Derek Kane O’Leary
Professors Florance and Parmenter
GIS for Int’l Applications: Final Paper
08 May 2012
Particularly since the 2008 publication of the Circum-Arctic Resource Appraisal by the
United States Geological Society, the understanding that the Arctic contains vast hydrocarbon
resources has become common: oil, natural gas, and other energy sources (including
“renewables”) are stranded beneath the ice waiting to be recovered. There is far more to the
extraction of Arctic off-shore hydrocarbons than the mere retreat of sea ice. Numerous
environmental and climatic factors weigh in, along with a host of political, economic, and social
considerations. However, sea ice is the most important variable, and the considerable loss
(perhaps 50% since the 1950s) is the game changer.
This project approaches the relationship of sea ice retreat and the accessibility of
undiscovered Arctic off-shore hydrocarbon reserves. (Vocabulary such as “undiscovered
reserves” implies, of course, a certain understanding of human ownership and the environment
that this project neglects to address.) I sought to answer three basic questions: how much has
Arctic sea ice changed over the past two decades (presumably a reasonable period to chart macro
changes); how much hydrocarbon wealth has this retreat consequently made more accessible,
and what initial steps have been taken by the Arctic littoral states (Russia, the US, Canada,
Denmark (Greenland), and Norway) toward exploiting this. Originally, I aspired as well to ask
which areas are the most accessible and profitable relative to the current amount of investment.
The broadest question was thus “what are the present and future realities of accessing the
hydrocarbon wealth of the peripheral seas of the Arctic Ocean?”
Acquiring data for this was in some cases straight forward and in others prohibitive.
Though I struggled at first to find the most recent and reliable data for estimated oil, natural gas,
and other hydrocarbon reserves, I ultimately settled on the 2008 USGC report. The report has
been brought under scrutiny since publication and is inherently subject to uncertainty (it is, after
all, decomposed organic buried thousands of feet below a generally frozen ocean), though its
data remain the most reliable assessment. It was sponsored by the Department of the Interior and
provides tabular data for 1995-2009. This is available at
Bird, K. et al. (2008). Circum-Arctic resource appraisal; estimates of undiscovered oil and gas north of
the Arctic Circle. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet. Retrieved from:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3049/.
with more extensive data at https://explore.data.gov/Geography-and-Environment/USGS-Oil-and-GasAssessment-Database/9bdr-ih4w.
Concerning the ice data, I was intent on examining ice density or concentration rather than
simply ice extent. Ice is not a uniform phenomenon, and thickness is relevant for exploration,
drilling, and transportation of hydrocarbons. Less dense areas would be more assessable than
dense and also suggest long-term outlooks, as thinner ice tends to then retreat more rapidly.
However, I was not able to find and manipulate adequate raw data for ice density (only charts),
so I focused instead on variation in ice extent. The National Snow and Ice Data Center provides
an ice index with polygon and polyline files of monthly ice extent for the year 1978 through the
present. This is available at
Fetterer, F., K. Knowles, W. Meier, and M. Savoie. (2002, updated 2009). Sea Ice Index. Boulder, CO:
National Snow and Ice Data Center. Digital media.
http://nsidc.org/data/docs/noaa/g02135_seaice_index/index.html.
Data on licenses for oil and gas exploration/exploitation were retrieved from government
agencies in the US, Canada, Greenland, and Norway, all of which (especially Norway and
Greenland) were very transparent about the bid and award of licenses. Russia, perhaps
unsurprisingly, does not seem to offer data on licenses, so I acquired inadequate approximations
through Rosneft and Gazprom maps, which I then attempted to replicate.
-Greenland’s Bureau of Minerals and Petroleum provides a shapefile for the current round of licensing,
containing vector data through early 2012. This is available at http://www.bmp.gl/petroleum.
-The Norwegian Petroleum Directorate provides shapefiles containing vector data for recent rounds of
licensing on the Norwegian Continental Shelf, up to the 2012 round. This is available at
http://www.npd.no/en/Topics/Production-licences/Theme-articles/Licensing-rounds/.
-Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development of Canada provides data on oil and gas rights in vector
form updated in late 2011. This is available at http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100036298.
-The Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Oil and Gas provides vector data for oil and
gas exploitation leases, updated as of March 2012. This is available at
http://dog.dnr.alaska.gov/GIS/GISDataFiles.htm.
Additionally, I had intended to implement data on Arctic shipping (frequency and type of vessel)
to provide a sense of transportation activity and its relationship to hydrocarbon exploitation. The
Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment was published in 2004 and then 2008, under the Arctic
Council’s leadership. The vector data of shipping type for the Arctic nations is current as of
2004, however, and thus does not represent significant changes in recent years. It is nonetheless
available here
http://www.arcticdata.is/index.php?option=com_phocadownload&view=category&id=5:shipping-routes.
The bulk of data manipulation was devoted to working with the new sea ice data and
hydrocarbon data that I chose. When sea ice density data proved impracticable, I focused on
responding to the question of change in sea ice cover extent from 1990 to 2010. Sea ice is highly
variable on a seasonal basis, including unpredictable fluctuations that do not represent long-term
trends. The first challenge was representing change in a meaningful way. I decided to use data
only from September and March—generally the periods of minimum and maximum sea ice
cover, respectively—as a baseline for change. I used both September and March data with
different levels of transparency on each ice extent map so as to juxtapose the differences; for the
latter two ice extent maps, I included polylines of the September and March 1990 ice extents to
show the general retreat of ice cover. Though this clearly shows a considerable decrease in
seasonal ice cover, I was not able to quantify the actual area of change between baseline and the
subsequent years; this would surely have improved the analysis.
I then integrated the hydrocarbon data into these maps to show the relationship with
retreating sea ice. I chose to focus on off-shore resources; though some Arctic deposits are
terrestrial as well, an estimated 84% are submarine, and exploitation is subject to a particular set
of challenges, above all sea ice. I inserted the tabular data for hydrocarbon deposits and created a
graduated color scheme; though this remains imprecise, it provides some conception of the most
hydrocarbon rich regions of the Arctic Ocean. It was a challenge to present both ice and
resources—both three dimensional features of considerable depth—at once on a two dimensional
space. I attempted to make this intelligible by experimenting ad nauseam with different colors
and transparencies. Upon believing the maps completed, I realized they were far too complex
and fully changed the color scheme, transparencies, base map, etc.
For the central map, I focused on those areas that were most accessible. I used the erase
feature in Arc toolbox to separate Arctic Ocean regions with full-year ice coverage, seasonal icecoverage, and full-year non-coverage. For each, I used a different level of transparency, with the
effectively non-accessible full-year covered regions least visible and the full-year uncovered
regions most visible. I found the effect helpful in that it focuses attention on the most feasible
areas for activity, but frustratingly limited in that it does not include the numerous other natural
and human factors at play; nor does the licensing suggest the full extent of investment and
activity in these regions. Though these most accessible areas are correlated with the most active
licensing and development, a more thorough suitability analysis could really provide insight into
the most potentially profitable areas for exploitation and the extent to which investment has
reflected this.
Though there were moments of success, I quickly realized that I did not have the breadth
and depth of data necessary to approach the full set of questions that initially drew me. I feel that
the mapping of ice extent in relation to estimated hydrocarbon reserves was the more successful
component. I know that the NSIDC data is very reliable and frequent since 1978. Six points over
twenty years (September and March in 1990, 2000, and 2010) may, however, be too superficial
to demonstrate change. Sea ice is highly variable, and more extents from additional years and
months may have better shown trends. Had I been able to focus on these trends while integrating
sea ice density, the project may have been more focused and strong. The major shortcoming,
however, was the dependence on sea ice cover as the only factor in the correlation with oil and
gas development. Licensing is a useful initial indicator of government support and private
interest in development, but it presents an adequate picture of neither the many environmental
factors also at play nor the financing and interest necessary for any development to happen. If I
could reengineer the project, I would develop a multi-factor suitability analysis centered on sea
ice cover. By then juxtaposing the extent of investment, development, and extraction, I could
better analyze the correlation between suitability and profit; this would serve to answer which
profitable areas are being exploited and which are not.
Citations:
a) Wadhams, P. (2012). New predictions of extreme keel depths and scour frequencies for the
Beaufort Sea using ice thickness statistics. Cold Regions Science and Technology. Retrieved
from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id= GALE%7CA283350789&v=2.1&u=
mlin_m_tufts&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w.
Though I was not able to integrate an analysis of sea ice thickness, this is precisely the
technological-environmental relationship that I hoped to explore. This study reflects my intended
approach of hypothesizing the viability of complex technological projects given the probability
of certain climatic changes, in this case the most important factor: changes in thickness and
prevalence of sea ice cover.
b) Aven, T. and O. Renn ( 2 March 2012). On the Risk Management and Risk Governance of
Petroleum Operations in the Barents Sea Area. Risk Analysis. Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22384923/?otool=tuftshsl.
In a broader suitability analysis of hydrocarbon extraction, the integration of such intangible
factors as risk and governance would have been very important. Exploitation is about more than
complex technological projects in hostile environments; it requires also relevant safeguards and
support, without which the feasibility of extraction declines.
c) Lasserre, F. (November 2011). Polar super seaways? Maritime transport in the Arctic: an
analysis of shipowners' intentions. Journal of Transport Geography. Retrieved from
http://rptufts.library.tufts.edu:9797/MuseSessionID=39a7d42118883c5a21b7ae17264258c/Muse
Host=apps.webofknowledge.com/MusePath/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=Gener
alSearch&qid=1&SID=1FFoHMOM15HknlmN2gE&page=2&doc=15#output_options.
Extraction without the necessary infrastructure is of course useless. Adequate shipping capacity
and the complex infrastructural network required for shipping in severe environments is another
important factor in the suitability of hydrocarbon exploitation. This discussion of shipping costs
as a function of ice recession is vital to envisioning how shipping tonnage might increase in
coming years given continued sea ice cover depletion.
d) Odemarck, K. et al. (2012). Short-lived climate forcers from current shipping and petroleum
activities in the Arctic. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. Retrieved from
http://rptufts.library.tufts.edu:9797/MuseSessionID=4b91dd713091dcde1b69ad6f44fd222b/Mus
eHost=apps.webofknowledge.com/MusePath/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=Gen
eralSearch&qid=1&SID=1FFoHMOM15HknlmN2gE&page=1&doc=6.
This study is very relevant to my final question concerning the viability and impact of shipping
in the Arctic, specifically regarding the particularly detrimental impact of emissions on the
Arctic environment. This begins to delve into the broader series of questions regarding not “if,
when, how” can we exploit the Arctic, but “should and why.”