tp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=569&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/395412/original/file-20210416-17-15qz7tp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=569&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/395412/original/file-20210416-17-15qz7tp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=569&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/395412/original/file-20210416-17-15qz7tp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=716&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/395412/original/file-20210416-17-15qz7tp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=716&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/395412/original/file-20210416-17-15qz7tp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=716&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Arctic shipping routes.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Sea_Route#/media/File:Map_of_the_Arctic_region_showing_the_Northeast_Passage,_the_Northern_Sea_Route_and_Northwest_Passage,_and_bathymetry.png">Susie Harder/Arctic Council</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Russia has been building up its icebreaker fleet for years for these and other purposes. The U.S., meanwhile, is playing catch-up. While Russia has access to <a href="https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/Assistant-Commandant-for-Prevention-Policy-CG-5P/Marine-Transportation-Systems-CG-5PW/Office-of-Waterways-and-Ocean-Policy/Office-of-Waterways-and-Ocean-Policy-Mobility-and-Ice-Operations/">more than 40</a> of these ships today, the U.S. Coast Guard has two, one of them well past its intended service life. </p>
<p>As an <a href="https://fletcher.tufts.edu/people/rockford-weitz">expert in maritime trade and Arctic geopolitics</a>, I have been following the increasing activity and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/15/world/europe/us-russia-sanctions.html">geopolitical tensions</a> in the Arctic. They underscore the need for fresh thinking on U.S. Arctic policy to address emerging competition in the region. </p>
<h2>The problem with America’s icebreaker fleet</h2>
<p>America’s aging icebreaker fleet has been a persistent topic of frustration in Washington. </p>
<p>Congress put off investing in new icebreakers for decades in the face of more pressing demands. Now, the lack of polar-class icebreakers undermines America’s ability to <a href="https://www.dvidshub.net/video/582402/coast-guard-cutter-polar-star-breaks-ice-supporting-operation-deep-freeze-2018">operate in the</a> Arctic region, including responding to disasters as shipping and mineral exploration increase. </p>
<p>It might sound counterintuitive, but diminishing sea ice can make the region more dangerous – breakaway ice floes pose <a href="https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/icebergs-disrupt-north-atlantic-shipping">risks both to ships and to oil platforms</a>, and the opening waters are expected to attract both more shipping and more mineral exploration. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that about 30% of the world’s undiscovered natural gas and 13% of undiscovered oil <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/324/5931/1175">may be in the Arctic</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="People walk on the ice beside the giant icebreaker" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/395565/original/file-20210417-17-1ixnw7a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/395565/original/file-20210417-17-1ixnw7a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/395565/original/file-20210417-17-1ixnw7a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/395565/original/file-20210417-17-1ixnw7a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/395565/original/file-20210417-17-1ixnw7a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/395565/original/file-20210417-17-1ixnw7a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/395565/original/file-20210417-17-1ixnw7a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Polar Star icebreaker is 45 years old and in need of replacement.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.dvidshub.net/image/1078451/polar-star-antarctic-trip-2006">Mariana O'Leary/U.S. Coast Guard</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The U.S. Coast Guard has just two icebreakers to manage this changing environment. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.pacificarea.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/Cutters/cgcPolarStar/">Polar Star</a>, a heavy icebreaker that can break through ice up to 21 feet thick, was commissioned in 1976. It is usually posted to Antarctica in the winter, but it was <a href="https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2020/12/02/coast-guard-icebreaker-polar-star-heading-to-arctic-as-covid-19-limits-antarctic-operations/">sent to the Arctic</a> this year to provide a U.S. presence. The crew on the aging ship has had to <a href="https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/08/16/meet-polar-star-coast-guards-vital-neglected-icebreaker-its-falling-apart.html">fight fires</a> and deal with power outages and equipment breaks – all while in some of the most inhospitable and remote locations on Earth. The second icebreaker, the smaller <a href="https://www.pacificarea.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/Cutters/cgcHealy/">Healy</a>, commissioned in 2000, suffered a fire on board in August 2020 and <a href="https://news.usni.org/2020/08/25/coast-guard-icebreaker-healy-suffers-fire-on-arctic-mission-all-arctic-operations-cancelled">canceled all Arctic operations</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Two Coast Guard crew members, a man and a woman, work amid pipes on the ship." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/395564/original/file-20210417-23-1krdxnl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/395564/original/file-20210417-23-1krdxnl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/395564/original/file-20210417-23-1krdxnl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/395564/original/file-20210417-23-1krdxnl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/395564/original/file-20210417-23-1krdxnl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/395564/original/file-20210417-23-1krdxnl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/395564/original/file-20210417-23-1krdxnl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Engineers aboard the Polar Star fix a saltwater pump while in the Bering Sea on Jan. 28, 2021.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.dvidshub.net/image/6505575/coast-guard-cutter-polar-star-arctic-west-winter-2021">Cynthia Oldham/U.S. Coast Guard</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Congress has <a href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL34391/196">authorized construction of three more heavy icebreakers</a> at a total cost of around US$2.6 billion and has funded two of them so far, but they take years to produce. A shipyard in Mississippi expects to deliver the first by 2024.</p>
<h2>An icebreaker solution</h2>
<p>One way to add to the icebreaker fleet would be to have allies jointly procure and operate icebreakers, while each still builds up its own fleet. </p>
<p>For example, the Biden administration could collaborate with NATO allies to create a partnership modeled on NATO’s <a href="https://www.nspa.nato.int/about/namp/sac%5D">Strategic Airlift Capability</a> of C-17 airplanes. The airlift program, started in 2008, operates three large transport planes that its 12 member nations can use to quickly transport troops and equipment.</p>
<p>A similar program for icebreakers could operate a fleet under NATO – perhaps starting with icebreakers contributed by NATO countries, such as Canada, or partner countries, such as Finland. Like the Strategic Airlift Capability, each member country would purchase a percentage of the shared fleet’s operating hours based on their overall contributions to the program. </p>
<p>U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin announced a step toward more of this kind of collaboration on June 9, 2021, with plans to establish a new <a href="https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2651852/the-department-of-defense-announces-establishment-of-arctic-regional-center/">Center for Arctic Security Studies</a>, the sixth <a href="https://www.dsca.mil/dod-regional-centers-rc">Department of Defense Regional Center</a>. The centers focus on research, communications, and collaboration with partners.</p>
<h2>Using the Law of the Sea</h2>
<p>Another strategy that could boost U.S. influence in the Arctic, buffer looming conflicts, and help clarify seabed claims would be for the Senate to ratify the <a href="https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm">United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Russian President Vladimir Putin stands a man who is pointing outside the lit-up LNG plant." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/395569/original/file-20210417-21-r9fhtq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/395569/original/file-20210417-21-r9fhtq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/395569/original/file-20210417-21-r9fhtq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/395569/original/file-20210417-21-r9fhtq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/395569/original/file-20210417-21-r9fhtq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/395569/original/file-20210417-21-r9fhtq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/395569/original/file-20210417-21-r9fhtq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Russia recently opened a large liquefied natural gas plant on the Kara Sea, above the Arctic Circle.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/russian-president-vladimir-putin-listens-to-novatek-ceo-news-photo/888363240">Mikhail Svetlov/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Law of the Sea took effect in 1994 and established rules for how the oceans and ocean resources are used and shared. That includes determining how countries can claim parts of the seabed. The U.S. initially objected over a section that limited deep seabed mining, but <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-110shrg45282/html/CHRG-110shrg45282.htm">that section was amended</a> to alleviate some of those concerns. Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama <a href="https://sites.tufts.edu/lawofthesea/chapter-eleven/">all urged the Senate to ratify it</a>, but that <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-resolution/284/text">still has not happened</a>. </p>
<p>Ratification would give the U.S. a stronger international legal position in contested waters. It also would enable the U.S. to claim more than 386,000 square miles – an area twice the size of California – <a href="https://www.cfr.org/report/arctic-imperatives">of Arctic seabed along its extended continental shelf</a> and fend off any other country’s overlapping claims to that area. </p>
<p>Without ratification, the U.S. will be forced to rely on <a href="https://sites.tufts.edu/lawofthesea/chapter-one/">customary international law to pursue any maritime claims</a>, which weakens its <a href="https://sites.tufts.edu/lawofthesea/chapter-eleven/">international legal position in contested waters</a>, including the <a href="https://sites.tufts.edu/lawofthesea/chapter-eight/">Arctic</a> and the <a href="https://sites.tufts.edu/lawofthesea/chapter-ten/">South China Sea</a>.</p>
<h2>Relying on international cooperation</h2>
<p>The Arctic has generally been a region of international cooperation. <a href="https://arctic-council.org/en">The Arctic Council</a>, an international body, has kept eight countries with sovereignty over land in the region focused on the Arctic’s fragile ecosystem, the well-being of its Indigenous peoples, and emergency prevention and response. </p>
<p>Over the past few years, however, <a href="https://arctic-council.org/en/about/observers/">“near-Arctic” countries</a>, including China, Japan, South Korea, Britain and many European Union members, have become more engaged, and Russia has become more active.</p>
<p>With the rising tensions and expanding interest in the region, the era of cooperative engagement has started to recede with the melting sea ice. </p>
<p><em>This article was updated with the Defense Department announcing plans on June 9, 2021, to establish a new center to promote collaboration in the Arctic.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/149341/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rockford Weitz receives funding from the Smith Richardson Foundation to study emerging maritime security challenges, including those in the Arctic Ocean region. In addition to his position at Tufts University, he serves as a Board Director and President at the Institute for Global Maritime Studies Inc., a Massachusetts-based research and education non-profit, and as an advisor and investor in OceanShield Pte. Ltd., a maritime cyber-security startup.</span></em></p>Russia is attempting to claim more of the Arctic seabed, an area rich in oil, gas and minerals. It’s also expanding shipping and reopening Arctic bases. Here are two things the U.S. can do about it.Rockford Weitz, Professor of Practice & Director, Fletcher Maritime Studies Program, The Fletcher School, Tufts UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/483052015-09-30T16:50:56Z2015-09-30T16:50:56ZShell’s abandoned well and the myth of the Arctic oil land grab<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/96833/original/image-20150930-5834-2dzbc3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Time to move on: Shell's Kulluk rig being rescued by Coast Guard in 2013.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/39955793@N07/8549949708/in/photolist-dKEqm6-e2wJb1-dJXk74-a5YwQG-dHc8Bg-dJXTwr-dHuvvg-dK4j4d-dK4iQ5-dJXU4P-dJXT8c-dJXSvr-dK4kEG-dK4m47-dJXSBF-dK4kM5-dJXSM4-dK4k5y-dJXU94-dK4mBJ-dK4mu9-dHaPXi-dLzbLc-dJXQEv-dGWqd7-dK4jwL-dJXRok-8zG2ai-C58Ln-5M7Too-dHhybh-e2Hfsk-5bDvJX-a5YwTC">US Department of Defense</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>After seven years of preparation and several billion dollars spent, Shell has decided to abandon its exploration program in the US Arctic “for the foreseeable future.” This follows barely two months’ drilling in the Chukchi Sea at the company’s Burger J well, located 150 miles northwest of Barrow, Alaska. Evaluation of all data revealed “indications” of oil and gas but not enough to justify further activity in today’s low price environment. </p>
<p>To those of us who closely follow the energy industry, the decision is hardly surprising. But it has meaning well beyond the Chukchi Sea. It helps show that the widely proclaimed “<a href="http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/05/arctic_oil200805">land rush</a>” to the Arctic, aimed at oil and gas most of all, is a myth. </p>
<p>There is no such roar of companies northward, crossing the Arctic Circle as if it were a Rubicon. In fact, economics and geopolitics have made clear that the greater part of the Arctic would remain quiet to hydrocarbon drilling – at least in the near term. And so it has. </p>
<p>Does this mean anti-Arctic drilling advocates have handed “Big oil…an unmitigated defeat,” as <a href="http://washpost.bloomberg.com/Story?docId=1376-NVDGFZ6K50XZ01-004SKI5RCLP32QLR9DUGH35L7F">Greenpeace says</a>? No, it doesn’t. Other factors than environmentalists’ opposition are far more important. </p>
<h2>Goodbye to Yellow Brick Road?</h2>
<p>The Burger well is located in the Chukchi Basin, part of the US Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The basin is largely unexplored, with an estimated mean of <a href="http://www.boem.gov/2011-National-Assessment-Factsheet/">29 billion barrels oil-equivalent</a> potentially recoverable – a significant fraction of the Arctic’s undiscovered oil. The size of Mississippi, the basin had only five wells before the Burger. Thus, the province remains a true frontier, with chances of a discovery for any well quite small. </p>
<p>Shell’s costs, however, were large. The company spent <a href="http://fuelfix.com/blog/2015/09/28/shells-arctic-oil-well-comes-up-dry/#34370101=0">US$2.1 billion</a> to lease 275 offshore blocks and another $1 billion in preparations and drilling. All of this for a single, disappointing well. </p>
<p>Burger J was drilled in 150 feet of water to 6,800 feet depth. Though well offshore, the OCS is shallow here, adding to its attraction since this means lower drilling costs. Besides “indications” of hydrocarbons, the company undoubtedly recovered a lot of valuable data, growing its knowledge base for the future. </p>
<p>Shell’s departure is certainly a pause in a new era of Arctic exploration. It is not, however, an end. The company has said nothing about dropping any of its 275 blocks in the basin. </p>
<h2>Did anti-oil advocates ‘win’?</h2>
<p>We should take Shell seriously regarding the three reasons it gives for leaving. </p>
<p>The first is the lack of a major discovery. The second is the low price environment that now exists. Oil prices indeed went over a cliff between the time Shell finalized its program in 2014 and when it began drilling this past summer, falling from about $100 to $45. At such prices, only a gigantic find, say one billion barrels, would make any sense to develop. </p>
<p>And the third reason? “The challenging and unpredictable federal regulatory environment in offshore Alaska,” is how Shell puts it. Can we accept this argument? </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/96834/original/image-20150930-5809-13r3t7m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/96834/original/image-20150930-5809-13r3t7m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/96834/original/image-20150930-5809-13r3t7m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/96834/original/image-20150930-5809-13r3t7m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/96834/original/image-20150930-5809-13r3t7m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/96834/original/image-20150930-5809-13r3t7m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/96834/original/image-20150930-5809-13r3t7m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/96834/original/image-20150930-5809-13r3t7m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010 year led to stricter safety requirements for offshore drilling.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/flseagrant/7782496154/in/photolist-cRHjYb-8ynVB8-8cvak2-btbfEc-7Zja6s-8ynVuD-8yqXXE-8kjqMq-8ajEZM-8bpe5b-89wnQW-83tid7-8pQb3m-85pwUH-83DGVw-83pooq-8pM1ma-8gXXKS-86Lh7H-888JMj-8ccWZ4-89HGfo-85pw1H-888HMV-7WHPki-8ccTJV-bN5BLR-btbgvF-83uFds-83fxFs-8cNoNY-8g7Vyn-bN6hxK-8g1712-8g171i-8g16ZV-8g16Zv-8g171e-7YjyRU-7WHPjn-84VK74-888JQ7-89t8pt-7YKEJW-84YRVQ-8nuE9W-8dBZqL-8zuqcz-8nrwck-8rshoF">Florida Sea Grant</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Shell’s program was trapped in a historical shift. Originally conceived in the 2000s and ready to launch in 2010-2011, it was put on hold by the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster. This event, with its enormous public outrage, led to a complete revamping of the federal offshore regulatory system. The old Minerals Management Service (MMS), accused of sharing the sheets too often with industry, was replaced by a more vigilant Bureau of Ocean Management (BOEM). </p>
<p>Shell’s program had to adapt, gaining approval for the 2013 drilling season. But then Shell’s Kulluk drilling rig broke loose from its cable tow and ran aground in Alaska in late 2012. Another round of outrage and reporting inspired BOEM to impose new demands for environmental protection. </p>
<p>In this way, advocates against Arctic drilling have “won” – by adding their voice to public concern. Some may say they helped create such concern, and to some extent this may be true. But the shift relies much more on industry acting as its own worst enemy at a time when the public has become increasingly worried about climate change, carbon emissions and oil spills. A major accident in Arctic waters will do more to weaken future drilling than hundreds of kayakers in every port of North America. </p>
<h2>All quiet on the Arctic front</h2>
<p>No company, American or foreign, will rush to replace Shell in the Chukchi Sea. Nor will they view its departure as a juicy opportunity. This would be true even if the BOEM decided to replace all of its staff with industry personnel from Texas. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, there are no big plans for Arctic drilling in Canada or Greenland. The former has seen ConocoPhillips end exploration in the Canol Shale of the Northwest Territories, despite a possible discovery. Roughly a dozen wells have been drilled in the seas around Greenland during the past 15 years, with no success and cooled interest, though leases are still actively held. </p>
<p>Russia has big plans, to be sure, with few concerns about environmentalism, but no ability to carry such plans out just now. It needs the help of Western oil companies, who are banned from working with the state oil firm, Rosneft, in Russian waters until sanctions are lifted. Bluntly put, Rosneft lacks the technological, operational and managerial expertise needed to carry out a big program in the Arctic offshore. </p>
<p>That leaves Norway. Its Arctic waters have seen some successful drilling in recent years, such as at <a href="http://www.eni.com/it_IT/attachments/documentazione/pubblicazioni/paesi/BrochureEniNorge_affiancate.pdf">Goliat Field</a>, operated by the Italian group Eni. Yet the big lease sales of the past decade haven’t yielded anything like a surge in exploration. Few companies are ever eager to spend lavishly in a challenging setting when opportunities exist in less formidable places, especially if lower prices set in. At present, the Norwegian Arctic may be the only place where true hydrocarbon development is taking place, but it is hardly equal to the fracking boom of the US lower 48. </p>
<p>In short, the Arctic is simply too risky, challenging and expensive for a “land rush” or any kind of rush. Even at $100 per barrel, ventures into the region were cautious. So they will remain, should prices find such heights again soon. </p>
<p>It’s perhaps no surprise that cheap oil seems a friend to the people who oppose Arctic drilling. The only problem is that it is also the comrade of higher consumption and demand. That means at some point, higher oil prices, driven by demand, may again make the Arctic more tempting in the future.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/48305/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Scott L. Montgomery does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Did environmentalists force Shell to exit the Arctic? Not really. Blame economics and geopolitics first and foremost.Scott L. Montgomery, Affiliate Faculty, Jackson School of International Studies, University of WashingtonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/479932015-09-28T18:59:48Z2015-09-28T18:59:48ZDespite Shell’s about-face, interest in Arctic oil grows<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/96475/original/image-20150928-31002-a5giqa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Troubles with Shell: in 2013, its drill became stranded and had to be rescued.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/arcticwarrior/8363536618/in/photolist-dHaPXi-dJXk74-e2wJb1-dLzbLc-dJXQEv-dGWqd7-a5YwQG-dHc8Bg-dHuvvg-dJXTwr-dJXU94-dJXU4P-dK4mBJ-dK4mu9-dK4m47-dJXT8c-dK4kM5-dK4kEG-dJXSM4-dJXSBF-dJXSvr-dK4k5y-dK4jwL-dJXRok-dKEqm6-dK4j4d-dK4iQ5/">Aaron M. Johnson/US Air Force</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>After billions of dollars invested over several years, Royal Dutch Shell said September 28 it would end oil exploration offshore Alaska after “<a href="http://www.shell.us/about-us/projects-and-locations/shell-in-alaska/shell-in-alaska-news-and-media-releases/2015-media-releases/shell-updates-on-alaska-exploration.html">disappointing</a>” results. </p>
<p>But industry efforts to drill for oil and natural gas in the Arctic are unlikely to end with Shell’s decision to abandon the Chukchi Sea. </p>
<p>Indeed, momentum to exploit fossil fuel reserves in the Arctic has been building for decades. This week, in fact, political and industry leaders will converge on Fairbanks, Alaska for the 2015 Arctic Energy Summit, where they will consider options and opportunities for energy development, despite some of the lowest gasoline prices in years and a glut of natural gas in the US.</p>
<p>The trends pushing for oil and gas in the Arctic run counter to the efforts of a growing number of advocates who argue some fossil fuel resources need to <a href="https://theconversation.com/clinton-stance-on-xl-pipeline-reflects-muscle-of-climate-activists-48131">remain untapped</a> to slow the rate of carbon emissions. The prospect of oil and gas drilling also opens fresh questions over how such development would impact the local wildlife and cultures and the influence of environmental activists. </p>
<h2>From ANWR to Chukchi Sea</h2>
<p>As Shell’s decision to abandon its exploration well about 150 miles from Barrow, Alaska shows, energy development in the Arctic environment entails significant technical challenges. However, it remains an enticing resource: geologists know that the Arctic region’s 19 geological basins contain nearly <a href="http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1980&from=rss_home#.VghCIBNViko">90 billion barrels</a> of technically recoverable oil – roughly 13% of the undiscovered oil in the world!</p>
<p>To date, only half of the basins have been developed at all, a process that began with the Alaska North Slope where oil was first produced in 1968 from Prudhoe Bay. The increased land-based development was one outcome of the <a href="https://history.state.gov/milestones/1969-1976/oil-embargo">1970s gasoline crisis</a> caused by an embargo of oil shipments to the US from Arab members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/96490/original/image-20150928-31012-v0flnl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/96490/original/image-20150928-31012-v0flnl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/96490/original/image-20150928-31012-v0flnl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/96490/original/image-20150928-31012-v0flnl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/96490/original/image-20150928-31012-v0flnl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/96490/original/image-20150928-31012-v0flnl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=515&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/96490/original/image-20150928-31012-v0flnl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=515&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/96490/original/image-20150928-31012-v0flnl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=515&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Cleaning up the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska in 1989, an event that built opposition to oil drilling off Alaska.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/arlis-reference/sets/72157625012914532">Charles N. Ehler</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In 1977, when US President Jimmy Carter approved construction of the pipeline connecting Prudhoe Bay to Valdez – the trans-shipment point to allow Alaskan crude to reach markets – he also established the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). </p>
<p>The wilderness status of this refuge was meant to preclude access to some of the largest reserves in the region – or at least, accessing the crude would force American voters to admit that they <a href="https://theconversation.com/can-americans-have-both-environmental-preservation-and-expanded-oil-drilling-36874">prioritized energy over wilderness</a>. Drilling or not in ANWR became a routine test as Americans considered whether or not their need for energy merited infringing on a “last frontier” of undisturbed wilderness in the far north.</p>
<p>Over the years, there have also been reminders of the immense challenge of developing Arctic energy supplies. Most memorably, the <a href="https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/oil/">1989 Valdez spill</a> in Prince William Sound demonstrated the impact industrial accidents could have on pristine natural areas. </p>
<h2>Why focus on the frozen north?</h2>
<p>Efforts to develop ANWR diminished over the following decades. In fact, it appeared as if energy companies for the last decade had determined that the public relations costs of drilling in the Arctic outweighed the benefits – a possible win for modern environmentalist action. </p>
<p>Today, though, developers are again looking at this unique region, with a particular emphasis on offshore waters of the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. Their interest is drawn less by immediate needs to add to the global oil supply than it is by slow, grinding long-term trends within the energy industry, including:</p>
<p><strong>The Reality of “Hard Oil”</strong>: Most of the “easy” oil reserves – that is, places where oil is relatively simple to drill for – have been developed. As a result, the modern energy industry redefined what projects it considered to be possible and economically viable, particularly during the years of higher prices. Whether reaching deeper into the ocean, converting tar sands into oil, or overcoming the technical challenges of developing in the Arctic, more expensive, less-easily-gotten reserves have emerged for many companies as reasonable for development. </p>
<p>Once these designs are set in motion, they play out over years because they require large sums of money. It also means development plans are not scrapped because of momentary shifts in the price of oil and natural gas. Many people in the industry believe that we are steadily depleting known energy reserves and that higher prices will return.</p>
<p><strong>Outcomes of Arctic Warming</strong>: The influence of climate change that has reduced polar ice cover has contributed to a bit of a land rush by China, Russia and other nations seeking to secure any energy reserves that become feasible or accessible due to climatic shifts. This has created incentives for nations to tap known reserves before other nations seek to do so.</p>
<p><strong>Current Politics</strong>: President Obama surprised many observers by <a href="https://theconversation.com/us-permits-arctic-drilling-but-questions-about-safety-remain-41940">approving Shell’s request to begin Arctic drilling</a> earlier this year, which could have set off the birth of an offshore oil industry in the Arctic Ocean. As a presidential election nears, this stance was contested by Hillary Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, who has said she was not in favor of further drilling in the Arctic. </p>
<p>Most Republican candidates fully support energy development in the Arctic. Therefore, in a political season with much at stake, energy development in the Arctic could clearly have reached a hinge moment when it may conclusively shift in one direction or the other based on the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.</p>
<h2>Gaze on the Arctic</h2>
<p>A dramatic emphasis on Arctic drilling, of course, reopens debate on the pros and cons of development, arguments that have remained largely unchanged since interest commenced in the 1960s. These include the challenges of technology and climate; impacts on wildlife and native peoples living in the region; and strong resistance from environmental organizations. </p>
<p>In order for Arctic energy development to proceed, companies must contend with these challenges. Before abandoning its program, Shell had experienced a variety of setbacks to its efforts at expanding into the Arctic: from the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/magazine/the-wreck-of-the-kulluk.html">wreck of the Kulluk</a>, which was to serve as the primary Arctic exploratory rig for Shell, to environmental-activist-kayakers <a href="http://www.king5.com/story/news/local/shell-oil-rig/2015/06/15/shell-arctic-rig-polar-pioneer-leaving/71239366/">blockading its equipment</a> from leaving port in Seattle, Washington. </p>
<p>But despite Shell’s reversal, political and industrial winds are making energy developers remain focused in the frozen north – particularly as it becomes less frozen.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/47993/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brian C. Black does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Shell has abandoned oil exploration offshore Alaska for now but a variety of trends are driving the energy industry to take a fresh look at Arctic drilling.Brian C. Black, Professor of History and Environmental Studies, Penn StateLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/458442015-08-14T05:35:43Z2015-08-14T05:35:43ZThe military gambit behind Putin’s Arctic ambitions for Russian oil<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91509/original/image-20150811-11059-xkin1f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=3%2C1%2C1019%2C659&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Virgin territory. Sunrise over the Arctic resources battleground.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/noaaphotolib/5036390145/in/photolist-8F3PjR-5JxfWg-rvwgKL-eggnS7-5g6dG7-egAkpZ-egpXYd-5RHLv-egh8fQ-4dU9U6-5TsJx-egFxHu-ahf1vd-2YyrwM-5RJvQ-7vuZmo-egaD4n-5RHLt-eggm1m-5JBvgy-5Tjdn-b8YwMc-bUJK4t-675LZ-bk2jeP-5Tjdo-cAsa5Q-pqMM5v-pHm5t1-4c9U5E-5g6hqU-qyCfWm-rvBD5n-re3rRL-rcisWH-pqSEtA-7tp7Tv-5SNhL-5Tjdr-5RJvM-bUJHYV-4dUNCT-5TXGv-6b5zo2-4dYSjq-bUJMkg-4dUhJR-bUJAhZ-5RJvN-5T9i3">NOAA Photo Library</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="http://energy.usgs.gov/GeneralInfo/EnergyNewsroomAll/TabId/770/ArtMID/3941/ArticleID/713/Assessment-of-Undiscovered-Oil-and-Gas-in-the-Arctic.aspx">The United States Geological Survey</a> has estimated that the Arctic regions contain around 130 billion barrels of liquids and 47 trillion cubic metres of gas, equivalent to 22% of the world’s undiscovered hydrocarbon resources. It is hardly surprising then that all the countries whose coasts encircle the region, the US, Canada, Greenland, Norway and Russia, have made claims on territory outside of the clear boundary for each, which stretches 200 nautical miles from their shoreline. </p>
<p>Russia has been the most active. President Vladimir Putin’s latest call was <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33777492">for Russia to be granted an extra 1.2m square kilometres</a> of territory based on its historic claims that the Lomonosov Ridge, which runs across most of the region, is connected to the Russian mainland and is therefore part of its territory. </p>
<p>An initial claim was made in 2001, and was reiterated when a Russian submarine <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1559264/Russian-submarine-plants-flag-at-North-Pole.html">planted its country’s flag at the North Pole in 2007</a>, but it is over the past three years that Russia has become particularly active in the region, <a href="http://www.oxfordenergy.org/2014/11/prospects-challenges-arctic-oil-development/">focusing on offshore exploration for oil and the development of a new LNG plant for gas export</a>. It’s ultimate goal, however, is as much about establishing a new power base in the North as it is about gaining an advantage in the rush for resources.</p>
<h2>Sanctions impact</h2>
<p>Hydrocarbon licences in the Arctic offshore regions <a href="http://www.rt.com/business/arctic-shelf-rosneft-gazprom-272/">have been reserved</a> for Russia’s state companies, Gazprom and Rosneft. Rosneft has become the leader of Russian attempts to exploit its vast acreage there, but its lack of experience in offshore development has meant it has needed to rely on foreign company assistance, forming joint ventures with <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d667e26c-457e-11e4-9b71-00144feabdc0.html">US firm ExxonMobil</a>, <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304752804577385892170038610">Norway’s Statoil</a> and <a href="http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/115265/eni-farms-out-of-arctic-russia">Italian group ENI</a> to explore licences in the Barents and South Kara Seas. </p>
<p>The Exxon venture has been particularly successful, making an initial discovery in September 2014 which could ultimately hold seven to nine billion barrels of oil. However, <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-how-will-sanctions-against-russia-work-29920">sanctions imposed on Russia</a> by the US and the EU in reaction to the Ukraine crisis have meant that activity has now been halted, much to the annoyance of the Kremlin.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.ft.com/indepth/living-with-cheaper-oil">The collapse in the oil price</a> over the past 12 months might well have had a similar effect in any case, as the economics of any oil and gas fields in the harsh and expensive environment north of the Arctic Circle are dubious. Even at $100 per barrel, <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/322b3b98-d76c-11e3-a47c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3igjO1IMZ">many commentators</a> were questioning the wisdom of pursuing projects which would cost many tens of billions of dollars to develop, while also bringing significant environmental risks in the case of oil spills or accidents. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91594/original/image-20150812-18074-1esowa0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91594/original/image-20150812-18074-1esowa0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91594/original/image-20150812-18074-1esowa0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=381&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91594/original/image-20150812-18074-1esowa0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=381&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91594/original/image-20150812-18074-1esowa0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=381&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91594/original/image-20150812-18074-1esowa0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=479&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91594/original/image-20150812-18074-1esowa0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=479&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91594/original/image-20150812-18074-1esowa0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=479&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart">macrotrends.net</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Indeed some companies such as <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/350be724-070a-11e2-92ef-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3igjO1IMZ">Total</a> have decided to forego all Arctic activity for precisely this reason, and many others now see the opportunities offered by shale oil in the US and other more conventional offshore fields as preferable in an environment where cost control is vital to survival.</p>
<h2>Political chill</h2>
<p>However, this does not mean the Arctic has lost all its allure, especially as a long-term project with political as well as commercial objectives. </p>
<p>Russia’s oil production from its traditional West Siberian fields has proved remarkably robust in a low oil price environment, mainly thanks to the <a href="http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-01-30/rate-rise-shows-putin-likes-ruble-devaluation">benefits of rouble devaluation</a>, but <a href="http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=18051">decline is ultimately inevitable</a> due to the maturity of the assets, and the Arctic offshore is seen as one major source of new output to sustain Russia’s overall production levels. The ExxonMobil discovery with Rosneft could ultimately produce 1m barrels per day of oil, and the extent of Russia’s Arctic licences suggest that this could be multiplied many times over by new discoveries – if the oil price recovers sufficiently to allow economic returns to be made. </p>
<p>The Russian government has played its part by offering a new tax regime with more attractive terms, and has also set another trend by offering some companies specific support to develop infrastructure in the region. One important example of this is <a href="http://www.total.com/en/energies-expertise/oil-gas/exploration-production/projects-achievements/lng/yamal-lng?%FFbw=kludge1%FF">Novatek’s Yamal Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) project</a>, which is an onshore gas liquefaction project in northern Siberia that is planned to be producing up to 16.5m tonnes per year of LNG by 2020.</p>
<p>The logic behind Russian government support, either fiscal or practical (Russian state companies have built the port facilities for Yamal LNG and are providing ice-breaking tankers), is of course political as much as commercial. The Kremlin is keen to encourage the development of a region which has been starved of investment in the post-Soviet era but which is set to become much more geo-politically important as warmer weather starts to open sea-lanes that had previously been closed by ice for most of the year. </p>
<p>Novatek has already set a precedent by transporting gas condensate <a href="http://novatek.ru/en/investors/events/archive/index.php?id_4=117&afrom_4=01.01.2010&ato_4=31.12.2010&from_4=2">from Russia to Asia via the Northern Route</a> , and its Yamal LNG project expects to be able to supply gas to China for five months a year via this shorter sea passage. It goes without saying that Russia opening up of the region can pave a way for other commercial operations and also for military use, as ports and other infrastructure created to support the oil and gas industry can be turned to multiple alternative uses. </p>
<p>The military context has been evident in exercises undertaken by the Russian navy in March and June this year, with the Finns feeling particularly threatened by the re-opening of airfields in the region. <a href="http://www.ibtimes.com/russia-build-self-sufficient-arctic-military-force-2018-latest-sign-buildup-1866430">Russia plans to establish a standing Arctic military force by 2018</a>.</p>
<p>In this light, Putin’s claims for extra territory in the Arctic can be seen in two ways. Extra acreage can provide greater access to hydrocarbon resources for Russia’s state companies, although these may not be accessible economically depending on the price of oil and the ability of foreign companies to get involved given the current sanctions on Russia. </p>
<p>This commercial argument may take second place, though, to the drive for the Russian oil and gas industry to provide a platform for the country to dominate an increasingly accessible region as the ice starts to melt, with potentially huge geo-political and military consequences.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45844/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>James Henderson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The economic viability of extracting oil from the frozen north might be doubtful, but the geopolitical significance could be massive.James Henderson, Senior Research Fellow, University of OxfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/419402015-05-22T10:20:18Z2015-05-22T10:20:18ZUS permits Arctic drilling, but questions about safety remain<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82617/original/image-20150521-1017-11o1kem.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Kulluk, Shell's Arctic offshore drilling platform, was grounded in 2013 after efforts by the US Coast Guard and tug vessel crews to move the vessel to a safe harbor during a winter storm.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/39955793@N07/8362369475/in/photolist-e2wJb1-dHaPXi-dJXk74-dHuvvg-dHc8Bg-8zG2ai-e2Hfsk/">Zachary Painter/ US Coast Guard/</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Earlier this month, the Obama administration gave conditional approval to a <a href="http://www.boem.gov/About-BOEM/BOEM-Regions/Alaska-Region/Leasing-and-Plans/Plans/Shell---Chukchi-Sea-Exploration-Plan-and-Supporting-Documents.aspx">renewed plan</a> for Royal Dutch Shell to drill for oil offshore of Alaska’s Arctic Ocean coast in the Chukchi Sea.</p>
<p>“As we move forward, any offshore exploratory activities will continue to be subject to rigorous safety standards,” the director of the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management <a href="http://www.boem.gov/press05112015/">said</a> in announcing the <a href="http://www.boem.gov/shell-chukchi/">approval</a>. In response, Shell has moved quickly to mobilize equipment and personnel to conduct drilling operations in this area as early as <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/05/11/one-step-closer-to-arctic-drilling-obama-administration-grants-shell-conditional-approval/">this summer</a>.</p>
<p>The key question addressed here concerns the “safety” of the proposed exploratory drilling operations. </p>
<p>Both Shell and the Department of Interior contend the proposed operations can be performed “safely.” Both organizations understand nothing beneficial will come if there is a major accident, such as an uncontrolled blowout during the proposed drilling operations. </p>
<p>However, the <a href="http://ccrm.berkeley.edu/pdfs_papers/DHSGWorkingPapersFeb16-2011/RiskAssessmentAndManagementChallengesMacondoWellBlowoutDisaster-BB_DHSG-Jan2011.pdf">available evidence</a> indicates the Department of Interior and Shell have not applied the best available risk assessment and management technology to configure the proposed drilling system and its operations to assure they are safe enough.</p>
<h2>Risk 101</h2>
<p>Safety is defined as “freedom from undue exposure to injury or harm.” </p>
<p>Safety means the likelihoods and consequences of major accidents are “tolerable” (acceptable, safe enough). Accidents with potentially high consequences should have a low likelihood of occurring. What is deemed to be safe is a function of what is determined to be a tolerable risk.</p>
<p>To be valid and realistic, quantitative estimates of the likelihoods and consequences of major accidents must be assessed using the best available knowledge. One must make diligent efforts to eliminate a wide variety of human and organizational biases that can distort risk analyses. Effective internal and external validation processes are the key to neutralize these biases.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82589/original/image-20150521-1020-8l78l6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82589/original/image-20150521-1020-8l78l6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82589/original/image-20150521-1020-8l78l6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82589/original/image-20150521-1020-8l78l6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82589/original/image-20150521-1020-8l78l6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82589/original/image-20150521-1020-8l78l6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82589/original/image-20150521-1020-8l78l6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82589/original/image-20150521-1020-8l78l6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A key risk threshold to limit consequences and likelihood of failure: As Low As Reasonably Practicable.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Robert Bea</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Risk estimates are based on the proposed configuration of the integrated “system” of hardware as well as the human, organizational and environmental components. Special attention is devoted to understanding potential interdependencies and interactions among the interconnected system components and how the system might fail. </p>
<p>To prevent and mitigate major accidents, experts have processes and strategies to assess and manage the risk of a system configuration at different stages during the life of a system. These analyses assess the risk before an activity is performed, during activities, and after the activities are done. Personal safety is a subset of system safety.</p>
<p>These three integrated, coordinated approaches are meant to reduce the likelihoods and consequences of major system accidents and to increase proper detection, analysis and correction of expected and unexpected deviations in system performance. </p>
<p>Special attention is given to the different categories of uncertainties that pervade the life cycle performance of complex hardware and human organizational systems in different hazardous environments. These include natural variabilities, analysis model uncertainties, and variations in human and organizational performance. Other factors include information access, analysis and other <a href="http://static.luiss.it/hey/ambiguity/papers/Chow_Sarin_2002.pdf">uncertainties</a> (unknown knowables and unknown unknowables).</p>
<h2>‘Goal-based’ risk assessment and management</h2>
<p>Tolerable risks are defined from structured collaborative processes involving the affected societies, industry and commerce, governments (local, state, federal) and representatives of the potentially affected environments. </p>
<p>Tolerable risks can also be determined from <a href="http://ccrm.berkeley.edu/pdfs_papers/DHSGWorkingPapersFeb16-2011/HowSafe-is-Safe-EW_DHSG-Jan2011.pdf">analyses of historic precedents</a>, current standards of practice, and monetary cost–benefit analyses. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82616/original/image-20150521-1014-ia1r75.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82616/original/image-20150521-1014-ia1r75.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82616/original/image-20150521-1014-ia1r75.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82616/original/image-20150521-1014-ia1r75.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82616/original/image-20150521-1014-ia1r75.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82616/original/image-20150521-1014-ia1r75.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82616/original/image-20150521-1014-ia1r75.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82616/original/image-20150521-1014-ia1r75.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Mitigating the risk of an entire system requires assessing and managing the risk of multiple components at once.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Robert Bea</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The system regulator – in this case, the Department of Interior – is responsible for definition of the tolerable risks. The system owner–operator, Royal Dutch Shell, is responsible for development of the risk assessments. The objective is to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the regulatory agencies that the risks are tolerable – a term called <a href="http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/alarp2.htm">As Low As Reasonably Practicable</a> by risk management professionals – during the life of the entire system.</p>
<p>Such goal-based risk assessment and management regulatory processes currently are being applied for drilling operations in the <a href="http://www.hse.gov.uk/offshore/aposc190306.pdf">UK</a> and <a href="http://www.psa.no/regulations/category216.html">Norwegian Sectors</a> of the North Sea and offshore Canada and Australia. In several of these areas, the processes are identified as a <a href="http://www.hse.gov.uk/offshore/safetycases.htm">Safety Case Regime</a>.</p>
<p>For example, in Australian offshore oil and gas exploration, production, and transportation operations:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“A facility cannot be constructed, installed, operated, modified, or decommissioned without a <a href="http://www.nopsema.gov.au/safety/safety-case/">Safety Case</a> in force for that stage in the life of the facility.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In the US, comparable risk assessment and management processes – called <a href="http://www.aiche.org/ccps">Process Safety Management</a> – are used for commercial nuclear power generation facilities, and in some cases, in operations of oil and gas chemical refining and processing facilities. </p>
<h2>Shell’s 2012 Arctic program</h2>
<p>In the case of the proposed drilling in the Chukchi Sea this summer, we are concerned primarily with a major accident involving an uncontrolled blowout of oil and gas from the exploratory well during the drilling operations. </p>
<p>In its current drilling plan, Shell estimated that such a blowout could involve discharges in the range of <a href="http://www.boem.gov/EP-PUBLIC-VERSION/">8,000 to more than 20,000 barrels of oil per day</a> (natural gas discharges were not specified).</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/About_BOEM/BOEM_Regions/Alaska_Region/Leasing_and_Plans/Plans/2013-11-26_Shell_IOP.pdf">provisionally approved plans</a> submitted to the Department of Interior include system task performance and equipment risk mitigations intended to control the likelihoods and consequences of uncontrolled blowouts.</p>
<p>These plans are based on the current “best practices” defined and specified by the Department of Interior. Shell does have <a href="http://www.shell.com/global/future-energy/arctic.html">significant experience</a> with system risk assessment and management processes, including those that follow the Safety Case Regimes and Process Safety Management disciplines.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82618/original/image-20150521-976-1egu5tc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82618/original/image-20150521-976-1egu5tc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82618/original/image-20150521-976-1egu5tc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82618/original/image-20150521-976-1egu5tc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82618/original/image-20150521-976-1egu5tc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=539&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82618/original/image-20150521-976-1egu5tc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=539&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82618/original/image-20150521-976-1egu5tc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=539&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The mobile drilling unit Kulluk being towed in 29 mph winds and 20-foot seas 116 miles southwest of Kodiak, Alaska on December 30, 2012. The 18 crewmembers were rescued by a Coast Guard helicopter and later the Kulluk broke away from one of its tow lines on December 31 and was driven to rocks just off Kodiak Island.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In 2012, Shell unsuccessfully attempted to drill in the Chukchi Sea, an ill-fated venture that included the grounding of the Kulluk drill rig and the failure of the oil spill containment dome. The failures experienced during the initial parts of that exploratory drilling program indicated that neither the Department of Interior’s permit guidelines and requirements, which were revised after the <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/deepwater-horizon">Deepwater Horizon spill</a>, nor the risk assessment and management processes employed by Shell <a href="http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/upload/Shell-report-3-8-13-Final.pdf">were effective</a>. </p>
<p>Of particular importance was the finding by the <a href="http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg545/docs/documents/Kulluk.pdf">US Coast Guard investigation</a> into the grounding of the Kulluk drill rig that “inadequate management of risks by the parties involved was the most significant causal factor of the mishap.” </p>
<p>It was clear that Shell did not properly employ the Safety Case Regime risk assessment and management processes they had successfully used in other offshore areas that require the application of this technology. Shell’s <a href="http://s06.static-shell.com/content/dam/shell/static/future-energy/downloads/arctic/technology-in-thearctic.pdf">claim</a> that “…Shell has used the Safety Case Approach recommended by the National Commission…for all its contracted drill rigs, globally, for many years” failed to prevent the failures. </p>
<p>Further, it was clear in the wake of the Kulluk incident that the Department of Interior’s <a href="http://www.boem.gov/Reforms-since-the-Deepwater-Horizon-Tragedy/">guidelines and requirements</a>, developed in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon Macondo well spill in the Gulf of Mexico, also failed to produce the desired results.</p>
<h2>Post-Macondo</h2>
<p>One of the major problems is that the Department of Interior oil and gas operations and Arctic operations guidelines and requirements are not based on Safety Case Regime system risk assessment and management processes.</p>
<p>Following the uncontrolled blowout disaster of the Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, there were <a href="http://s06.static-shell.com/content/dam/shell/static/future-energy/downloads/arctic/technology-in-thearctic.pdf">investigations</a> by the US National Commission in 2011, the Deepwater Horizon Study Group and the Chemical Safety Board. These studies recommended that the Department of Interior integrate Safety Case Regime system risk assessment and management processes into their traditional experience-based “prescriptive” component-by-component, task performance guidelines and requirements.</p>
<p>Instead, with significant encouragement from the US oil and gas industry, the Department of Interior chose to continue to update and add to the existing best practices prescriptive <a href="http://www.bsee.gov/uploadedFiles/BSEE/Regulations_and_Guidance/Recently_Finalized_Rules/Well_Control_Rule/2015-08587.pdf">guidelines</a>, with some of the improvements suggested as a result of the post-Macondo investigations.</p>
<p>In addition, in February 2015, the Department of Interior issued <a href="http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/bsee-boem-issue-proposed-regulations-to-ensure-safe-and-responsible-exploratory-drilling-offshore-alaska.cfm">new guidelines</a> specifically for <a href="http://www.bsee.gov/uploadedFiles/Proposed%20Arctic%20Drilling%20Rule.pdf">offshore Arctic operations</a>. The Department of Interior also issued a <a href="http://www.boem.gov/ak193/">supplemental Environmental Impact Statement</a> covering drilling in this region. The final approved guidelines have not been issued as of this date, and it is not clear how these requirements will be applied to the conduct of Shell’s drilling in the Chukchi Sea this summer.</p>
<h2>High stakes</h2>
<p>Given this background, what is the concern regarding the safety of the proposed exploratory drilling systems operations? </p>
<p>The concern is that neither the Department of Interior or Shell have determined, demonstrated or documented that the risks associated with an uncontrolled blowout that develops during the proposed drilling operations in the Chukchi Sea meet established requirements for system risk tolerability and safety outlined earlier. </p>
<p>Instead, reliance is being placed on the Department of Interior best practices of experienced-based, “piece by piece” prescriptive guidelines and regulations. These have not been proved or demonstrated to be adequate for the unique drilling systems, operations and environment involved in Shell’s operations in the Chukchi Sea this summer.</p>
<p>The stakes are too high and the potential risks too great for the best available risk assessment and management – Safety Case Regime – processes not to be diligently applied to the proposed drilling operations in the Chukchi Sea.</p>
<p>If we decide to do otherwise, then we must depend on the proper application of the existing guidelines and processes that have been permitted by the Department of Interior to deliver the required safety. We must be prepared to accept the consequences of this decision.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>To read more on offshore oil and gas drilling, see:</em> </p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://theconversation.com/are-we-ready-for-more-offshore-drilling-40144">Are we ready for more offshore drilling?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://theconversation.com/deepwater-horizon-four-years-on-and-offshore-safety-remains-questionable-25471">Deepwater Horizon: four years on and offshore safety remains questionable</a></li>
<li><a href="https://theconversation.com/can-americans-have-both-environmental-preservation-and-expanded-oil-%0Adrilling-36874">Can Americans have both environmental preservation and expanded oil drilling?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://theconversation.com/its-time-to-draw-a-line-in-the-arctic-ice-over-oil-and-gas-18442">It’s time to draw a line in the Arctic ice over oil and gas</a></li>
</ul><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41940/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert Bea was employed by Shell as an offshore facilities engineer and manager, manager of marine research and technology development, and chief production engineer for 18 years. Following his resignation from Shell, he worked for Shell as an engineering consultant and research contractor addressing challenges associated with offshore oil and gas exploration, production, transportation (pipelines, tank ships), and refining facilities for the next 35 years.</span></em></p>Shell is going back to the Arctic to explore offshore drilling, but the company and the Department of Interior are not using the best practices for avoiding the risk of a spill.Robert Bea, Professor Emeritus Center for Catastrophic Risk Management, University of California, BerkeleyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/368742015-02-03T05:12:20Z2015-02-03T05:12:20ZCan Americans have both environmental preservation and expanded oil drilling?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/70834/original/image-20150202-27762-w34e04.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska has for decades been a center of debate on the tradeoffs between environmental protection and oil drilling.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/usfws_alaska/8191149965/in/photolist-dtPMvx-dtVkBY-9yEoUQ-24NvKy-dtPPxk-8bo3ur-3eMzQR-2biJje-2biE12-2bnTZY-2bip4r-2bnY2w-24NwKw-24J7ZK-57tXa-24NJL1-2bo1NS-dtPP94-24J8cP-dHTX9-24NGnd-5YnMN6-5DXGwp-5E2ZSY-5E2ZSA-5DXHqK-5E2ZRC-5E2ZQW-5DXHoD-5DXHnR-5E2ZNy-5DXHmH-5DXHkK-5DXHjV-5DXHj8-5E2ZJG-5E2ZHG-5E2ZFG-5DXHfB-5DXHeK-5E2ZD7-5E2ZCd-5E2ZBj-5E2ZAh-5DXH9F-5DXH8p-5DXH7F-5DXH6P-5E2Zvq-5DXH5r/">Alaska Region US Fish & Wildlife Service</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In a few months, we will mark the five-year anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The accident released millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, causing extensive impacts on the marine ecosystem, wildlife habitat, and the fishing and tourism industries in Louisiana and other Gulf states. Like the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska and the Union Oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara twenty years before that, Deepwater Horizon focused public attention on the environmental risks associated with energy.</p>
<p>These issues are back on the national agenda following two energy policy announcements last week by the Obama Administration, announcements that come amid a domestic oil and gas boom in the US. </p>
<p>A look at the polling data shows that Americans favor both environmental protection and expanding fossil fuel extraction. But it also suggests they aren’t certain how to weigh tradeoffs between the two. </p>
<h2>Testing ‘all of the above’</h2>
<p>In the first of two major initiatives, President Obama announced plans to designate more than 12 million acres of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska as wilderness and to close off ANWR’s Coastal Plain from oil and gas exploration. </p>
<p>Environmentalists have long argued that ANWR should be off limits to development of any kind because of its unique arctic ecosystem, which provides habitat for diverse wildlife, including the Porcupine River caribou that migrate to the ANWR’s Coastal Plain each year. The oil and gas industry argues that the untapped resources in ANWR are potentially immense, and that they can be harnessed with minimal environmental impact.</p>
<p>A few days later, in the second policy announcement, the Department of Interior (DOI) released a draft of its proposed five-year oil and gas leasing program for the Outer Continental Shelf. </p>
<p>The proposed plan calls for opening some new areas to development, most notably federal waters along the Atlantic seaboard from Virginia to Georgia and some small areas in Alaska’s Cook Inlet and Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. These waters have been off-limits until now, but the industry and many elected leaders in these states (of both parties) have long advocated for their opening. At the same time, the DOI leasing plan proposes closing off from future development other potentially resource-rich areas in the Arctic, namely the area known as the Hanna Shoal, which provides habitat for walruses, seals and other marine wildlife.</p>
<p>These proposals —- to expand energy development in some areas, while prohibiting it in others -— reflect an effort by the Obama Administration to continue its “all of the above” strategy. Rather than favor one type of energy source – fossil fuels versus solar and wind, for example – the stated purpose is to push forward on all types of energy sources, all while also protecting environmentally sensitive areas. </p>
<p>In releasing the DOI proposal, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell tried to articulate this balancing act: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“The safe and responsible development of our nation’s domestic energy resources is a key part of the President’s efforts to support American jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. This is a balanced proposal that would make available nearly 80 percent of the undiscovered technically recoverable resources, while protecting areas that are simply too special to develop.”</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Weight of public opinion?</h2>
<p>The ANWR and offshore leasing program proposals were received in the usual way here in Washington. </p>
<p>Most in the environmental community cheered the ANWR decision, but bemoaned parts of the offshore leasing plan. Among the criticisms was that opening up new areas to fossil fuel development conflicts with President Obama’s stated climate change goals. For their part, many in the oil and gas industry expressed support for the parts of the proposal that would expand development opportunities, but lamented the decisions to set ANWR and parts of the Arctic off limits. </p>
<p>Where does the American public stand on these issues? Do people support the expansion of energy development or do they prioritize environmental protection? Perhaps not surprisingly, each side in this debate argues that they have public opinion on their side. And, as is often the case with polling, there is some merit to these claims. </p>
<p>The data presented in the graphic below are responses to a question that the Pew Research Center has been asking in recent years about Americans’ support or opposition to the government allowing more offshore oil and gas drilling in US waters. What is clear from the data is that, over the past six years, the US public has consistently and often with strong majorities expressed support for the expansion of offshore drilling for oil and gas. The obvious exception was in the May 2010 poll, which was conducted in the midst of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/70675/original/image-20150130-25914-1o1i2hq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/70675/original/image-20150130-25914-1o1i2hq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=430&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70675/original/image-20150130-25914-1o1i2hq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=430&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70675/original/image-20150130-25914-1o1i2hq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=430&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70675/original/image-20150130-25914-1o1i2hq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=540&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70675/original/image-20150130-25914-1o1i2hq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=540&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70675/original/image-20150130-25914-1o1i2hq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=540&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Response to question: As I read some possible government policies to address America’s energy supply, tell me whether you would favor or oppose each. Would you favor or oppose the government allowing more offshore oil and gas drilling in U.S. waters?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Pew Research Center</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Responses to this question, however, do not provide a complete reading on how Americans weigh potential tradeoffs between energy development and environmental protection. And, when Americans are asked a similar question about the expansion of energy development, but this time with an option to prioritize environmental protection, the main takeaway is less clear.</p>
<p>The next graphic shows responses to a question that Gallup has since 2001 routinely included in its surveys, which more directly asks Americans to evaluate the energy development-environmental tradeoff. Specifically the question asks people to register their agreement with either a statement that emphasizes protection of the environment, or one that emphasizes development of domestic energy sources (not specifically offshore resources).</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/70678/original/image-20150130-25924-7y5w4q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/70678/original/image-20150130-25924-7y5w4q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=367&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70678/original/image-20150130-25924-7y5w4q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=367&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70678/original/image-20150130-25924-7y5w4q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=367&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70678/original/image-20150130-25924-7y5w4q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=461&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70678/original/image-20150130-25924-7y5w4q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=461&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70678/original/image-20150130-25924-7y5w4q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=461&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Response to question: With which of these statements about the environment and energy production do you most agree: protection of the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of limiting the amount of energy supplies—such as oil, gas, and coal—which the United States produces, or development of U.S. energy supplies—such as oil, gas, and coal—should be given priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Gallup</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>These data reveal a more complicated picture of US public opinion. </p>
<p>From 2001 to 2007 the public prioritized protection of the environment but, beginning in 2008, Americans’ support for developing domestic energy supplies began appreciably to climb and surpass protection of the environment, with a short-lived interruption in a poll conducted one month after the Deepwater Horizon accident. Last year, however, protection of the environment re-emerged with majority support. </p>
<h2>No free lunch</h2>
<p>The fluctuating nature of recent public opinion suggests sensitivity to external factors such as accidents, oil prices, and Middle East politics. But more broadly, one can reasonably interpret the US public as divided on how to achieve the right balance between energy development and environmental protection. And it is worth noting, that when pollsters ask questions specifically about drilling for oil and gas in ANWR, the level of support and opposition has tended to oscillate along these same lines. </p>
<p>This brings us back to the announcements made last week by the Obama Administration. </p>
<p>The ANWR and offshore leasing plans satisfy neither the environmental community nor the oil and gas industry, but the mix of proposals seems largely in keeping with the preferences of an American public that wants both more energy production and environmental protection. While there may be no “free lunch,” the Administration’s proposals seem to generally correspond to what the public as a whole thinks is possible and appropriate.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/36874/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Konisky receives funding from the National Science Foundation.</span></em></p>In a few months, we will mark the five-year anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The accident released millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, causing extensive impacts on the marine…David Konisky, Associate Professor of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.