Samir Shakhbaz interviews Anatoly Dmitriyevsky, Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Director of the Academy’s Institute of Oil and Gas Problems.
Samir Shakhbaz: Good afternoon, Mr. Dmitriyevsky. Arctic issues are high on the agenda these days. The Arctic shelf is rich with natural resources. When were these resources discovered, and why has the Arctic issue become so important today?
Anatoly Dmitriyevsky: Scientists have known about Arctic resources for a long time. In reviewing older estimates, we can see that scientists have always highlighted the impressive oil-bearing and gas-bearing prospects of the Arctic Ocean. Compared with the aggregate resources of the Atlantic and Indian Oceans, the Arctic Ocean contains 50-80% more oil and gas. The Arctic Ocean also contains 400% more oil and gas resources than the sprawling Pacific Ocean. As far as the importance of Arctic resources is concerned, I would like to say a few words about developing high-seas oil and gas deposits. Today, 35% of oil and 32% of gas are mined from offshore deposits, primarily those located on the continental shelf.
Oil and gas were initially mined from low depths, primarily from the continental shelf in the vicinity of Baku, Azerbaijan. Although the Neftyanye Kamni (Oil Stones) oil-production facility was built in 1949, the shelf-deposit mining process did not develop further because the Soviet Union and Russia had enough land deposits which were easier and more profitable to exploit. The issue of Arctic resources is becoming more important because Russia is now resuming operations at shelf deposits. Baltic Sea and Sakhalin Island shelf deposits were first developed in 1999 and 2002, respectively.
The Shtokman gas condensate deposit and the Prirazlomnoye oil deposit on the Barents Sea shelf and the Kara Sea shelf, primarily around the Yamal Peninsula, have the most promising open deposits. Deposits on the Yamal Peninsula alone contain over ten trillion cubic meters of gas, while the peninsular shelf has an estimated 50 trillion cubic meters. The 2009 expeditions with the Mir deep-sea submersibles which reached the Arctic Ocean seabed fueled interest in the Arctic. Research conducted by Mir submersibles confirmed the existence of tremendous deposits on the shelf being claimed by Russia. This implies a 1.2 million square kilometer wedge stretching from the Arctic shores to the North Pole.
S.S.
: This economic issue promptly acquired political significance. Other countries are laying claim to this lucrative sector. How legitimate are Russian claims to Arctic deposits, and how, in your opinion, should Russia proceed?
A.D.
: Positive aspects include the recent statements by Canadian and Russian Foreign Ministers stressing that scientists have the final say on the Arctic issue. Both parties also confirmed the fact that the current continental-shelf boundaries were an extension of state borders. In this connection, the Arctic Ocean is being studied more actively to everyone’s benefit. The more we know, the better we can understand and study this extremely interesting region that largely affects the global climate. We will be able to determine and substantiate our national economic interests, as soon as this region’s inner boundaries are clarified.
S.S.
: Everobody has been scared by the April 20 – July 15, 2010 oil spill caused by an explosion of BP's Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico. Environmentalists emphatically oppose any human interference in the Arctic, not to mention oil production. To what extent is it possible to keep oil production safe on the continental shelf?
A.D.
: The expanding oil and gas industry prioritizes tougher safety regulations. The first shelf oil spill happened in 1967, seriously influencing public opinion and alarming environmentalists. The March 24, 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill involved an oil tanker that struck a reef off the Alaska coast and spilled 260,000 to 750,000 barrels of oil over a 2,000-km shoreline. During that period Exxon sustained $5 billion in losses after its gas stations were boycotted. I would like to emphasize the equivocal reaction of oil companies. They suffer losses because of these accidents and therefore find it unprofitable to mistreat nature because of the financial implications. BP, for example, has already spent $10 billion on clean-up operations in the Gulf of Mexico. Now, double-hulled tankers are being manufactured for safety’s sake. Greater precautions are also taken during oil-well construction.
The Arctic Ocean is a special zone with a fragile ecosystem and more vulnerable environment. A thick soil layer makes it possible to deal with environmental pollution because it processes various pollutants. Oil spewing into the warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico congealed into tar balls which descended to the seabed and were consumed by biological organisms.
But oil spilling into colder waters starts drifting with the ice-floes, which seriously complicates the purification process. Russian legislation stipulates tougher drilling requirements. Companies developing the Sakhalin-I and Sakhalin-II projects under production-sharing agreements were forbidden to vent drilling-mud slime into the Okhotsk Sea. Although similar operations are possible in the Gulf of Mexico, they are forbidden in Arctic waters because oil spills can cause extremely negative consequences in cold waters.