The retreat of Arctic ice has made it onto the agendas in the boardrooms of shipping companies as they sense the economic advantages of shorter routes.
The simple facts are that the Northwest Passage route is 7,000km shorter than the Panama Canal route, and the Northeast Passage (Northern Sea Route) along the Siberian coastline is shorter by a third than the Suez Canal route.
These measurements translate into reduced fuel costs (in the case of the Northern Sea Route, up to $200,000).
There is therefore huge incentive to send cargo ships along these Northern routes with all the attendant environmental problems of pollution, accidents, and damage to wildlife, let alone the impact on sparsely populated Inuit communities.
Ironically, as the sea ice melts, more warmer water comes into contact with cold air, forming fog. As a result, one estimate has theorised that an extra 3 days could be added onto the Northwest Passage transit.
Early September snapshot concentration of shipping in the world
Green = Cargo vessel
Red = Tanker
Blue = Passenger vessel
Pink = Pleasure craft
Orange = Fishing
What could possibly go wrong?
The melting ice has also piqued the interest of energy and mining companies as the Arctic region is estimated to contain 25% of the worlds untapped oil and gas reserves plus deposits of iron ore, nickel, copper, lithium, cobalt, uranium and gold.
Canada and Russia are two of the largest suppliers of oil and gas in the world, along with the USA and Saudi Arabia.
Canada has nominally signed up for an energy policy that would limit global warming to 1.5°C by 2030, however, in reality it is still advocating fossil fuels and developing new oil and gas projects to feed its addiction to these sources. Currently, Canada's policies have been rated as "insufficient" in reaching this target, and the current trajectory is towards warming up by 4°C.
Russia is also exhibiting a cavalier approach to Global Warming and has stated that it will plant more trees to absorb carbon instead of reducing fossil fuel production and use. Seriously.
Throw into this mix the war in Ukraine which has sent countries scrambling to secure safe and reliable suppliers, one of whom is...Canada. Drilling here is already up by 14%.
One of the reasons that the Russian economy did not collapse when sanctions were imposed is precisely because western countries still need Russia's oil and gas.
Russian oil rig and tanker in the Arctic
There is a drive towards renewable energy sources and a resurgence of nuclear energy which will in time erode the price that can be charged for fossil fuels.
An analysis published by BP earlier this year, indicates that by 2050, fossil fuels, as a primary energy source, will account for as little as 20% and renewables will be at up to 65%. The report coined the phrase "energy trilemma" to account for the market driving forces of energy security, affordability and sustainability.
Energy use is at a watershed whereby it can be questioned wether further development of oil and gas is necessary as extraction costs will ultimately become uneconomic when alternative sources of energy arrive on stream.
The environmentalists advocate patience and run down fossil fuels as renewables increase, but they are up against the dollar, profit, shareholders and huge nations that cannot be argued with.
The Russian Arctic is home to 2 million people and generates 20% of that country's Gross Domestic Product from the resources therein.
Contrast this to Canada's Arctic territories that contain 123,000 people and contribute 0.5% of Canadas' GDP. At the moment.
And then there is China.
China does not have an Arctic border (The "Arctic 8 being - Russia, the USA, Canada, Denmark (through Greenland), Sweden, Finland, Norway and Iceland).
Instead, China is following its well worn path of innocently financing facilities such as research and satellite ground stations in Greenland, offering to renovate Greenlands airports. A satellite station in Sweden and infrastructure investment in Svalbard. China also played a major role in bailing out Icelandic banks in the crash of 2008.
This is a long game in which the ultimate rewards for China will be political.
If for example Greenland were to obtain full independence, then China will be well placed to have influence over mineral extraction in that country. This is unsettling for Denmark.
All this highlights the two main questions for this area: Who owns the wider Arctic and who should have a say in what happens to it?
Really, it would be reasonable to say that the Regions indigenous peoples, including First Nation peoples in Canada and Alaska, the Sami of Scandinavia, the Greenland Inuit and Russian Arctic communities such as the Chukchi and Evenk should own this land, but history shows that these are the very people who are left behind.
Answers on the back of a postcard please.
Comentários