Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland Ministry of Climate and Energy
Who owns the North Pole? Extended continental shelf issues in the Arctic Ocean
and the Cooperation between the Arctic-5
By Christian Marcussen
Russisk flag under Nordpolen – 3.8.2007
9.8.2007
Photo: Bjørn Eriksson
Cooperation in the Arctic Ocean
Foreign ministers of the 5 Arctic coastal states signed the “Ilulissat declaration” May 28, 2008: (http://www.oceanlaw.org/downloads/arctic/Ilulissat_Declaration.pdf)
• Commitment to international law (UNCLOS) and orderly settlement of any possible overlapping claims.
• Close cooperation i.e. collection of scientific data concerning the continental shelf.
The declaration was confirmed on the 2010 Arctic Ocean Foreign Ministers meeting in Canada.
3
Arctic
Circle
The Arctic Area
North of the Arctic Circle
6% of the Earth’s surface.
The Arctic Ocean
3% of world’s ocean
Central parts are permanently covered by sea ice.
The North Pole
Water depth: ~4300 m
4
Probability for one field with more than 50 MMBOE
Source: US Geological Survey 2008 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/324/5931/1175.full
Greenland
USA
Canada
Barents Sea
Russian Federation
5
• Mean Estimate of undiscovered Arctic Oil and Gas:
90 billion barrels of oil (BBO)
1,670 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (TCF)
44 billion barrels of natural gas liquids
• About 13% of the world’s undiscovered oil, 30% of undiscovered gas and 20%
of undiscovered natural gas liquids may be found in the Arctic = 22% of
undiscovered, technically recoverable resources
• The Arctic is gas prone: more gas than oil
• 84% of the estimated resources are expected to occur offshore.
• Most of the resources are within the EEZ’s of the Arctic coastal states
• Important areas: West Siberian Basin (gas) and Arctic Alaska (oil)
• Other important areas: Arctic Canada, Barents Sea, NE Greenland
• Risks: very high costs (development & transport) , very vulnerable environment
Assessment of undiscovered Arctic hydrocarbon resources
6
Some facts about UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
• The convention came into force in 1994. (http://www.un.org/depts/los/index.htm)
• 162 states have ratified UNCLOS (as of June, 2013), however not the USA.
• All coastal states have the right to extend their exclusive economic zone out 200 nautical miles, provided that there is no overlap with other states.
• Article 76 specifies the criteria for an extension of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles.
• Provides the coastal state with certain sovereign rights to living and non-living resources on and below the sea bed.
• A coastal state has 10 years after its ratification of UNCLOS to prepare a submission.
• The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) consists of 21 members (experts in the field of geology, geophysics or hydrography) and will review submissions and issue recommendations. (http://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/clcs_home.htm)
7
Note: The juridical continental shelf is not the same as the physiographic continental shelf.
Formula lines Either FOS + 60 nautical miles or 1% sediment formula
Constraint lines Either 350 nautical miles or 2500 meter isobath + 100 nautical miles
Foot of Slope (FOS): maximum change of gradient at the base of the continental slope 1 nautical mile = 1.15075 mile = 1852 meters
Three steps of constructing the outer limit of the continental shelf
A. Establishing a continental margin
B. Construct a cut off line
C. Combine the two to define the extended continental shelf
Ridge issues in the Arctic Ocean
11
Which type of data are needed?
• Geodetic data are needed to define the territorial sea baseline.
• Bathymetric data are needed to define the Foot of the Slope (FOS) and the 2500 meter isobath.
• Seismic data are needed to map the sediment thickness.
• Other geophysical (seismic refraction, gravimetric and magnetic data) and geological data (sampling, drilling) can support a submission.
• In ice covered areas (Arctic Ocean) potential field data might be used to interpolate between seismic profiles.
Extended continental shelf issues
• Article 76 requires a coastal State to document the foregoing process in a submission by:
1. describing the data sets that have been assembled for delimitation purposes;
2. presenting and discussing the results of their analysis; and
3. listing the geographical coordinates of the State’s proposed outer limit(s) of its continental shelf.
• The submission is then examined by the CLCS, which reviews its contents and its conclusions in order to develop a set of recommendations that may or may not confirm the submitting State’s entitlement to an extended continental shelf. (http://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/commission_recommendations.htm)
13
Some facts about UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (2)
Workload of the CLCS:
• As of September, 2013 CLCS has received 67 submissions and more than 40 “Preliminary Information”;
• as of September, 2013 CLCS has issued 16 recommendations;
• under the current modus operandi of the CLCS, the consideration of 67 submissions received to date may extend to 2030;
• resubmissions will “jump the queue” i.e. when the Russian Federation will resubmit their submission will be dealt with by the Commission as soon as possible.
Please note: CLCS is not an arbitration panel and can not settle delimitation issues between states. So if overlaps between the submissions of circumpolar neighbours become apparent, they will have to be resolved in accordance with international law.
14
Kingdom of Denmark - Areas of interest
2 areas around the Faroe Islands
3 areas around Greenland
Submission for the area N of the Faroe Islands submitted in April 2009
Submission for the area S of the Faroe Islands in December 2010.
Submission for the area S of Greenland in June 2012 and for the area NE of Greenland in November 2013.
Ongoing work in the area N of Greenland with a deadline at the end of 2014.
15
Challenges:
Remoteness Very sparse infrastructure
Weather Lowest average temperature - 32.4C in March in Alert (Canada) Daylight hours
Survey seasons Early spring and late summer - restricted
Costs Fuel on the sea ice: $30 - $35 / L by air
17
IBCAO - Version 2.23
Logistical challenges
• No commercial survey vessels can operate in this region of the Arctic Ocean.
• Only a few Polar Class icebreakers are available.
• “SCICEX” US submarines have been decommissioned, AUV concept “under the ice” had to be developed, but is very expensive and logistical challenging.
• Specialized ice strengthened bathymetry and seismic equipment for icebreaker surveys has to be developed.
• Former experience and equipment used in the 80´ties for on-ice surveys had aged.
• Establishment of ice camps on more unstable sea ice is risky.
18
The concept
• Sharing of knowledge and cost through cooperation between Canada and Greenland/Denmark
• Cooperation with Canada started in 2002
• Formal Memorandum of Understanding signed in June 2005.
• Cooperation with other scientist working with similar data acquisition in the Arctic Ocean to share knowledge.
• Cooperation with Sweden regarding the use of the Swedish research icebreaker Oden.
• Cooperation with Russia. USA, Germany …
• Innermost parts of survey area: logistics based on ice camps
• Remaining parts farther out: data acquisition from icebreakers
• “Learning by doing”
19
IBCAO 2.0
LOMGRAVLOMGRAV 20092009
LORITALORITA 20062006 LOMBAGLOMBAG
20092009
Joint Danish-Canadian surveys based
on ice-camps and stations on land
Lorita expedition 2006
Acquisition of seismic refraction data on the sea ice:
Study of the crustal structure from the shelf onto the Lomonosov Ridge.
Results published in Geophysical Journal International, 2010.
Photo: Ron Verrall
21
Bathymetric measurements 2009
Joint Canadian- Danish fieldwork based on sea ice in the spring of 2009. Temperatures ranged from -50⁰C in March to -20⁰C in the beginning of May.
Data have been included in version 3.0 of the International Bathymetric Chart of the Arctic Ocean (IBCAO) www.ibcao.org.
Photo: Uni Bull
Photo: Uni Bull
22
Acquisition of aero-geophysical data - Spring 2009
A joint Danish – Canadian project to acquire supporting data on both sides of the Lomonosov Ridge using a DC3T.
Magnetic data will be included in the World Digital Magnetic Anomaly Map (WDAM) and the gravity data in the Arctic Gravity Project (ArcGP) and results are published in Earth Planets Space 62, 829–832, 2010.
Photo: Janice Lang, NRCan/DRDC Map: DTU Space
23
IBCAO 2.0
LOMROG LOMROG II 20072007
LOMROG LOMROG IIII 20092009
LOMROG LOMROG IIIIII 20122012
Joint Danish-Swedish cruises with Oden
and Canadian and Russian participation
25
Foto: Bjørn Eriksson Foto: Hans Ramløv
Foto: Thomas Funck Foto: Thomas Funck
Acquisition of seismic data in Arctic sea ice
• The streamer is considerably shorter than in open water. For the LOMROG II cruise we used a 250 meter long streamer. With a 250 meter streamer, we are able to deploy and recover the streamer with the ship at a standstill without risk of damage.
• The seismic source is considerably smaller and therefore also more compact than for open water surveys.
• Both the streamer and guns are towed at a depth of approximately 20 meters, which is more than twice as deep as normal (“survival depth”).
• Both the airguns and streamer are connected with only one cable to the ship (the “umbilical”).
• One-ship-operations: a lead through the ice has to be prepared.
26
Acquisition of seismic data - video
27
Seismic equipment develop for acquisition in sea ice
Airgun
Seismic streamer
Winch
Recording container
28
Acquisition of seismic data – LOMROG II - video
Acquisition of bathymetric and seismic data 2007 and 2009
Russian nuclear icebreaker as lead icebreaker in areas with extreme ice conditions.
Photo: Martin Jakobsson Photo: Martin Jakobsson
Photo: Thomas Funck Photo: Thomas Funck
30
31
50 let Pobedy during the 2007 LOMROG I cruise as lead icebreaker for Oden - video
32
Acquisition of multibeam bathymetrical data
33
34 Photo: Lars Lund-Hansen
34
Acquisition of multibeam data during LOMROG III
Pirouette technique
35
35
Course plot during preparation for a “Pirouette”
LOMROG I , II & III: Multibeam acquisition
“Pirouette surveying” 3D-view of the multi-beam mapped Morris Jesup Rise north of Greenland (LOMROG I)
Courtesy: Martin Jakobsson 36
• Multibeam data LOMROG II Fledermouse
MultibeamMultibeam bathymetric data acquired during LOMROG IIbathymetric data acquired during LOMROG II #
38
IBCAO 3.0
38 MultibeamMultibeam bathymetric data acquired during LOMROG bathymetric data acquired during LOMROG IIIIII
39
Dredging the Lomonosov Ridge
Dredge I from c. 3400m to 2400m
40
Course plot on multibeam data
Dredge II from ca. 3500 m to 2600m
41
Course plot on multibeam data
Dredging the Lomonosov Ridge
42
43
Canada
Svalbard
Franz Josef Land
Data Acquisition during the LOMROG Cruises - Summary
Seismic data
At sea with Oden for 7 weeks
Photos: Lars Chresten Lund-Hansen, Aarhus University
Vibrations on Oden during ice breaking – a whole lot of shaking (video)
Video: Lars Chresten Lund-Hansen, Aarhus University
45
Maritime jurisdiction in the Arctic
Map source: http://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/ibru/arctic.pdf
Submission by the Russian Federation in 2001 – CLCS recommended a revised submission in 2002 – additional field work is ongoing – no deadline.
47
2010: Akademik Fedorov trailing behind Yamal during multibeam bathymetric data acquisition
48
Submission by Norway in 2006, which - with minor changes - was recommended by CLCS in March 2009. (http://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/nor06/nor_rec_summ.pdf)
49
50
In September 2010, Norway and Russia signed the “Treaty concerning Maritime Delimitation and Cooperation in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean”. The treaty entered into force on July 7, 2011.
(http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/ud/campaign/delimitation.html?id=614002)
(A) Canada’s plan for Article 76 mapping in the Arctic Ocean.
Canada’s deadline is at the end of 2013.
(B) Bathymetric and seismic data collected by Canada in the period between 2006 and 2009.
51
Website: http://www.international.gc.ca/continental
52
(B) Seismic data collected by Canada in the period between 2006 and 2011.
A
Canada (A) Canada’s plan for Article 76 mapping
in the Arctic Ocean.
Canada submitted December 6, 2013 Website: http://www.international.gc.ca/continental
Track as of September 09, 2011 Louis St Laurent and Healy in 2011
AUV used for bathymetry
53
US multibeam bathymetric data acquisition during 8 USCGC Healy cruises in the last 10 years
Alaska
Websites: http://continentalshelf.gov/
http://www.ccom-jhc.unh.edu/index.php?p=53|58&page=law_of_the_sea.php
(A) Delimitation according to sector lines (coloured areas) with median lines shown on top.
(B) Delimitation according to median lines (coloured areas) with sector lines shown on top.
1 – Canada, 2 – Greenland (Denmark), 3 – Norway, 4 – Russian Federation, 5 – United States.
Geometrical approaches for delimitation
55
International cooperation
Canadian and Danish geophysicists - 2006 Russian and Swedish icebreakers working for the Danish project - 2007
Canadian and Danish hydrographers - 2009 Canadian and US icebreakers - 2008
Photo: Martin Jakobsson
Photo: Jon Biggar Photo: Janice Lang, NRCan/DRDC
56 Since 2007 a yearly workshop in relevant issues is held with Artic 5 participants.
North Pole, 22. august 2009 – Photo: Adam Jeppesen North Pole, 22. august 2012 – Photo: Bjørn Eriksson
Foto: Ludvig Löwemark
Thank you for your attention!
More information www.a76.dk. 58
