Conley reported in mid-2013 that from the nineteenth century Alaskan gold rush to today’s modern-day rush to explore for oil, gas, and mineral resources, economic interests have and will continue to powerfully shape the Arctic’s future development. As the polar ice cap rapidly melts, the choices Arctic states make regarding the development of these economic resources, the protection of a fragile ecosystem, and the balance these states strike between development and preservation will define the Arctic for the next century.
Arctic coastal states historically have pursued very different economic models of development. The Soviet Union, for example, promoted “extensive” Arctic development in which territorial control was interlinked with economic development and population dispersion across vast territories. The Soviet regime relied largely on the work of Gulag prisoners to industrialize the region. It heavily subsidized unprofitable industries in Siberia and the Arctic although the populations of this territory were less productive than others in the
country.
In a 2003 work titled “The Siberian Curse,” scholars Fiona Hill (U.S. Ukraine Ambassador) and Clifford Gaddy attempted to establish the cost, in technical, financial, and human terms, of developing Siberian regions that were unfavorable to modern human settlement. They created a “temperature per capita” system to provide a measure of the “costs of cold” when it came to Arctic development. [1] They concluded that the Soviet interventions in the region were
terribly expensive and inefficient, creating a difficult environmental and infrastructure related legacy for Russia as it seeks to modernize and develop its Arctic resources today.
Both Canada and the United States, on the other hand, employed intensive economic development models. For these countries, economic development centered predominantly on extractive industries with minimal population centers and infrastructure requirements. America’s Arctic economic development primarily focused on North Slope oil (which currently holds approximately 6.1 billion barrels of oil, [2] worth an estimated $561 billion [3] with minimal seasonal population presence in Barrow, Alaska (total population 4,212 [4] and even less infrastructure presence. The United States also struggles with a legacy of very limited infrastructure.
What are the costs and benefits of economic development in today’s circumpolar Arctic? For the United States, it will be essential to develop a national economic strategy for the American Arctic, albeit in an increasingly resource-constrained and politically polarized environment. The estimated 90 billion barrels of oil and 1,669 trillion cubic feet of natural gas now believed to be located in the Arctic may incentivize the formulation of this strategy. However, the discovery of unconventional gas in the United States has increased the global supply of liquefied natural gas (LNG), and therefore the discovery of gas in the Arctic may not be of near-term economic interest or benefit in the future. New oil production in the Arctic, particularly from offshore discoveries, could potentially take decades to bring to market at great expense.
The potential economic bonanza of developing the Arctic’s vast mineral resources appears more promising [5]. Estimates for the economic potential of hydrocarbon resources alone exceed $1 trillion [6] in the U.S. Arctic and $1.7 trillion in the Russian Arctic [7]. The exploitation of mineral resources, particularly uranium, rare earths, and so-called strategic minerals, iron ore, nickel, and palladium, may be a more important economic driver in the Arctic
than natural resources in the near term.
Whether the resources developed are mineral or hydrocarbon, however, they must find their way to receptive markets via shipping routes or pipelines. Double-hulled shipping vessels, deep water ports, improved navigation and satellite communication as well as improved icebreaker, search and rescue, and aviation infrastructure must be developed as well. Yet this increasingly vulnerable ecosystem presents significant environmental and societal risks and costs to Arctic economic development. Increased onshore and offshore Arctic drilling enhances the risk of potential oil spills. The rapid expansion of transshipping and tourism has increased pollutants released from large vessels into Arctic waters. Intensive fishing could lead to rapidly diminishing fish stocks. What are the implications of this increased human and commercial activity for indigenous populations and the fragile Arctic ecosystem?
To examine these issues, the author evaluated both the economic benefits of an increasingly open Arctic region and the costs of exploring the riches of the American Arctic by framing an economic strategy built upon six critical economic components: oil and gas development, mineral resources, shipping, fisheries, tourism, and, finally, the regional infrastructure required to support and sustain the first five components. This report also evaluated the increasingly prominent role of the private sector in Arctic development and its interplay with the potentially diminished traditional role of governments in the region. As a conclusion, the author seeks to answer the question: Can the United States craft a balanced Arctic economic strategy that enjoys the benefits of Arctic economic development while minimizing the “costs of cold”?
[A selection of the issues also involved mining, which highlighted the Red Dog Mine that still produces zinc and lead in cooperation with the indigenous people, while the development of the Boulder uranium project was opposed by indigenous people in the general area becasue they were not included in that project].
URANIUM MINING PROSPECTS
The Boulder Creek uranium deposit, located 30 miles north of Elim Village in the eastern Seward Peninsula in northwestern Alaska, is one of the two largest identified uranium deposits in Alaska (the other being the Bokan Mountain deposits of rare earth and uranium in the panhandle of southern Alaska), holding an estimated 1 million pounds of uranium oxide resources.[35] The Canadian Triex Minerals Corporation [36] started exploratory drilling in 2006, investing $3.5 million dollars [37].
The project, however, met with fierce local opposition due to concern over toxic contamination of the Tubuktulik River and other health and environmental impacts associated with extraction of radioactive materials. The Elim Students Against Uranium staged protests in 2008 and 2009. In 2009 the Center for Water Advocacy campaigned to halt uranium exploration on behalf of the native village [38]. Development of the deposit has stalled following local opposition and allegations that the federal Bureau of Land Management failed to provide adequate public notice regarding the project. Triex dropped its
Boulder Creek claims in 2008, but retained interests in nearby claims.[39].
Footnote: The Triex Minerals Corporation signed a joint venture agreement with the Alaskan Full Metal Minerals company in 2005, and was acquired by Canterra Mineral Corporation in 2009. Full Metal Minerals, “Full Metal Options Boulder Creek Uranium Property to Triex,” 2005,
http://www.fullmetalminerals.com/full-metal-options-boulder-creek-uranium-property-to-triex/ Last known URL (withdrawn?)
Triex Minerals Corporation, “Canterra Minerals Corporation Acquires Triex Minerals Corporation,” December 14, 2009, http://www.triexminerals.com/i/pdf/news/NR_20091214.pdf. Last known URL (withdrawn?)
37. Jill Burke, “In Elim, waiting for risks to yield rewards,” Alaska Dispatch, March 16, 2010, http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/elim-waiting-risks-yield-rewards?page=0,1 Last known URL (withdrawn?)
[There is a new development in the identification of a probable new uranium district in the McCarthy Basin, that may contain numerous, large deposits of roll-front-type uranium in shallow sandstone and lignite in the basin [more][more]. This will sooner or later attract the attention of the large and small uranium mining companies. As nuclear power begins to expand with the SMRs, while maintaining the more than 500 nuclear power plants in operation in the world by 2040, the development of this new district will become a national necessity and an economic boom for the local inhabitants. A new highway is planned to be built through the area of interest from Nome with connections to Anchorage in the foreseeable future. Being within proximity of prospective deep-water port sites, the development of the McCarthy Basin uranium will not be far behind.]
Managed & Built by I2M Consulting, LLC | © 2010-
