THE RACE FOR ARCTIC RICHES –Analysis Maritime Security Forum
Today, the world is trying to put into practice new forms of energy to replace oil and natural gas, which some experts say are running out. This situation, of replacing traditional resources, has awakened and activated the desire of those who have a monopoly on these resources to exploit other, even more difficult areas, if only to avoid losing the large profits that their exploitation would bring.
Some studies show that under current conditions and the rate of consumption of some countries, such as CHINA, INDIA, BRAZIL, TURKEY, etc. (not forgetting the super-developed countries that consume enough), the current oil and gas resources could sustain the world economy (unless they are replaced or others are discovered) for around 70-80 years! I therefore consider that the following possible scenarios need to be considered:
– saving them, which is difficult to believe and to realize in view of the economic boom and the “appetite” of some countries to develop and become regional and even world powers (such as CHINA);
– the switch to other energy sources, already tried and tested (hydrogen, water, wind, electricity, etc.) but not widely applied because of the conflicting interests of the major monopolies;
– continuing with even greater intensity the exploration of new areas holding traditional resources (oil and gas) which are even more difficult to exploit but which promise very large quantities.
For the time being, the latter option seems the most plausible, although it requires huge human and financial resources and well-developed technology, which are not so easy to achieve at a time when, according to some economists, a new global economic crisis is on the horizon. But in the face of huge vested interests, even this ‘hurdle’ seems to have been overcome, as the solutions are already on the table. We may soon witness a clash of interests in other areas – less accessible and without a stable population, such as the Arctic or even Antarctica! In other words, the battle for oil and gas may move under the ice, after decades and hundreds of years of being fought on land, sometimes in arid areas. Perhaps the current danger of melting ice caps as a consequence of global warming will probably turn into a great benefit! Could this be the reason why some countries, such as the USA, have not signed the Kyoto agreement on the emission of gases into the atmosphere, thereby contributing to global warming? Probably yes!
Today we are witnessing marked climate change, with the ice pack thinning and moving away from the North Pole, which until now has been a “neglected” area, becoming a center of strategic interest. The ice has reached its lowest level in ten years, freeing up the northernmost straits that form the north-west corridor through the Arctic Ocean for several weeks. But in order to assess whether the Arctic Ocean could in the coming years become a navigable and exploitable space (practicable both on the surface and in the depths) that would arouse strategic interest, it is necessary to consider several factors such as :
-the mode of administration of the Arctic area ;
-the concept of maritime sovereignty
-protection of straits
-the oil and gas reserves in the area
-the military interests of the states bordering the area.
Some years ago, the states bordering this circular ocean set up the Arctic Council, an exclusive club of eight nations: Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Sweden and the USA. This intergovernmental organization discusses Arctic issues in addition to other issues. Any non-Arctic state cannot even be admitted as an observer! China’s application has been rejected for the time being, but it will certainly come back with a different form of application, a sign that it has not given up.
So we will have to wait a little longer for the Arctic ice to melt and the countries concerned will start exploiting the huge hydrocarbon reserves under the North Pole. And that’s not all! There will probably still be fishing, transportation and maybe even tourism! A new category of rich will certainly be born, just as Arab oil has created the rich deserts. More concretely, for the oil industry, the disappearance of ice will probably be a boon, increasing access to oil and gas reserves. It is estimated that about 25% of the world’s remaining reserves are in the Arctic.
One of the serious contenders for the exploitation of Arctic resources is the European Union (represented mainly by the states bordering the Arctic, i.e. Denmark – through Greenland, Finland and Sweden), which is giving clear signs that it is preparing to conquer the Arctic region economically. It is fair to say that the European Union is beginning, discreetly it is true, to withdraw from the Middle East, where the exploitation of hydrocarbon reserves is not only done with sweat but also with a lot of blood (the wars in Iraq, Syria, the Arab Spring …) sometimes even innocent. We can now leave the hot East for the cool Arctic, where, as I said before, huge hydrocarbon reserves are estimated. The natural question might arise: why is it only now that the world is considering this possibility? The answer is that, until recently, simply going to the North Pole was a real adventure, never mind exploiting it.
On the other hand, no one was worried about depleting hydrocarbon resources so quickly. It was only when EU officials got hold of reports by several climate scientists that the Arctic ice is already certain to disappear during the summer that the courage was shown. So the great barrier to Arctic exploitation – the ice – has disappeared. At the same time, possible inter-state disputes over the delimitation of continental shelves can easily be resolved along the lines of the Ukraine-Romania dispute settled by the International Court of Justice in The Hague. These are situations that will favor the desire for economic conquest of the area. However, the problem is not quite as simple as it first appears. I say this for the following reasons:
– The EU is not, for the time being, a homogeneous structure, with a single legislation, capable of being applied in any member state of the union;
– the interests of the countries driving the EU’s development (France and Germany – on energy resources) sometimes differ significantly;
– three EU Member States – Denmark (through Greenland), Finland, Sweden – have territories in or near the Arctic and are likely to have greater and different claims on the rights resulting from future exploitation;
– two other countries Iceland and Norway are members of the European Economic Area, although they are not EU members;
– Canada, Russia and the USA also have territories in the Arctic and are also strategic partners of the EU.
Therefore, the EU’s intention to solve the Arctic hydrocarbon problem in a four-EU, Iceland, Norway, Russia solution without working with the other two – the USA and Canada – could lead to failure or a conflict of interests with the potential to degenerate into something else. Arctic resources are important for the EU as they contribute to energy security and a certain independence. At the same time the EU must be aware that this possible future exploitation will create problems because:
-it entails considerable costs due to extremely harsh climatic conditions ;
-requires special equipment adapted for working at very low temperatures ;
-requires new technologies and methods for operating in such conditions;
-requires the existence of numerous environmental risks and compliance with strict pollution and operational safety standards;
-It involves particular problems of intervention in the event of (undesirable) environmental, human or other catastrophes.
However, in carrying out this project, the EU is drawing on and intends to capitalize on the experience gained in the exploitation of oil and gas on offshore platforms, particularly in the North Sea but not only.
Another, albeit secondary, focus of EU attention would be the Arctic fish market. At present, the only major Arctic fisheries are in the Barents Sea and the southern and eastern Norwegian Sea. Climate change could lead to an increase in the quantity of fish for some species suitable for human consumption. Some experts believe that new areas may become attractive for fishing and access to them may be facilitated by a reduction in sea ice cover. In other words, sea ice is expected to melt, which will allow navigation on routes through Arctic waters, considerably shortening the sailing time between Europe and the Pacific Ocean. This will bring huge benefits such as:
-energy savings;
-reduction of harmful gas emissions
-Promote trade ;
-Decongestion of the main transcontinental shipping routes;
-reducing transportation time of future hydrocarbon reserves.
Studies will certainly be carried out to examine and improve the conditions and rules for the gradual introduction of commercial shipping in the Arctic area. Measures will also be taken to ensure safe navigation, maritime surveillance of routes and ships, as well as scenarios and forms of response in emergency situations.
So the race for Arctic hydrocarbons is set to be a long and rather complicated one, as five Arctic littoral states – the US, Canada, Russia, Norway, the US, Russia and Denmark (as an EU member) – are all vying for the Arctic shelf, while border demarcation has never been a priority due to the ice and the lack of attractiveness of the area.
But global warming is now making it possible to exploit newly discovered Arctic oil and gas resources. It’s estimated that about 25% of the world’s oil and gas reserves could be found under the Arctic ice cap.
The desire to take ownership of the bottom of the Arctic Ocean, which is legally classified as high seas (and therefore the common heritage of mankind) is stirring the spirits of the coastal states. Canada has already delimited its maritime zones around the Arctic archipelago. The process consists of drawing baselines from the territorial sea around the archipelago rather than within each island.
The 12 nautical miles of the territorial sea, an area of maritime sovereignty, extend outwards from the archipelago (out to 200 nautical miles) to the far north. This allows Canada to use its sovereign rights and powers for exploitation and fishing. The US and the EU have protested against the Canadian decision. At the same time, Russia has been asking the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf since the end of 2001 to claim an extended continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles (Article 76 of the 1982 Montego Bay Convention) in the central Arctic Ocean. In support of its claim, Russia has invoked the Lomonosov Ridge (passing under the North Pole) as an underwater extension of its continental shelf, and as such would have this right of extension.
It should also not be forgotten that in August 2007, two Russian mini submarines placed a Russian flag (at a depth of 4,261 meters) on the underwater floor of the North Pole. But this is not a territorial claim, said the Russian foreign minister.) The US has rejected this Russian claim, arguing that the Lomonosov Ridge has nothing to do with the continental shelf.
Following the Russian model, the other riparian states are also making their intentions known, i.e. Denmark and Canada want to extend their subsoil exploitation rights beyond the 200 nautical mile limit. Norway is opposing Russian claims, and Denmark is also claiming more Arctic territory off Greenland. Moreover, the Arctic is crossed by a so-called north-west passage (as a navigable route through northern Greenland, through the Canadian archipelago and into the Bering Strait) where Canada claims authority. The US disagrees, saying it is international waters.
So the problems are very complicated, given that there is no consensus on the Arctic area and each riparian state is trying, diplomatically for the time being, to claim as much space as possible in the area.
At the same time, military interests could not be absent from the area. For a long time Russian and American submarines (some even nuclear-powered) have been sailing under the ice cap. US icebreakers passed through the Northwest Passage, which Canada wants to administer, several times in 1969, 1970, 1985…without authorization or without asking permission. The US has stated several times that it needs to have a stronger military and naval presence in the Arctic.
Canada is also aware that it needs to strengthen its military presence in the center of the Arctic archipelago (it has started building a port on Baffin Island and a military base on Cornwallis Island, as well as ships and icebreakers).
As for Russia, it has already built huge icebreakers to sail around the area and has started to develop new technologies to exploit the resources.
It is also worth noting that China, in its frantic search for resources, is not hiding its interest in the area (even though it is not a littoral state), showing it whenever it can. The not-too-distant future (10 to 30 years) remains to be seen whether this project (individually or in collaboration with several riparian states and others) will be able to be implemented, thanks to the growing pressure and interests of the world’s major economic powers and companies, or whether it will be abandoned in favor of protecting the planetary ecosystem.
Maritime Security Forum