With its navigation bridge painted in white, blue and red and the inscriptions in Cyrillic on its hull, the nationality of the Sibir leaves little room for mystery. On January 13, this huge Russian nuclear icebreaker – the most powerful civilian ship in the world, according to experts – left the Saint Petersburg shipyard where it had been under construction for five years to head north. After about ten days sailing along the Scandinavian coasts, he has just reached his home port in Murmansk, from where he will set off into the icy waters of the Arctic. In the local and international press, the launch of Sibir did not make as much noise as that of its twin brother – theArktika – in 2020. For the Kremlin, the moment is no less crucial. These two icebreakers are the first in a series of seven. They must further establish Russian commercial ambitions on the northern sea route, by clearing the 6,000 kilometer passage along the Siberian coast. And thus allow cargo ships to transport goods in winter and summer to Asia.
Vladimir Putin has never hidden it: with this axis connecting Rotterdam to Shanghai via the Bering Strait, the Russian president wants to reshuffle the cards of world maritime trade. And divert as much traffic passing through the Panama Canal and the Suez Canal as much as possible. The master of the Kremlin does not count on the expense to achieve this objective. For twenty years now, and despite a constrained budgetary context, Moscow has multiplied investments to revitalize a good number of former Soviet ports on its Siberian coast. Russian mining and hydrocarbon extraction is in full swing above the Arctic Circle. “For Russia, exploiting the Arctic is not a choice, it’s an obligation. The Putin system is based on the oil and gas revenue, that of metals and wood. However, the Russian Arctic represents 80% of the gas produced in the country, 20% of the oil, 60% of the copper, 90% of the nickel and 100% of the rare earths. Without it, the equation no longer holds”, explains Mikaa Mered, secretary general of the Overseas Chair of Political science.
coveted lands
Except that Russia is not alone in coveting these icy lands. Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Denmark, Finland, United States, Canada, these countries, part of whose territory is located above the 66th parallel north, exploit almost all the riches of the Arctic subsoil. Oil, coal and gas of course – no less than 600 oil and gas fields, of which 220 are in production, are counted in the region. But also metals such as gold, nickel, copper, lithium, and rare earths. The activity is abundant, the States multiply the investment projects with blows of billions. So much so that the idea of a conflict for the monopolization of wealth is in everyone’s head. Russian military demonstrations in the region do not help matters. But for Mikaa Mered, it is necessary to relativize. “Apart from fishing, there are no major resources that are in dispute. 95% of the estimated mineral resources are found in the land and maritime territories of the States. Moreover, an armed conflict would drive investors away from the area. “, tempers this specialist. The battle will be above all an economic one. “As far as the resource is concerned, it is indeed an Eldorado that everyone covets”, summarizes Florian Vidal, associate researcher at Ifri. The highly controversial Arctic LNG 2 project is a perfect example. Led by the Russian group Novatek, this gigantic project worth more than 21 billion dollars to liquefy gas from a deposit at the mouth of the Ob welcomes the French TotalEnergies, the two oil players of the Chinese state, to its capital. – CNOOC and CNPC – as well as a Japanese consortium.
Still, this rush to the North Pole does not win all the votes. When it comes to global warming, the Arctic is on the front line. Temperatures are rising three times faster than elsewhere. And mining, oil or gas, little known for their environmental virtues, maintain this vicious circle. “It’s an acceleration out of control. And the effects are already noticeable for the indigenous populations, who are faced with an upheaval in the seasons, extreme temperatures for the area, regular fires and disruptions in the livestock economy or the fishing”, enumerates Florian Vidal. And the worst is probably yet to come. With the melting of the Arctic permafrost – a ground that usually remains permanently frozen – millions of tonnes of methane, a greenhouse gas 40 times more warming than CO2, threaten to be released into the atmosphere. .
Warming opens up opportunities
However, “not everyone regrets the warming on site”, remarks Denis Florin, energy specialist and partner at the Lavoisier consulting firm. In 2017, Vladimir Putin was already welcoming the economic opportunities offered by the increase in mercury. “This opens up opportunities for certain industrialists and States. Access to formerly hostile areas, where mining or oil and gas exploitation was more difficult, becomes possible. Maritime routes are opening up with the retreat of the sea ice, and it will be much easier to serve the Arctic but also clear the paths to Asia. Some people don’t have the mood to take advantage of it.” And too bad if the thawing of the ground will cause very significant damage to certain infrastructures and increase the price of certain operations on site. Alix Mazounie of the NGO Reclaim Finance (which warns of the impacts of financial actors on the climate) denounces this disastrous spiral. “If the 600 oil and gas wells counted in the area are exploited, they alone will consume 22% of the carbon budget we have left to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees.” The activist, like the International Energy Agency, urgently calls for leaving all this oil and gas underground.
An audible cry of alarm? With the European Union, the NGOs have in any case another mouthpiece. On October 13, the EU established its new doctrine regarding the exploitation of fossil fuels in the Arctic, indicating that it would not hesitate to press for them to remain in the ground. A turning point, hopes Anne Choquet, teacher-researcher in law at the European University Institute of the Sea (IUEM). “Here we find the spirit of Michel Rocard’s initiatives on the protection of the environment in Antarctica, then in the Arctic. We feel that Europe is trying to push the idea of moratoriums which would prohibit the exploitation of mineral resources. will nevertheless be difficult to conclude a treaty such as the one adopted for Antarctica.” An understatement. The eight Arctic countries disagree on how to proceed. Two blocks oppose each other: Russia, Norway and the United States do not intend to do without fossils from the Arctic. For the first two, it is really a question of economic survival. Opposite, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden and Finland are ready to move forward. Canada, for its part, is in balance, judge the experts.
The energy transition in action
The debate illustrates in any case all the complexity of this territory faced with the necessary energy transition. And yet, the Arctic will be one of the driving forces for the years to come. First for its subsoil, which, abounding in copper, lithium, cobalt, nickel, palladium needed for fuel cells, electric batteries or solar panels… Norway, which will resurrect in Finnmark two underground copper deposits from 2022, do not intend to miss the opportunity. The local operator, Nussir ASA, promises to open the world’s first carbon-neutral mine there. LKAB, the Swedish mining company, has announced an investment of 46 billion over the next twenty years to decarbonize all of its iron ore production in the north of the country.
The Arctic, with its hydraulic resources, is also a territory with high stakes for the development of renewable energies, even the production of green hydrogen (from the electrolysis of water), argues Mikaa Mered. Last June, for example, Novatek announced the signing of a memorandum of understanding with TotalEnergies on “decarbonisation, hydrogen and renewable energies” in the area. As a symbol, the first gigafactory battery company, operated by Northvolt at Skelleftea in Sweden, was located just 200 kilometers from the Arctic Circle. The founders deeming it necessary to be close to the large hydraulic parks in the north of the country, to benefit from this carbon-free electricity.
But, here again, the development of this green economy is not without problems. In Finnmark, for example, the revival of mining projects is worrying the local community. Some environmental NGOs regularly rail here and there against the opening of metal mines that are nevertheless dedicated to the transition. “Any economic activity, even the production of green hydrogen, has an impact on the environment. We cannot decently assimilate the polar zones to other regions, given their fragility and their role as regulators for the climate, it is essential to take regulatory measures to strengthen their protection”, notes Anne Choquet.
Mikaa Mered indicates, however, that the “inevitable” nature of the development of the Arctic is a consensus among decision-makers and specialists. “We have been exploiting the Arctic for 150 years. The risks are immense, but who can ban it as long as the countries in the area, sovereigns, do not want it? The challenge is to frame, monitor and prepare to sanction ecocidal because disasters will happen, that’s for sure”. Reconciling this growth with the preservation of the region: the challenge facing the Arctic is in fact not so different from that of all the world’s economies.