The Little Things Count

Informing the public with a politically unbiased opinion, sharing scientific facts and research news, as well as news regarding climate change, the evironment, green technologies, sustainability and the overall state of the planet.

The Arctic is a hot topic this year with record ice melt in Greenland, Arctic Sea Ice set to melt to a record low in the coming weeks, the Canadian government approving a $142m research facility in the high Arctic and undertaking military exercises, a search being launched for ancient Arctic exploration vessels,and on Friday 24th August Greenpeace activists stormed a Russian oil rig!

Why all the fuss? Is Arctic Sovereignty a political issue that could lead to war? Is there really an Arctic gold rush, black gold that is, or are we years away from Arctic drilling? What are the consequences of Earth's air conditioner hiccuping? How may the world change if this continues? Let me provide a little insight into these questions.

In recent years the Arctic has been of great interest to governments and energy and mineral exploration, particularly as the Northwest Passage was sailed through in the summer in 2008, and record sea ice melt in 2007 was followed by near record melt in 2008, only to be surpassed as early as next week given current trends. China successfully sent it's first ship across the Arctic Ocean, an icebreaker named Xuelong, in August 2012. Experts claim there are masses of oil and gas beneath the Arctic ocean where the continental shelf extends for hundreds of miles north from Russia and Canada. There is a rush to find where the resources are and stake claim to it before fleets of icebreakers, tankers, tugs and supply ships are built to aid in the construction of massive oil platforms that can withstand huge swells, high winds, and standing up to the constantly shifting sea ice, and of course massive icebergs carved from northern glaciers and the Greenland ice sheet.
As for Arctic Sovereignty, most of the oil and gas resources are located within the 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone that extends seaward from every country as prescribed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Image courtesy of BBC News

 The only disputes are related firstly to where the east/west boundaries should be, should they follow the country boundary north and then change direction following the edge of the continental shelf? Or should they follow a direct line of longitude north towards the North Pole? Secondly, who gets the North Pole? Canada, Denmark, Norway and Russia are in dispute for this, with a Russian politician organizing the placing of a Russian flag on the sea floor directly below the North Pole in August 2007. Should the North Pole remain in international waters? These questions will be answered within the coming decades as the Arctic continues to change. All out war is highly unlikely given the difficulty of travelling through the Arctic and cost, as well as the fact that Russia can induce deadlock when threatening use of force due it's large armoury of nuclear weapons, so it's very unlikely there will be armed conflict; political tensions are much more likely and of course tensions between large corporations and environmental groups.
Who is right or wrong will not matter, sustainable and environmentally responsible development of the Arctic's natural resources is possible but it will require strong political will and the involvement of scientists to study the current conditions and impacts before the 'Arctic rush' begins. Northern communities are enthralled by the prospect of large companies bringing money and jobs to their areas, but before the riches arrive agreements will need to be reached regarding royalties, profit sharing and land leases. Hopefully some money will be transferred to the Inuit communities surrounding the Arctic and not head directly south.

In reality, the likelihood that Arctic oil will make a large contribution to oil supplies is many years away. In Russia massive platforms are being constructed, one gas platform will be 400ft across and weigh 100,000 tonnes (500,000 tonnes once filled with ballast) and will sit in the Shtokman field. As a side note, the platform Greenpeace stormed is an oil platform to be positioned in a region farther east, the Prirazlomnoye field. Russia are full steam ahead in construction of platforms and pipelines for their Arctic ambitions, whilst Norway and Alaska are well behind, with Canada and Denmark lagging even further behind in terms of exploration and development.

Photo Credit: M. JAKOBSSON/IODP. As featured in the following Article: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7093/full/441579a.html

Huge ice breakers as in the photo above, the biggest in the world included, are dwarfed by the mass of ice in the Arctic Ocean and must circle oil and gas platforms to break up the ice as it moves toward them, to avoid a collision and at worst, total collapse. These vessels are an expensive endeavour for any government or large corporation, and an essential defence against the moving pack ice. Yet another factor that will slow construction and development in the Arctic due to build times and cost. Nobody has built an oil or gas platform as far north as the Russians are starting to operate. The remoteness of the platforms is a danger if accidents happen, and the farther you are from the land the more volatile are the seas. It will take time for the Arctic to become a large supplier of oil and gas, longer than mass media portrays, but have no doubt Russia will be the pioneer of Arctic energy resources.

Earth's Great Air Conditioner

The Arctic ecosystem provides a fundamental service to the planet. It moderates temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere; the millions of square miles of sea ice covering the Arctic ocean reflect huge amounts of thermal infra-red radiation back into space, keeping the Earth several degrees cooler than it would be without the snow and ice caps. Without the highly reflective sea ice and snow covering Arctic regions temperatures in the oceans and on land increase, with the increase on land being greater due to the low albedo of vegetation versus open water (in the Arctic's high latitudes due to the low angle the radiation strikes the surface). The melting of sea ice will not have a profound effect on sea levels, but will act as a positive feedback to any rise seen. Due to the thermal expansion of water, a darker northern ocean will absorb more heat, which will in turn melt more ice, particularly in Greenland. Greenland holds a lot of ice, 3 or more miles thick in places, and reports show that 97% of the ice sheet is currently thawing, smashing the previous 55% record, and it happened in days: 

"...images, snapped by three satellites, showed that about 40 percent of the ice sheet had thawed at or near the surface on July 8; just days later, on July 12, images showed a dramatic increase in melting with thawing across 97 percent of the ice sheet surface."  - Jeanna Bryner, LiveScience Managing Editor, July 24th 2012. Link: http://www.livescience.com/21809-record-greenland-ice-melt.html.

The now infamous infographic illustrating the astonishing pace at which Greenland started it's record melt. CREDIT: Nicolo E. DiGirolamo, SSAI/NASA GSFC, and Jesse Allen, NASA Earth Observatory.


When Greenland melts, water that was previously held in ice, and not already sitting in the water, is added to the oceans resulting in sea level rise and triggering another feedback loop, where the darker land will absorb more solar radiation than before, warming the planet, which will further increase sea level via thermal expansion. 
Now, this will happen in less than the blink of an eye on a geologic time scale, but it will take a couple of years for the sea levels to rise because it takes a lot of energy to the heat water (water has a very high heat capacity). If we try to act once we detect this happening, it will be irreversible and slowing down the process will be extremely difficult. Signs like the huge thaw of Greenland this summer indicate this is the best time to consider appropriate action and act on it quickly, rather than the political tip-toeing we have seen since Copenhagen in 2009.
The impacts a changing Arctic will have are not limited to those of climatic and oceanic nature; the entire (fragile) Arctic ecosystem may change like we have never seen before in human history. New species will enter the Arctic Ocean from the south as the waters warm, thus increasing the competition for food and habitat with the already present Arctic fauna and flora. Any change in the ecosystem will have a profound impact on Arctic fishing industries, and the traditional culture and lifestyle of the Inuit in northern communities. Already they have to travel farther to reach the whales and seals they hunt, as the animals follow the retreating ice each summer. 
On land vegetation will start to move north, with lichen being replaced by grasses and shrubs, with trees to eventually follow, a slow process that may take decades but long term it will increase warming further and decrease snow cover within the Arctic circle. However, one of the largest concerns on land and beneath the ocean is the thawing of permafrost, as the ground thaws the ground rots and once the top layer of soil has thawed the pungent gas formed in decomposition, methane, is released into the atmosphere, and methane hydrates are released from the thawing sea bed. 

How big of an impact can thawing permafrost have? 
Consider this: 
"Permafrost underlies 20-25% of Earth's land area, including about 99% of Greenland, 80% of Alaska, 50% of Russia, 40-50% of Canada and 20% of China." - The Canadian Encylcopedia.

That's not including the methane hydrates beneath the Arctic Ocean.
Now, add in the fact that Methane is a very potent greenhouse gas, and traps several times more heat than Carbon Dioxide can (despite it's shorter residency in the atmosphere), and you have rapid climate forcing. One estimate of how much Carbon is in the permafrost comes to 970 gigatons, to put that in perspective, there are about 730 gigatons of Carbon currently in the atmosphere, enough to take the average temperature of the planet from 15 Celsius to 22 Celsius (Anderson, 2009). 

Closing thoughts

Considering all of the changes mentioned above (which are by no means exhaustive as there are some things we cannot predict, and current changes we don't understand) the Arctic as we know it is not just under threat but a critically endangered ecosystem. The 'New Arctic' will arrive by the end of the century assuming all current trends continue without action, nobody knows what it will look like but it won't be as white as before. The Arctic system is complex and dynamic, but whether or not it can respond to such quick changes fuelled by a relentless warming trend remains to be seen. I doubt it can, the changes made now may trigger a deeper Ice Age than before in 10,000 years time, or things may go back to pre-industrial conditions as we respond and the Arctic system acts to balance itself within a couple of thousand years. One thing is for certain, it will change significantly in your lifetime. 


This post was inspired by the book "After The Ice" by Alun Anderson, which can be found on Amazon.ca here.


Beneath a 1.5 million acre tract on the North Slope of Alaska is estimated to be between 3 and 9 billion barrels of recoverable oil. This area is a specially designated area within the 19.8 million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

The U.S. imports over 65% of the nation's needed petroleum. These oil imports cost more than $55.1 billion a year. This figure does not include the military costs of imported oil. These figures are rising and could exceed 80% imports by the year 2010.
If the U.S. went ahead with their Arctic drilling plans, the U.S. would save $14 billion per year in oil imports and between 250,000 and 735,000 jobs are estimated to be created by development of the Coastal Plain. More than 75 percent of the citizens of Alaska, the Alaska legislature, the governor, the congressional delegation, and the residents of the North Slope Borough ( including those who live in the only village in the refuge ), support Coastal Plain oil and gas development.

ANWR is a 19 million acre refuge in northeast Alaska over half of which is designated as wilderness. The northern rim of ANWR, 1.2 million acres, was segregated by Congress for resource evaluation because of the potential for crude oil deposits beneath its surface. This area is called the Coastal Plain.
Tens of thousands strong herds of Caribou roam and migrate through the area and thousands of waterfowl nest and reproduce in Prudhoe Bay.
Other creatures such as Polar Bears (around 1000) live in this area of the ANWR with another 1000+ on the coast a short way from the refuge.
Polar bears will be exposed to new dangers and threats if oil exploration, development and extraction go ahead these include

  • Death, injury or harassment resulting from interactions with humans (many bears who come too close to communities too often are killed or moved).
  • Damage or destruction of essential habitat - just look at the extent of the damage caused by the Alberta Oil Sands and you will understand how such a project would affect the ANWR)
  • Contact with and ingestion of Oil and other contaminents.
  • Indirect food chain effects due to the impacts of oil and gas related activites on the good web upon which polar bears depend and are a part of.

Muskoxen an endangered species, with 350 in the refuge, live in the Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge year-round. Deep snow makes it difficult for these animals to survive as their fat-reserves are depleted and fewer calves produced, therefore, they move to areas that recieve less snow and/or are more sheltered. Such as the riparian area of habitats - which are also sites of important sources for water and gravel required for development and exploration. If the Muskoxen are displaced from these areas into deeper snow it will be a butterfly effect. In deeper snow the Muskoxen will expend more energy remaining warm, thus reducing their fat reserves which may well affect their survival.

Other species in the area include Grizzly Bears, Black Bears, Bowhead Whales, Gray Whales, Killer Whales, Harbour Porpoise, Pacific Walrus, Bearded Seals, Spotted Seals, Ring Seals, Elk, Wolves, Dall Sheep, Wolverines, Arctic Foxes and Red Foxes. Such biodiversity in an area of a couple of million acres is unmatched anywhere in the U.S. and Canada and possibly in any other areas of Tundra.

Global warming the ANWR is very apparent, over the past century, the average temperature in the arctic region has increased by 4 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit. Sea ice is melting earlier, permafrost is thawing and the wildlife migrates at different times. Caribou are departing their wintering grounds a month earlier and still having trouble making it to the coastal plain in time for spring, when the most nutritious forage is available for their calves. Arctic foxes are facing increased competition from the red foxes that are moving north as the climate warms. If warming continues unabated, the melting of the permafrost and the transformation of much of the tundra into woodlands would dramatically affect the migratory birds that breed there and rely on tundra vegetation. That includes more than two-thirds of all geese and most sandpipers.

"At best, ANWR would pump out only about 1 million barrels per day in 2015, when all of the necessary pipelines are in place. That may seem a lot, but in fact it represents only 4% of anticipated U.S. petroleum consumption and 6% of all imports."
Arctic Drilling Is No Energy Answer Tapping ANWR wouldn't help much with the most pressing problem: American dependence on foreign oil.
by Michael T. Klare

The total production from ANWR would be between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030. So is it really worth entering a wilderness for such a small amount of oil and leaving it in what state?

Against Arctic drilling? Take action here.