Home > Essay examples > Offshore Oil & Gas in the Arctic: Effects on Wildlife & Climate Change

Essay: Offshore Oil & Gas in the Arctic: Effects on Wildlife & Climate Change

Essay details and download:

  • Subject area(s): Essay examples
  • Reading time: 13 minutes
  • Price: Free download
  • Published: 27 July 2024*
  • Last Modified: 27 July 2024
  • File format: Text
  • Words: 3,506 (approx)
  • Number of pages: 15 (approx)
  • Tags: Climate change essays

Text preview of this essay:

This page of the essay has 3,506 words.



Offshore Oil & Gas Exploration in the Arctic: The decimation of the Last Frontier

In November of 2012, during a month when the sun never fully rises and frigid temperatures restore ice masses to their former grandeur, unseasonably warm temperatures were recorded in the Arctic Circle. Sea ice that year was at a record low providing a dramatic visual of what scientist had predicted was coming (Allen et al, 2017). The Arctic is warming nearly twice as fast as the rest of the planet (Council on Foreign Relations, 2014)(Allen et al, 2017). Satellite monitoring of the Arctic began in 1979. Since then the polar ice caps have retreated by roughly 40%, a steady decline over the past 30 years (IBID). It is known that natural climate cycles cause global warming and cooling patterns, however, the scientific community agrees, these changes have been brought about through anthropogenic influences, of which the burning of fossil fuels is a huge component (Mueller et al, 2018). With our rate of consumption and lack of significant action in addressing climate related issues scientists predict only further increases in global temperature and further decline in Arctic sea ice in the future. This will inevitably increase accessibility for oil and gas exploration and open new shipping routes, making the region vulnerable to exploitation and environmental degradation (IBID).

Offshore oil drilling saw its inception over a century ago when a small local oil company drilled the first well in an Ohio reservoir in 1891 (Offshore Energy Today, 2018). This first crude drill was supported by piles which had been dropped into the water. In 1896, long piers were built off the coast of Santa Barbara, CA, to allow for the first salt-water offshore oil drilling; tapping into the Summerland oil field which lain under the Santa Barbara Channel. The pier extended a distance of 300 feet from the shore into the ocean. Production from the Summerland field was noticeably higher than the nearby land-based oil wells, and, shortly thereafter, an additional 400 oil piers were added. The Summerland Oil field lucratively produced oil for 25 years (IBID).

Today, offshore oil operations are conducted at depths over 10,000 feet at distances up to 250 miles from shore (Offshore Petroleum History, 2018). Each offshore oil rig is massive, like a small city, and has extensive support industries on land. Some are fixed in their location, while others float and are moored in place. Facilities include a cafeteria, sleeping quarters, management offices, a hospital wing, and other support units (Offshore Energy Today, 2018). Due to their remote locations, staff is often flown by helicopter to work two-week shifts. Supplies and waste are transported by ship. These operations cost billions to build and billions more to maintain. Due to the dynamic nature of the open sea and the platforms themselves, all offshore oil operations have their challenges (IBID).

The dangers of offshore oil drilling to human health and to the environment have been well-documented. History is full of examples, such as the Santa Barbara oil spill of 1969, the Exon Valdez tanker spill in the Prince William Sound of Alaska in 1989, and the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. Risks include spills from tankers and pipes, leaks, and explosions. Even when operations are running optimally there are dangerous byproducts spilled into the water from the process of drilling itself (Offshore Energy Today, 2018).  Discharge water and mud from drilling includes varying amounts of oil, drilling fluids, and other chemicals used in production. According to one industry report, an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico dumps approximately 90,000 tons of drilling fluids, heavy metals, and metal shards over the course of its lifetime (IBID).

Offshore oil production provides 30% of the world’s yearly oil supply, however, the risks are great, and the consequences of drilling-related disasters are mighty (EIA, 2018). With Arctic ice melting at unprecedented rates new shipping routes and valuable natural resources are becoming more accessible (Allen et al. 2017). Today Arctic and non-Arctic countries are lining up to take advantage of these new opportunities. Meanwhile many other coastal countries are bracing for the effects of climate change as the rising seas threaten to wash away communities around the world (IBID). In this paper I provide a critical analysis of offshore exploration in the Arctic. This will include historical problems, future projections, and a review of international and US policy. Review of scholarly literature, government reports, and relevant popular news sources will provide the context for my project. I intend to focus on the potential implications of expanding exploration; paying particular attention to the risk of spills and oil spill response, and the effects of expansion on the Arctic ecology and indigenous communities.

Arctic geography, players, and conditions:

The Arctic Circle consists of the northern most 8% of the earth and lies at a latitude of ~66º 33’ north of the equator (Council on Foreign Relations, 2014) (Allen et al. 2017). Eight countries have coastal access to the Arctic Ocean: Canada, the United States, Russia, Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark, through its autonomous constituent country Greenland (Fig. 1) (Gulas et al. 2017). The Arctic coastline varies significantly (Allen et al. 2017). Much of the Nordic coastline is rugged and rocky with deep water immediately off shore. The Alaskan coast consists of lagoons, bays, wetlands, river deltas, and major coastal plains. Canada’s coast is broken up by numerous, lightly-populated islands. Russia’s long coastline has a diverse  geography; Russia claims the largest amount of the Arctic coast with nearly 2,500 miles (IBID). (Map of the Arctic)

The Arctic Ocean is both one of the most pristine places on earth and one of the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change (World Wildlife Fund, 2018). Though it is the smallest and shallowest of the world’s five ocean it is one of the world’s last, great frontiers (AWL, 2014). The Arctic is home to a myriad of endemic species and wildlife communities which are specially adapted to the region’s harsh climate (Council on Foreign Relations, 2014). The Arctic terrain is vast with areas of intact marine and terrestrial habitats teeming with wildlife (Allen et al. 2017). Despite is frigid temperatures and frozen water the marine environment in the Arctic is quite diverse, rivaling that of the northern latitudes of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans (Darnis et al, 2012). Rich in benthic organisms, plankton, fish, mammals, and sea birds the Arctic ecosystem thrives even under the cover of thick winter ice.  

Millions of birds flock to the region every summer from all over the world, eager to take advantage of its productive waters. Many whale species can be found swimming in the shallows and the depths at various times of the year including beluga, narwhal, bowhead, and gray whale (Allen et al. 2017). Caribou and the Arctic fox can be found roaming the arctic tundra, although the Arctic fox also spends much of its life on the ice. The Arctic ecosystem has many keystone species. A keystone species is one which is essential to the health of an ecosystem (WWF, 2018). Through their daily activities they play a vital role in the management of their habitat and/or food web. Once a keystone species has been removed significant changes to the ecosystem are observed and the community will likely not thrive as it did in its presence. In the absence of a keystone predator, for example, a prey species may drastically increase in numbers, outcompeting another for valuable food sources, thereby shifting the balance of the entire ecosystem. The polar bear, ice seals, and Arctic fox are some of the keystone species found in this region (IBID).

Beluga, whales are known for their bright white color and their chirp-like songs. These toothed whales are opportunistic feeders who enjoy fish and squid, but will also scavenge the sea floor for sea snails and sand worms (Darnis et al, 2012). They are social animals and have been observed in packs ranging in size from just a few individuals up to several hundreds. The bowhead whale is the only baleen species that remains in the Arctic year-round (Jones, 2017). Ice seals, a group that consists of several different seal species, live on top of the sea ice for part of the year primarily during pupping season (WWF, 2018). Polar bears are actually classified as marine mammals due to the amount of time they spend on the Arctic sea ice. Their primary food sources are seals which they hunt from land or by sea, swimming skillfully during their great hunting expeditions. They are also known to occasionally hunt beluga whales by waiting on the surface for them to come up for air then grappling them with their powerful jaws and pulling them onto the ice (IBID). Arctic foxes, traverse long distances in the Arctic and spend time on land and far out on the sea on winter ice pack. Their diets consist of small rodents, sea birds, fish, and other small marine life. They also have a  tendency to follow polar bears, taking advantage of the leftovers from their kills. The majestic walrus is an Arctic engineer, breaking ice with his giant tusks to allow passage through the ice-covered water. Their tusks also provide protection from predators like polar bears and are used to establish dominance around their communities. Young walruses are reared during the summer months while floating on sea ice in shallow  waters. Walruses, seals, and bowhead whales are also a food staples for the indigenous Arctic peoples, providing not only a reliable source of protein and omega 3 fatty acids, but also heating oil, hides and furs for warmth, and their bones which are carved into intricate tools (Fig. 2)(Darnis et al, 2012). (FOOD WEB DIAGRAM)

The Arctic has long been known as a hotspot for hydrocarbon resources (Gulas et al. 2017). The first major energy discoveries in the region were made in Siberia and Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, in the 1960s (Council on Foreign Relations, 2014). However, its harsh environment has always posed a challenge with regard to access (Gulas et al. 2017). Petroleum exploration and development in this area faces intense weather, prolonged periods of darkness, sea ice, ice storms, and desolate land and sea scapes; far from civilization and help should the need arise. Thick expanses of sea ice have historically made much of the area unnavigable (Knol, Arbo, 2014). In spite of these challenges, offshore drilling began in the region in the 1970s (Gulas et al. 2017).

In 1982 the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) granted all the world’s coastal countries economic rights to the oceans within 200 miles of their shore (UN.org, 2018). This area has been dubbed the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)(Fig. 1).  Of the eight Arctic countries the United States, Canada, Russia, Norway, and Denmark have long been eager to exploit the Arctic’s rich natural resources by frequently seeking opportunities to extend their exclusive rights beyond their EEZ (Gulas et al. 2017). In response UNCLOS established a “quasi-constitutional treaty” in 1984 in which each country was granted 10 years to scientifically prove exploitable resources were available beyond their designated EEZ’s boundary. If validated that country would get exclusive rights to explore and develop that extended area. The U.S. signed, but never ratified, this treaty and, therefore, cannot formally assert its rights beyond its EEZ. Russia, Norway, and Denmark, however, quickly expanded their range of exploration to the continental shelf beyond their respective EEZs (Gulas, et al. 20170. Since then all of the Arctic nations have experienced cycles of exploration over the past several decades with great expense. Only Norway has successfully produced oil in recent years.

Climate Change:

For the humans and animals that call the Arctic home the reality of climate change is seen and felt daily. Nowhere else in the world are the effects of a warming planet more obvious. Sea ice, which is defined as “frozen ocean water,” is bright white and has a high albedo or ability to reflect solar radiation, rather than adsorb it (NSIDC, 2018). Bright white sea ice can reflect up to 80% of the sunlight that it encounters. The darker, open-water ocean has a much lower albedo and, therefore, absorbs a much higher rate of solar energy and the heat it carries. This heat adsorption is warming the Arctic Ocean and increasing the rate at which sea ice is thawing. Data shows that Arctic ice is also becoming younger and thinner; younger ice is darker. This darker  younger ice coupled with more dark open-ocean has resulted in an increasing susceptibility of remaining ice to melt every summer (IBID) The lowest level of sea ice ever recorded was in 2012, with 2016 not far behind (Fig. 3)(Mueller et al, 2018). Ice core samples dating back as far as 1850 indicate that in recent geological history sea ice has never been so low. Scientist predict that summer ice will be a thing of the past as early as 2030. MAP OF SEA ICE

The current average annual temperature in the Arctic is 8ºF warmer than it was between 1961-1990 (Allen et al, 2017). Fall temperatures in October and November have increased to 9ºF above average. These rising temperatures are having profound impacts on the many species that

call the Arctic home. The Arctic ecosystem is changing in many ways; essential habitats are disappearing, shifting seasons are confusing reproductive patterns and disrupting species’ relationships, and animal populations are dwindling (Høye et al, 2007). Decreasing ice mass will limit habitat for many of the Arctic’s keystone species and change the dynamic of the ecosystem. Many of the Arctic inhabitants, such as, polar bears, walruses, and ice seals, spend much of their lives on the sea ice hunting, giving birth, and raising their young. With their habitat becoming more fragmented polar bears are forced to swim longer distances in search of food and seal and walrus pup mortality is increasing due to trampling events as more and more animals try to squeeze on to increasingly shrinking bodies of ice (WWF, 2018).  

An increase in the presence of orca whales has also been noted (Darnis et al. 2012). This majestic toothed-whale has frequently hunted in the region during the short summer months, however the warming waters and decreasing ice masses have made the region more hospitable to them. These changing conditions are setting up the orca up to become a new apex predictor in the region. Increased hunting by orcas is likely to have detrimental effects on endemic whale populations, such as, narwhal, beluga, and bowhead; all of which are sources of sustenance for Arctic communities (IBID). The timing of seasonal activities in the Arctic are also shifting, leaving some slower evolving species running to catch up (Høye et al. 2007). Spring is arriving earlier than previous decades and flowering plants, egg-laying birds, and insects are responding in kind. However, several species which are higher up on the food chain, like caribou, have not adjusted their biological clocks. Migrating and calving as they normally would they arrive too late into the new season to take full advantage of their essential food sources, which has challenged their food security (IBID).

The thawing of permafrost, a substantial carbon sink, is another big concern (Natural Resource Defense Council, 2018). Permafrost consists of soil and bedrock which has been frozen for thousands of years. This frozen ground has trapped the greenhouse gasses released from the decay of plant and animal life dating back far beyond the days when the woolly mammoth roamed the earth. Massive stores of carbon and methane are released into the atmosphere as this ground thaws, exacerbating the already problematic rise in global temperatures (IBID). One pound of methane has the ability to trap 25 to 33 times more heat than one pound of CO2 (Allen et al. 2017). Global greenhouse gas emissions are increasing at a staggering rate (Muller et al. 2018). According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), emissions have climbed 70% between 1970 and 2004 and CO2 release has increased by 80%. We are now experiencing the highest annual increase in carbon pollution ever recorded.

Currently many communities stand on this perpetually frozen ground. Thawing permafrost is already posing serious challenges for existing infrastructure in the Arctic region: buildings are crumbling, and roads are sagging (Allen et al. 2017). These warming temperatures and melting ice are likely to displace local Arctic communities and military bases. Storms are eroding the Arctic coastline no longer protected by thick sheets of ice. In Alaska many tribal Alaskan lands are already under threat from coastal erosion. Thirty-one communities may soon become uninhabitable and twelve have already relocated. Many traditions and cultural practices are also being lost along with their native lands due to the deep spiritual ties to the land itself (IBID).

While this loss of ice will be devastating for the Arctic ecology and residents it also carries consequences that extend well beyond the Arctic Circle (Allen et al 2017). As Thad Allen of the Council on Foreign Relations put it, “What happens in the Arctic does not stay in the Arctic.” As massive ice sheets melt and break off into the ocean global sea level rise is encroaching on coastlines, submerging protective outer banks and coastal wetlands, washing away beaches, and threatening many human civilizations. Just the slightest increase in ocean depth has the potential to displace millions in low-lying areas (IBID).

In 2012, a 50 sq. mile section of Greenland’s Petermann Glacier fell off into the Arctic Ocean (Muller et al. 2018). It was proceeded by a 97-square-mile section which broke into the sea in 2010. Coastal areas in many tropical regions are especially vulnerable to sea level rise caused by the melting Greenland ice sheet and Arctic glacial ice generally (Allen et al. 2017). Miami-Dade County, FL, for example, is expected to see a four to seven-inch increase in sea level by 2030. This low-lying city is already feeling the effects of these changes, as flooding has plagued the streets of many neighborhoods simply from normal tidal fluctuations. The world’s largest naval base in Norfolk, VA is also experiencing frequent floods. The New York and New Jersey shorelines are expected to experience at least a one-foot rise in sea level possible as early as 2030. Still conservative local governments are reluctant to call a spade a spade (IBID). Low-lying communities around the world are already seeing their homes threatened. Many are in third world countries and are desperately poor, unable to afford to take temporary mitigation measures or pick up and move to higher ground. The Greenland ice cap alone could increase global sea levels as much as 20 ft (Allen et al. 2017). While many oil, gas, and shipping industry leaders are ecstatic about the Arctic’s environmental changes, some island nations stand to lose everything.

Assessment of Arctic Resources & Movement towards exploration:

For global energy enthusiasts the focus of future energy supplies that have yet to be discovered is largely in the Arctic (Gautier et al. 2009). In 2008 the United States Geological Survey (USGS) conducted an assessment of the unexploited oil and natural gas resources in the Arctic Circle, using probabilistic geology-based methodology. Their findings were published in the Circum-Arctic Resource Appraisal Assessment which concluded that approximately 30% of the world’s untapped gas and 13% of the world’s untapped oil may be found in the region. Most of these fossil fuels lie offshore at depths less than 500 meters. The majority of natural gas discovered in the study lies in Russian territory (IBID).

The deep ocean basins in the Arctic have a relatively low likelihood of harboring hydrocarbons (Gautier et al. 2009), but the continental shelves are among the world’s largest remaining oil exploitation prospects. The USGS study located 61 potential oil fields in the region, with 60% of the total petroleum potential isolated to just six sites (Fig. 4). Among those six 31% (27.9 billion barrels) is projected to lie in Alaskan waters. A total of Forty-three sites are in Russian territory. Two among them, the North Barents Basin and the Yemisey-Khatanga, are projected to house 5.3 billion barrels each. Eleven locations were found in Canadian waters, including the Caning-Mackenzie field, which has been estimated to hold 6.4 billion barrels. In all just under 60 billion barrels are projected to be in the Arctic region (IBID). Industry analysis reported that U.S. consumption of petroleum for 2017 was 7.28 billion barrels (EIA, 2018). Global consumption is projected to be ~99.6 billion barrels by the end of 2018. OIL MAP

Global consumption of natural gas was 110 BBOE (billions barrel of oil equivalent, a measure commonly used to quantify natural gas) for the year in 2008 (Gautier et al. 2009). By 2017 consumption rates had increased by 3% (BP Global, 2017). The Arctic is projected to contain three times more natural gas than oil (Gautier et al. 2009). The largest reserve is thought to contain 22.5 BBOE, almost as much as the total amount of oil projected in region. In total as much as 2990 BBOE could be added to the global natural gas pool, therefore, natural gas has a higher probability of being developed here. Though substantial gas reserves were located in Alaska, Canada, and Greenland the majority lie in Russian territory (Fig. 5). This discovery further reinforces Russia’s position in the Arctic as the primary resource holder. It should be noted that these projections do not take into consideration the accessibility of these resources, but simply their existence. Many may prove too difficult or too expensive to ever be exploited (IBID). GAS MAP

Discover more:

About this essay:

If you use part of this page in your own work, you need to provide a citation, as follows:

Essay Sauce, Offshore Oil & Gas in the Arctic: Effects on Wildlife & Climate Change. Available from:<https://www.essaysauce.com/essay-examples/2018-12-12-1544592130/> [Accessed 19-11-24].

These Essay examples have been submitted to us by students in order to help you with your studies.

* This essay may have been previously published on EssaySauce.com and/or Essay.uk.com at an earlier date than indicated.

NB: Our essay examples category includes User Generated Content which may not have yet been reviewed. If you find content which you believe we need to review in this section, please do email us: essaysauce77 AT gmail.com.