Jokela, Juha (ed.): Arctic security matters, Report No 24 – June 2015, EU Institute for Security Studies, Paris, p. 21-31, Jun 2015
The increasing accessibility of the Arctic Ocean due to rapidly shrinking sea ice (as outlined in... more The increasing accessibility of the Arctic Ocean due to rapidly shrinking sea ice (as outlined in the previous chapter) has sparked growing interest in exploiting the region’s natural resources. These concern predominantly:
•the conventional offshore oil and gas resources located on the continental shelves of the five Arctic coastal states; and
•the development of new fishing grounds in established northern fishing areas in Arctic countries’ exclusive economic zones (EEZ), and potentially also in hitherto untapped areas in the international waters of the high Arctic Ocean.
The projected economic development of the region also has major implications for the possibility of using new shipping routes along northeastern and northwestern Arctic routes (for trade and tourism purposes).
Although this looks like a straightforward cause-and-effect equation – the decreasing Arctic sea ice leads to an expansion of economic activity in the region – the reality is much more complex and requires a thorough investigation of the economic potential of Arctic energy, shipping and fisheries options, including the role and influence of global actors and interests. This chapter outlines the recent developments, trends, prospects and challenges concerning the economic viability of these three domains. It argues that the shrinking Arctic sea ice cover is only one among many critical drivers of transformations currently underway in the Arctic that needs to be considered as external actors seek to unlock the region’s economic potential.
Uploads
Papers by Kathrin Keil
exploration and production rates are rather low. As of today, there are only two producing oil fields and one
natural gas field in production. While technical challenges and a low oil price are among the explaining factors,
the legal regimes for awarding licenses in Arctic waters may have a significant impact on industry interest as
well. Offshore licensing regimes in Arctic countries range from State-centric in Russia to market-based in the
United States. Further, some States developed additional requirements for companies wishing to operate in the
Arctic waters. This paper examines the interconnections between the legal regimes for offshore licenses and the
rates of industry activity in petroleum development in Arctic waters. It does so by devising an analytical
comparative framework for the licensing regimes across five Arctic States. The results are then analysed in the
context of actual exploration and production rates in Arctic waters. The analysis sheds light on the role of
licensing regimes on the level of industry interest and corresponding exploration and production rates.
•the conventional offshore oil and gas resources located on the continental shelves of the five Arctic coastal states; and
•the development of new fishing grounds in established northern fishing areas in Arctic countries’ exclusive economic zones (EEZ), and potentially also in hitherto untapped areas in the international waters of the high Arctic Ocean.
The projected economic development of the region also has major implications for the possibility of using new shipping routes along northeastern and northwestern Arctic routes (for trade and tourism purposes).
Although this looks like a straightforward cause-and-effect equation – the decreasing Arctic sea ice leads to an expansion of economic activity in the region – the reality is much more complex and requires a thorough investigation of the economic potential of Arctic energy, shipping and fisheries options, including the role and influence of global actors and interests. This chapter outlines the recent developments, trends, prospects and challenges concerning the economic viability of these three domains. It argues that the shrinking Arctic sea ice cover is only one among many critical drivers of transformations currently underway in the Arctic that needs to be considered as external actors seek to unlock the region’s economic potential.
depends significantly on the rules and regulations that parties have put in place. While most of the literature deals with resource ownership, it is argued here that the more significant potential sources of controversy between Arctic states are issues of responsibility, liability, precaution and preparedness concerning possible transboundary environmental risks and dangers and, generally, protection of the fragile Arctic ecosystem.
of significant and rising stakes towards Arctic commodities. However, this article argues that this debate has hitherto failed to substantiate the actual stakes of the main actors involved. Consequently, many studies make grandiloquent statements about prospects of cooperation and conflict and the appropriate institutional framework for the Arctic region, based on only limited empirical support. This article aims to fill this gap by analysing the Arctic oil and gas interests of the five Arctic littoral states (Russia, USA, Canada, Norway and Denmark/Greenland). The analysis
shows greatly different levels of interests towards the High North among the Arctic states. The findings make it possible to make more credible statements about the likelihood of confrontation over Arctic resources and necessary institutional adjustments. The evidence shows that the often-evoked issue of geopolitical rush for Arctic resources is unlikely to eventuate. Nonetheless, there remain institutional challenges for the protection of the fragile Arctic ecosystem.
Talks by Kathrin Keil
exploration and production rates are rather low. As of today, there are only two producing oil fields and one
natural gas field in production. While technical challenges and a low oil price are among the explaining factors,
the legal regimes for awarding licenses in Arctic waters may have a significant impact on industry interest as
well. Offshore licensing regimes in Arctic countries range from State-centric in Russia to market-based in the
United States. Further, some States developed additional requirements for companies wishing to operate in the
Arctic waters. This paper examines the interconnections between the legal regimes for offshore licenses and the
rates of industry activity in petroleum development in Arctic waters. It does so by devising an analytical
comparative framework for the licensing regimes across five Arctic States. The results are then analysed in the
context of actual exploration and production rates in Arctic waters. The analysis sheds light on the role of
licensing regimes on the level of industry interest and corresponding exploration and production rates.
•the conventional offshore oil and gas resources located on the continental shelves of the five Arctic coastal states; and
•the development of new fishing grounds in established northern fishing areas in Arctic countries’ exclusive economic zones (EEZ), and potentially also in hitherto untapped areas in the international waters of the high Arctic Ocean.
The projected economic development of the region also has major implications for the possibility of using new shipping routes along northeastern and northwestern Arctic routes (for trade and tourism purposes).
Although this looks like a straightforward cause-and-effect equation – the decreasing Arctic sea ice leads to an expansion of economic activity in the region – the reality is much more complex and requires a thorough investigation of the economic potential of Arctic energy, shipping and fisheries options, including the role and influence of global actors and interests. This chapter outlines the recent developments, trends, prospects and challenges concerning the economic viability of these three domains. It argues that the shrinking Arctic sea ice cover is only one among many critical drivers of transformations currently underway in the Arctic that needs to be considered as external actors seek to unlock the region’s economic potential.
depends significantly on the rules and regulations that parties have put in place. While most of the literature deals with resource ownership, it is argued here that the more significant potential sources of controversy between Arctic states are issues of responsibility, liability, precaution and preparedness concerning possible transboundary environmental risks and dangers and, generally, protection of the fragile Arctic ecosystem.
of significant and rising stakes towards Arctic commodities. However, this article argues that this debate has hitherto failed to substantiate the actual stakes of the main actors involved. Consequently, many studies make grandiloquent statements about prospects of cooperation and conflict and the appropriate institutional framework for the Arctic region, based on only limited empirical support. This article aims to fill this gap by analysing the Arctic oil and gas interests of the five Arctic littoral states (Russia, USA, Canada, Norway and Denmark/Greenland). The analysis
shows greatly different levels of interests towards the High North among the Arctic states. The findings make it possible to make more credible statements about the likelihood of confrontation over Arctic resources and necessary institutional adjustments. The evidence shows that the often-evoked issue of geopolitical rush for Arctic resources is unlikely to eventuate. Nonetheless, there remain institutional challenges for the protection of the fragile Arctic ecosystem.