Oh Exxon Mobil! I am not done with you yet.

My last post strolled a bit from the path of polar threats, or so I thought! Then I stumbled back onto the metaphorical path after discovering an article in the Los Angeles Times.

Exxon Mobil is one of the largest stakeholders in the Arctic.  If you haven’t gathered by now, the Arctic (in particular) is a gold mine for oil companies. Containing about 1/3 of the world’s supply of untapped gas and 13% of undiscovered oil (The Guardian, 2015). The article explained that Exxon Mobil’s research extended to projecting climate change impacts in the Polar Regions. Exxon and Imperial Oil incorporated such projections into policies in adapting to the warmer climate. Ken Croasdale, senior ice research for Exxon, was quoted “warming will clearly affect sea ice, icebergs, permafrost and sea levels”.  The research concluded global warming will have positive implications for Exxon Mobil by lowering exploration costs.

 

Reduction in Arctic sea ice from 184-2013. 

This is particularly true for Exxon’s exploration project in the Canadian Beaufort Sea. Exploration began in the 1970s, but thickness of ice sheets made this process expensive and time consuming. The map (above) demonstrates the retreating of the Arctic ice sheets. Such changes resulted in a considerable increase in open water season, extending by 79 days since 1979. This extension could potentially reduce drilling costs, in the Beaufort Sea, by 30-50%. Seems like climate change may be beneficial for some!

Climate change may not be viewed as a threat in the eyes of the oil companies, yet a blessing which will increase profits. Maybe climate change isn’t that bad? What a joke! What Exxon Mobil failed to express was the global implications of melting ice caps. Within the past century global sea level has risen by 4-8 inches, at an accelerating rate (NRDC, 2008) as a result of the retreating of ice sheets. Whiteman et al. (2013) estimated the release of methane from thawing permafrost (from the East Siberian Sea alone) will come at a price of $60 trillion. This cost will mostly be felt by developing regions in the form of extreme weather and lower agricultural productions, resulting from methane warming affects.

There are always going to be winners and losers in the climate change debate, but Exxon Mobil should not be one of them. Benefiting from a global crisis, which oil companies played a major part in causing, is not right! Why should developing countries pay the price to fill Exxon Mobil’s CEO’s pocket? This is not a topic which can be addressed on its own. It needs accompany a decrease in oil demands (and possibly an increase in demand for renewable energy) and until this happens the oil companies will continue to prey on the Poles.

Tread with care Exxon Mobil, you are walking on thin ice

So, in my first post I touched upon the 1989 Exxon Mobil oil spill. ExxonMobil is the largest publicly traded international oil and gas company, yet it hasn’t been a good week for them!

Inside climate news (2015) published an article exposing the controversial research occurring within the company during the 1980s. Turns out Exxon Mobil have known about the prospects of climate change as early as 1979 (Shocker!). Research (conducted by Exxon Mobil), on impacts of potential global warming on oil prices, concluded unless fossil fuel use was constrained, there would be noticeable changes to atmospheric temperature. This was furthered by the prediction of 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by 2010. Turns out this is remarkably accurate as currently, ppm stands at 397.65 (c02now, 2015)

What is alarming is this information was solely circulated within the company. Despite being described as a “great and urgent” (Kinsley, 1979) problem, this theory never went public. This spurred the investment of vast funds into researching the theory and by 1981 the trajectory of atmospheric change has been confirmed. The treats of policy change were too great. Exxon Mobil hid the results out of fear of the implications for the fossil fuel market, stating the results were too murky to act. Yet if they had been published would we have acted? Could we have limited the current extent of climate change?

This post strolls a bit from the path of polar threats, yet Exxon Mobil is one of the largest stakeholders in the Poles, with exploration projects in the Beaufort Sea since the 1970s (FuelFix, 2015). This acts as a reminder; when looking at the polar debates, always be critical, always consider the possibilities ulterior motives of stakeholders and never believe everything you read. The fact this research was not publicly published was unbelievable and gives an example of the vested interests which some stakeholders (particularly in relation to exploration) hold. Tread with care Exxon Mobil, you are walking on thin ice. 

Yeah yeah, we have all heard about Climate Change!

The consequences of climate change, on the poles, is a topic which has been discussed extensively within academic literature (Thompson and Solomon, 2002; Oppenheimer, 1998), the news (BBC, 2015) and NGOs (WWF). The IPCC even designated its 15^th chapter to the topic. Due to the nature of the Poles, impacts of global warming are amplified in these regions. Conditions (such as the total amount of sea ice) are changing at an accelerated rate (in comparison to global averages) resulting in rising global temperatures, concentrations of atmospheric methane and sea levels.

Climate change is not the only threat to the Poles. Throughout the next few months I aim to explore the impacts of anthropogenic activity on the Polar Regions. Oil drilling and long range pollution are both issues which have not been debated so openly. The impacts of such threats may not be felt on such a large scale but will certainly push Polar ecosystems past a non-returnable threshold.

For example, The USGS has estimated the Arctic is sitting upon 10.4 billion barrels of oil. History has already shown the dangers of oil in Arctic environments. Over 20 years since the Exxon Valdez 1989 disaster, when a tanker ran aground in Alaska releasing almost 11 million gallons of crude oil. Evidence for the disaster is still apparent. Further research into this case has shown cold environments preserve oil particles for years, in some cases still remaining biologically toxic. This disaster has been raised recently as a reminder of the potential impacts of oil spills (the death of a quarter of a million sea creatures in this case) especially as drilling for natural resources (in the poles) becomes an ever pressing threat.

A single opinion (expressed by Greenpeace) has been stated in this post. We should protect the poles. However, this isn’t the only view point. Should we be drilling for oil in the Arctic? Are the greater impacts of climate change for which mitigation should be prioritised? There is always another side to every story. A loss will always result in another’s gain.

I will engage with (and hopefully draw conclusions on) the debates surrounding anthropogenic threats to the poles and hopefully complete the following aims 

1)      To introduce other threats, beside climate change caused by green house gases, to my readers.

2)      I want to present topics which may be very scientific to my readers in a way which everyone, from whatever academic background, can understand and engage with.

3)      Try and encourage people that these issues do matter and they should act to save the Polar Regions.

4)      To learn and teach other about something I have never personally learnt about throughout my geography studies.

Please feel free to argue, disagree or debate anything I cover by commenting.