Declining Arctic Ocean oil and gas developments: Opportunities to improve governance and environmental pollution control (original) (raw)
Related papers
The updated version will appear in E. Pongrácz, V. Pavlov and N. Hänninen (eds) In Search for Arctic Marine Sustainability: Arctic Maritime Businesses and Resilience of the Marine Environment (forthcoming Springer, 2019), 2019
Following the announcement of vast petroleum resources in the Arctic waters, politicians and commentators called for the adoption of an Arctic treaty establishing a harmonised approach to developing petroleum resources in the fragile and harsh circumpolar environment. Five Arctic Ocean coastal States (Canada, Greenland/Denmark, Norway, Russian Federation, and the United States) have all either expressed interest in developing or are already producing Arctic offshore resources. While some of these States have an established history of offshore petroleum development, the development in the Arctic waters presents a unique set of challenges requiring additional regulation. In addition to the general petroleum legal regime, each of these four States has developed some Arctic-specific regulations to establish more stringent safety and environmental rules compared to more conventional locations. The chapter identifies such Arctic-specific rules and provides a comparative analysis of safety and environmental rules developed specifically for the Arctic.
A Drop in the Ocean: Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response in the Arctic
This article investigates the Arctic Council's new Agreement on the response to marine oil pollution in the Arctic Region. The Agreement is evaluated in the light of the challenges of responding to marine oil pollution in the Arctic, and in light of the international legal framework for oil response currently in place. Based upon this, the article concludes that the Agreement, rather than being considered an innovative new legal tool, should be understood as a symbolic token of the Arctic Council's willingness to discuss the problems associated with the present plans on resource exploitation in the Arctic. If, however, the Council sets out to establish an effective legal governance regime to the challenges of responding to a serious oil spill in the Arctic, the Agreement is, as the title suggests, merely a drop in the ocean.
Marine Policy, 2016
Climate change is profoundly impacting the Arctic and increasing accessibility to new resources and uses. Average temperatures in the region continue to rise and observations of sea ice loss through 2012 outstripped the most pessimistic scientific projections (Snow and Ice Data Center, 2013). If the current rate of sea ice loss is sustained, the Arctic could experience an "ice free" summer within the 21 st century (Laidre, et al., 2015). The Arctic is often described as a cohesive region of states, however there is great regime diversity among them. Given this reality, what explains regime diversity in the Arctic? How is rapid climate change influencing emerging approaches to environmental governance and management? Recognizing the Arctic regime as the intersection of many overlapping governance systems, this research compares two national approaches: the Northwest Passage region of Canada and the Bering Strait region of the United States. The paper explores the similarities and differences between the two governance regimes' pollution prevention and response mechanisms and investigates the relationship between prevention and response exhibited in each regime especially in regard to adaptation to threats iv posed by climate change. Findings characterize the Canadian regime as more preventative and the U.S. regime as more responsive. Findings illustrate that states with greater legal authority and sovereign rights are able to exceed generally accepted international standards and offer a more preventative framework. Likewise, states that strongly tie regional and national identities to unique environments may be more likely to enact measures that will protect those environments from degradation. v
The governance architecture in the Arctic region is subject to broad public and academic debate. Existing governance arrangements are not considered sufficient to minimize risks and impacts from Arctic offshore oil activities. These governance arrangements are fragmented between law of the sea norms, numerous regulatory conventions, and non-legally binding guidelines produced by the Arctic Council, an informal body of the eight Arctic states. While the benign form of cooperative fragmentation seems to prevail, specific governance challenges exist. The nature of these governance challenges and political feasibility considerations suggest an enabling joint management approach for the architecture of Arctic governance.
Transboundary Environmental Harm in the Arctic – In Search of Accountability for an Oil Spill
The Yearbook of Polar Law Online, 2019
Recently, the Arctic has transformed from a peripheral region to an area of great interest, for instance in terms of oil drilling. Nonetheless, no legal instrument has addressed the matter of accountability for transfrontier oil pollution damage. This article accordingly evaluates whether the current legal constructs, meaning State responsibility, international liability, civil liability regimes, and multilateral environmental agreements, allow accountability to be established for transboundary environmental harm resulting from hydrocarbon exploitation in the Arctic. It also examines whether these constructions could serve as the basis for future legislative actions. This article treats these four constructions as layers of accountability. After examining all of the layers in their current formulation, this article asserts that the existing layers cannot establish accountability for transboundary environmental damage in the Arctic, nor do they as such offer an effective way to regul...
DEVELOPING OIL AND GAS RESOURCES IN ARCTIC WATERS
IN: Strategic Assessment of Development of the Arctic, EDITORS: Adam Stępień, Timo Koivurova, Paula Kankaanpää, 2014
Key Messages: • Advances in offshore technology and maritime transport as well as global markets are major drivers of Arctic oil and gas developments, while climate change plays a secondary role. • On-the-ground developments in exploitation have been so far limited throughout the Arctic, though there is diversity in this respect between different Arctic regions, with greater intensity of activities in the Barents Region. • Risk of long-lasting negative impacts from catastrophic events, huge distances and gaps in existing capabilities and infrastructure are among the key concerns. • The EU has limited but multifaceted competencies regarding Arctic offshore hydrocarbon developments, such as through contacts with energy partners, climate and energy policies and research programmes.
Challenges of oil and gas exploration in the Arctic
Journal of Engineering Sciences and Innovation
The Arctic is a cold, remote, dark, dangerous and expensive place to explore for oil and natural gas. Recent appraisals suggest that a considerable fraction of the worlds undiscovered petroleum reserves lie within the Arctic. The oil and gas resources in the Arctic, but also their price, are what will draw the attention to the Arctic area in the future. Offshore exploration in the Arctic currently targets oil instead of natural gas. The relative ease of transport is what causes companies to favor oil. Arctic oil and natural gas development also faces political and environmental issues. Political issues stem from the overlapping and disputed claims of economic sovereignty. The environmental issues pertain to the preservation of animal and plant species unique to the Arctic, particularly tundra vegetation, polar bears, seals, whales, and other Arctic sea life. The extent to which environmental laws and regulations impact Arctic oil and natural gas development will depend on the specific laws and regulations of each nation having economic sovereignty over Arctic areas. However, the experience in the United States indicates that such policies can preclude the development of significant Arctic oil and natural gas resources.
Arctic Energy Geopolitics: Hydrocarbon Hopes and Challenges
Working Paper 2013-3, Center for Energy Governance & Security, Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea, 2013
Global Energy Monitor is a monthly online publication by the Center for Energy Governance and Security, covering recent global energy trends and issues. The Monitor is edited