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.