Ice is getting hot

[David Guyatt]

A really excellent report from FAIR about the new Pentagon spin for battling Russia in the Arctic.

Sep012015

US Leads World in Credulous Reports of Lagging Behind' Russia

By Adam Johnson








On Sunday, the New York Times maintained a long, proud tradition of uncritically repeating official claims that the USdespite having twice the population, eight times the military budget and a nominal economy almost ten times as largeis "lagging behind" Russia on a key military strategic objective:

US Is Playing Catch-Up With Russia in Scramble for the Arctic


The original front-page headline uses the classic New York Times passive voice: "Seen as." As does much of the article's framing:

In Washington and other NATO capitals, Russia's military moves are seen asprovocative and potentially destabilizing.

"Seen" by whom and why? As it turns out, it's "seen" this way entirely by the United States military and its partisan think tanks. The story overwhelmingly quotes Western military brass, anonymous White House officials and Western think tanks, namely the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Cold War holdover that published a paper dubiously titled "The New Ice Curtain" to warn of the pending threat of Russian presence in the Arctic.
It's clear, based on the timing of this story, that CSIS's paperalong with thepresident's trip to Alaskais the inciting incident justifying this latest round of Cold War 2.0 posturing. Indeed, right on cue, Obama's announced plans for a stronger military presence in the Arctic were accompanied by another Timesarticle Tuesday stressing the urgency of the polar "gap"citing the Times own Sunday report twice in the opening paragraph:

Obama to Call for More Icebreakers in Arctic as US Seeks Foothold
President Obama on Tuesday will propose speeding the acquisition and building of new Coast Guard icebreakers that can operate year-round in the nation's polar regions, part of an effort to close the gap between the United States and other nations, especially Russia, in a global competition to gain a foothold in the rapidly changing Arctic.

So here we have it: Pro-NATO think tanks and military brass feed a narrative to the Times, the Times prints it with little skepticism, then these very same forces turn around and use this reporting to justify its military buildup. The crucial question as to whether or not America is objectively "lagging behind" is never really approached critically.
More importantly, the normative question as to whether the US has any intrinsic obligation or right to maintain parity with Russia in the Arctic is never brought up. The assumption is just taken for granted, and once it is, US military officials and their friendly establishment press are off to the races debating hownot ifthey can amass more military hardware in another corner of the globe.
On the issue of the US's legitimacy of having a military presence in the Arctic, one critical point is obscured: Russia has roughly 14 times the Arctic coastline the United states does, 1,760 km vs. 24,140 km. A fact cartoonishly ignored in the New York Times misleading graphic:

New York Times labels make US, Russia seem to have equal claims on the Arctic Ocean.


The reality is that the US stake in the Arctic is
relatively tiny compared to Russia's.

This is nothing new, of course. Ominous warnings about "gaps" with the Russians are a decades-long tradition in US and Western media. Over the past few years alone, the US has "lagged behind" the dreaded Russians in the following departments:
Cyber security
Online and traditional propaganda
Space race
"Military tactics"
Nuclear technology

Now let's remember: Russia's military budget is one-eighth the size of the US'sand 1/14th as large as NATO's cumulative $1 trillion in annual military spending. But we've been here before. During the Cold War, the public was constantly told the US was "lagging behind" Russia in developing enough nuclear weapons.



A combination of uncritical press, military Chicken Little-ism and policy wonk groupthink spread a fear that we later learned was largely false. There's little reason to thinkbased on the one-sided nature of these reportsthat this round of military posturing and Russia-baiting should be any different.

[David Guyatt]

Let me put the above article in context from the perspective of the Pentagon using it's in-house all time favourite song:

[Drew Phipps]

David: What do the yellow shaded areas all around the Artic circle represent on the Times map? I see pink for Russian controlled waters, but the yellow seems to extend into land. I also notice that the Shell drilling site seems to be in the middle of a yellow shaded area.

[Drew Phipps]

I believe I found an answer to my question. Connect the following dots:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_...the_Arctic

"A 2008 United States Geological Survey estimates that areas north of the Arctic Circle have 90 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil (and 44 billion barrels of natural gas liquids ) in 25 geologically defined areas thought to have potential for petroleum. This represents 13% of the undiscovered oil in the world... In June 2007, a group of Russian geologists returned from a six-week voyage on a nuclear icebreaker 50 Let Pobedy, the expedition called Arktika 2007. They had travelled to the Lomonosov ridge, an underwater shelf going between Russia's remote, inhospitable eastern Arctic Ocean, and Ellesmere Island in Canada where the ridge lies 400m under the ocean surface.[SUP][5] [/SUP]According to Russia's media, the geologists returned with the "sensational news" that the Lomonosov ridge was linked to Russian Federation territory, boosting Russia's claim over the oil-and-gas rich triangle. The territory contained 10bn tonnes of gas and oil deposits, the scientists said.[SUP][6] [/SUP]In the early 2012 Russia plans to start the first commercial offshore oil drilling in the Arctic, on Prirazlomnaya platform in the Pechora Sea.[SUP][7][/SUP] The platform will be the first Arctic-class ice-resistant oil rig in the world."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lomonosov_Ridge

In the 2000s, the geological structure of the ridge attracted international attention due to a 20 December 2001 official submission by the Russian Federation to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (article 76, paragraph 8). The document proposed establishing new outer limits for the Russian continental shelf, beyond the previous 200-nautical-mile (370 km) zone, but within the Russian Arctic sector.[SUP][4][/SUP] The territory claimed by Russia in the submission is a large portion of the Arctic reaching the North Pole.[SUP][5][/SUP] One of the arguments was a statement that the underwater Lomonosov Ridge and Mendeleev Ridge are extensions of the Eurasian continent.[SUP][1][/SUP] In 2002 the UN Commission neither rejected nor accepted the Russian proposal, recommending additional research.[SUP][4][/SUP]...
Danish scientists hope to prove that the ridge is an extension of Greenland,[SUP][6][/SUP] and Denmark became another claimant to the area in 2014.[SUP][7][/SUP] Canada, also a claimant, asserts that the ridge is an extension of its continental shelf. In April 2007, Canadian and Russian scientists were sent to map the ridge as a possible precedent for determining sovereignty over the area.[SUP][1][/SUP] In late June 2007, Russian scientists claimed that the ridge is an extension of Russia's territory,[SUP][8][/SUP] and in 2011 a Russian scientist said that Russia and Denmark claim different parts of the ridge and the claims are not conflicting.[SUP][9][/SUP] Other sources indicate that some areas are disputed.[SUP][10][/SUP]

Canada is expected to make further claims.[SUP][11][/SUP] Denmark and Russia have agreed to follow certain procedures when making claims.[SUP][12][/SUP] If the Danish claims are accepted by the Commission in summer 2015,[SUP][7][/SUP] the distribution of areas may still be a matter of negotiation between claiming countries - a process which can take several years.[SUP][13][/SUP] The rhetoric used in making claims is also subject to discussion.[SUP][14] [/SUP]A 21-member UN arbitration panel is considering the competing claims, with the focus on the Lomonosov Ridge.

As a follow-up in mid-September 2007, Russia's Natural Resources Ministry issued a statement:

Preliminary results of an analysis of the earth crust model examined by the Arctic-2007 expedition, obtained on 20 September, have confirmed that the crust structure of the Lomonosov Ridge corresponds to the world analogues of the continental crust, and it is therefore part of the Russian Federation's adjacent continental shelf.[SUP][size=12][18]"
[/SUP]

---

[/SIZE]I'm willing to bet that the yellow areas on the Times map are discovered oil reserves. Could it be that all this "icebreaker gap" garbage is just "rhetoric used in making claims" on the vast arctic petroleum reserves of the Arctic?

[Drew Phipps]

Here is the Times map in it's entirety with the full map legend. The yellow areas are "Areas with 50% or greater chance of large undiscovered oil and gas reserves." Foe some reason the map legend doesn't display correctly. The large black dots are existing oil and gas sites.

[Drew Phipps]

On Top of the World: U.S. Coast Guard Achieves First Solo Mission to the North Pole with 50 Scientists Onboard

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/katlin-bow...ir=Science

Ahoy shipmates, welcome to the North Pole." The announcement was piped through the ship's PA system at 7:47AM on Saturday, September 5, 2015. For the first time in history, the United States Coast Guard reached the North Pole without the accompaniment of a second icebreaker. Onboard the Healy are over 80 Coast Guard members and 50 scientists on a mission to the study the chemistry of a rapidly changing Arctic Ocean.

At 90 °N 115 °E the water is over 2 miles deep. We have spent three days at the Pole collecting seawater, particles, sediment, ice, and snow that will be analyzed for dozens of trace metals and elements. Our mission is a joint effort between the U.S. GEOTRACES and Climate Variability and Predictability (CLIVAR) programs, funded by the National Science Foundation. The dataset will take years to complete and the final product will be the most comprehensive chemical survey of the Arctic Ocean.

Inside the ship the spirit of Christmas was alive - stockings and decorated trees donned the galley, Elf was played on a projector in the helicopter hangar, candy canes distributed, Christmas music played in the labs. Stepping off the ship and onto the ice was a liberating feeling after 27 days at sea, even in the snowy -7 °F Arctic environment.


Coast Guard icebreaker plants flag at North Pole.

[Albert Doyle]

Taking notes while driving a car over a cliff.

[Drew Phipps]

Shell says it will cease Alaska offshore Arctic drilling.

DAN JOLING Sep 28th 2015 6:13AM

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/09/28/sh...1377183523

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) Royal Dutch Shell will cease exploration in Arctic waters off Alaska's coast following disappointing results from an exploratory well backed by billions in investment and years of work. The announcement was a huge blow to Shell, which was counting on offshore drilling in Alaska to help it drive future revenue. Environmentalists, however, had tried repeatedly to block the project and welcomed the news.

Shell has spent upward of $7 billion on Arctic offshore exploration, including $2.1 billion in 2008 for leases in the Chukchi Sea off Alaska's northwest coast, where an exploratory well about 80 miles off shore drilled to 6,800 feet but yielded disappointing results. Backed by a 28-vessel flotilla, drillers found indications of oil and gas but not in sufficient quantities to warrant more exploration at the site. "Shell continues to see important exploration potential in the basin, and the area is likely to ultimately be of strategic importance to Alaska and the U.S.," Marvin Odum, president of Shell USA, said in The Hague, Netherlands. "However, this is a clearly disappointing exploration outcome for this part of the basin."

Shell will end exploration off Alaska "for the foreseeable future," the company said, because of the well results and because of the "challenging and unpredictable federal regulatory environment in offshore Alaska. Margaret Williams of the World Wildlife Fund in Anchorage, called the news stunning. "That's incredible. That's huge," she said. "All along the conservation community has been pointing to the challenging and unpredictable environmental conditions. We always thought the risk was tremendously great."

Environmental groups said oil exploration in the ecologically fragile Arctic could lead to increased greenhouse gases, crude oil spills and a disaster for polar bears, walrus and ice seals. Production rigs extracting oil would be subject to punishing storms, shifting ice and months of operating in the cold and dark. Over the summer, protesters in kayaks unsuccessfully tried to block Arctic-bound Shell vessels in Seattle and Portland, Oregon. "Polar bears, Alaska's Arctic and our climate just caught a huge break," said Miyoko Sakashita, oceans program director for the Center for Biological Diversity, in a statement. "Here's hoping Shell leaves the Arctic forever."

Monday was Shell's final day to drill this year in petroleum-bearing rock under its federal permit. Regulators required Shell to stop a month before sea ice is expected to re-form in the lease area. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates U.S. Arctic waters in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas contain 26 billion barrels or more of recoverable oil in total. Shell officials had called the Chukchi basin "a potential game-changer," a vast untapped reservoir that could add to America's energy supply for 50 years. Shell had planned at least one more year of exploration with up to six wells drilled. A transition to production could have taken a decade or longer.

Shell had the strong backing of Alaska officials and business leaders who want a new source of crude oil filling the trans-Alaska pipeline, now running at less than one-quarter capacity. Charles Ebinger, senior fellow for the Brookings Institution Energy Security and Climate Initiative, said in an interview that a successful well by Shell would have been "a terribly big deal," opening an area that U.S. officials say contains 15 billion barrels of oil. While oil prices have dropped significantly in recent years and nations have pushed for cleaner energy sources, analysts predict that the world between 2030 and 2040 will need another 10 million barrels a day to meet growing demand, especially in developing countries, Ebinger said. "Areas like the Arctic are one of the areas that, if we're going to be able to do this, we need to examine," he said.

Shell in 2012 sent drill rigs to the Chukchi and Beaufort seas but was not allowed to drill into oil-bearing rock because the containment dome had been damaged in testing. The company's vessels suffered serious setbacks getting to and from the Arctic. One drill vessel broke loose from its towline in the Gulf of Alaska and ran aground near Kodiak Island. Owners of the leased Noble Discoverer, which drilled in the Chukchi and is back this year, pleaded guilty to eight felony maritime safety counts and paid a $12.2 million fine. That was proof of Shell's Arctic incompetence, critics said. Odum called drilling off Alaska's coast the most scrutinized and analyzed oil and gas project in the world and said he was confident Shell could drill safely.