× Dismiss

Never Miss an Update.

Arctic Deeply is designed to help you understand the complex web of environmental, social and economic issues in the High North. Our editors and expert contributors are working around the clock to bring you greater clarity and comprehensive coverage of Arctic issues.

Sign up to our newsletter to receive our weekly updates, special reports, and featured insights on one of the most pressing issues of our time.

Four Myths About the Arctic Oil and Gas Bonanza

We keep hearing about the substantial reserves of oil and gas buried beneath the seabed of the Arctic Ocean. Here are four reasons why there won’t be a run on those resources.

Written by Michael John Laiho Published on Read time Approx. 4 minutes
Bg6m77
Deep reserves, the cost of drilling and the financial and reputational risks make Arctic drilling less attractive.BSEE

The Arctic is experiencing an extraordinary heat wave – it’s 20C (36F) warmer than usual at this time of year (just imagine London or New York having T-shirt weather in winter). So does this mean the region’s fabled energy resources will finally be exploited – will newly ice-free sections of the Arctic Ocean soon be peppered with oil rigs, like a cold, remote North Sea or Gulf of Mexico?

Not quite. The Arctic’s offshore oil and gas is in very deep water, literally as well as figuratively, and will likely remain untapped. Many people expect a huge energy bonanza, while others are anxious about environmental destruction or international conflict over polar seas. But these views are largely based on various myths.

1. Vast, easily accessible oil and gas reserves

The Arctic contains one-third of the world’s entire untapped oil and gas reserves, according to a 2008 estimate by the United States Geological Survey (USGS).

This figure is drawn from seismic surveys, however, where blasts of sound from an airgun are bounced off underground rocks in order to identify likely spots containing oil and gas. None of these reserves are proven until they are actually drilled.

Geologic ‘‘provinces’’ color-coded by how much oil they are estimated to contain. (USGS)

Geologic ‘‘provinces’’ color-coded by how much oil they are estimated to contain. (USGS)

In any case, most of these reserves lie offshore, typically 2–4km (1.252.5 miles) below the seabed, in variable water depths and environmental conditions. Given the very slow pace of drilling in the Arctic, it will be a very long time before the real picture is known.

2. The Arctic is unspoiled

The Arctic – 60º north of the equator – is popularly regarded as one of Earth’s remaining unspoiled places. But this is largely based on the idea of a sparsely populated region, inhabited only by Indigenous people who cohabit with the Arctic environment. It does not account for the reality of population growth and economic development.

Unlike the Antarctic, which is uninhabited and protected by an international treaty that prohibits mining, the Arctic has always been exploited. Around 4 million settlers and Indigenous inhabitants now live there, spread across eight different countries. Population growth seems to rise in line with new resource extraction projects.

Murmansk, Russia, is the largest city north of the Arctic Circle. (Flickr, CC BY 2.0/euno)

Murmansk, Russia, is the largest city north of the Arctic Circle. (Flickr, CC BY 2.0/euno)

Of course, just because the Arctic isn’t entirely pristine doesn’t mean it’s invulnerable. Oil and gas exploration and extraction could devastate the region’s fragile ecosystem as well as the livelihoods of those who rely on it. Most concerns about oil and gas activities raised by the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna are not based on what we know about potential impacts but what we don’t know about the resilience of the environment.

3. There will be an Arctic oil and gas boom

Due to a growing demand for supplies and speculations about a peak in the production of conventional oil and gas, prospects in the Arctic look more attractive. But when the USGS published its appraisal back in 2008, oil was expensive enough to justify the costs of exploration. Today, historically low oil prices, sanctions against Russia and the development of shale gas in North America mean that expensive Arctic drilling is less attractive.

Could the Arctic’s reserves be ripe for picking once oil prices rise again? Unlikely. In addition to the cost of drilling at such depths, studies have highlighted the financial and reputational risks of an oil spill.

In colder temperatures, it’s likely that water and oil would freeze and become part of the ice and permafrost, lingering in the environment for far longer than oil spilled in the tropics. We still don’t know exactly what happens to oil spilled in the Arctic – but no one wants to find out.

BP’s catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico cost the company a whopping $18.7 billion. The cost of a potential “oil Chernobyl” would be enormous.

4. A race for resources

Fears of land-grabbing first arose in 2007 after the media dramatized a supposed Russian flag-planting expedition to the north polar seabed. After the USGS survey the following year revealed the region’s huge reserves, many put two and two together and worried the Arctic would host a major “race for resources.”

This is unlikely. Most untapped resources are already located within the offshore economic zones of nations who either claim parts of the Arctic Ocean or have claims well underway. Arctic countries have long declared their commitment to an “orderly settlement of any possible overlapping claims” according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which makes land-grabbing unlikely.

The Arctic really is melting

This one isn’t a myth – it’s all too real. Arctic warming may sound appealing for oil and gas companies who gain longer periods of access to the ocean, but the impact of thawing sea ice and permafrost on human and natural life may be devastating and “completely irreversible.”

No wonder activists are protesting against energy companies who plan to drill in the region. With high moral stakes involved, and a global commitment to keep warming below 1.5C (2.7F), new offshore oil and gas activities in the Arctic look unethical – and unrealistic.

The views contained in this commentary are those of the author and may not reflect those of Arctic Deeply.

This commentary was originally published by The Conversation.

Become a Contributor.

Have a story idea? Interested in adding your voice to our growing community?

Learn more