DOCSLIB.ORG

Arctic Law & Policy Year in Review

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Washington Journal of Environmental Law & Policy Volume 5 Issue 1 Arctic Special Edition 6-1-2015 Arctic Law & Policy Year in Review: 2014 Arctic Law & Policy Institute, University of Washington Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wjelp Part of the Environmental Law Commons, Law of the Sea Commons, and the Natural Resources Law Commons Recommended Citation Arctic Law & Policy Institute, University of Washington, Arctic Law & Policy Year in Review: 2014, 5 WASH. J. ENVTL. L. & POL'Y 97 (2015). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wjelp/vol5/iss1/10 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at UW Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington Journal of Environmental Law & Policy by an authorized editor of UW Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. : Arctic Law & Policy Year in Review: 2014 Copyright © 2016 by Washington Journal of Environmental Law & Policy ARCTIC LAW & POLICY YEAR IN REVIEW: 2015 Arctic Law & Policy Institute, University of Washington* I. INTRODUCTION: ARCTIC NEWS HIGHLIGHTS ........... 73 II. TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS ............................................................... 79 A. U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea ................... 79 B. U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change ... 80 C. International Convention for Prevention of Pollution from Ships ................................................. 81 D. Arctic Council Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response in the Arctic............................................... 82 E. Arctic Council Agreement on Cooperation on Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue in the Arctic ............................................................... 82 F. Declaration Concerning the Prevention of Unregulated High Seas Fishing in the Central Arctic Ocean .............................................................. 83 III. STATE PRACTICE .......................................................... 84 A. United States: Federal Government ......................... 84 1. U.S. Congress ................................................. 84 2. President ....................................................... 87 3. Department of State ....................................... 89 4. Department of Homeland Security / U.S. Coast Guard ................................................... 90 5. Department of Commerce / National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration .... 95 6. Department of Interior / Bureau of Ocean Energy Management / Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement / U.S. Geological Survey .......................................... 99 7. Department of Defense ................................ 103 8. National Aeronautics and Space Administration ............................................. 107 * Craig H. Allen, Judson Falknor Professor of Law, Director, UW Arctic Law and Policy Institute, with assistance from Bridgette J. Cooper (UW ‘16) and Adam Murray (UW ‘14). 71 Published by UW Law Digital Commons, 2015 1 Washington Journal of Environmental Law & Policy, Vol. 5, Iss. 1 [2015], Art. 10 72 WASHINGTON J. OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW & POLICY [Vol. 6:1 9. Environmental Protection Agency ............... 107 10. Significant U.S. Court Decisions ................. 108 11. U.S. Arctic Research Commission................ 112 12. National Ocean Council ............................... 113 13. Committee on the Marine Transportation System .......................................................... 114 14. National Academies Transportation Research Board ............................................ 115 B. United States: Alaska ............................................. 115 1. State of Alaska ............................................. 116 2. The Alaska Arctic Policy Commission ......... 117 3. Alaska Marine Mammal Co-Management Agreements .................................................. 118 C. Canada .................................................................... 119 D. China ...................................................................... 120 E. Denmark/Greenland ............................................... 121 F. Finland .................................................................... 122 G. Iceland ..................................................................... 122 H. Japan........................................................................ 123 I. Norway .................................................................... 125 J. South Korea ............................................................. 126 K. Russia 127 L. Sweden .................................................................... 129 M. The European Union ............................................... 129 N. United Kingdom ...................................................... 130 IV. INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS ........................... 130 A. United Nations ........................................................ 130 B. Arctic Council .......................................................... 131 C. International Maritime Organization ..................... 141 D. Food & Agriculture Organization Committee on Fisheries .................................................................. 143 E. International Whaling Commission ....................... 144 F. North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission ........ 146 G. Commission on Limits of the Continental Shelf .... 146 H. UNESCO / IOC / ICES / PICES .............................. 152 I. World Trade Organization ...................................... 153 J. International Tribunals .......................................... 155 K. United Nations Environment Program .................. 157 V. SELECTED ARCTIC THEMES ......................................... 157 A. Arctic Marine Shipping ........................................... 157 1. Prognosis for Arctic Shipping ...................... 158 B. Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment....................... 158 1. Arctic Shipping Routes................................. 161 2. International Agreements on Shipping Safety ........................................................... 168 3. Arctic Shipping Safety Measures ................. 169 C. Polar Icebreakers ..................................................... 170 https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wjelp/vol5/iss1/10 2 : Arctic Law & Policy Year in Review: 2014 2016] ARCTIC LAW & POLICY YEAR IN REVIEW: 2015 73 D. Arctic Living Marine Resources .............................. 176 E. Arctic Non-Living Marine Resources ...................... 181 F. Marine Pollution Prevention, Response, & Liability ................................................................... 188 G. Arctic Marine Scientific Research .......................... 190 H. Indigenous Arctic Residents ................................... 193 I. Military Activities in the Arctic .............................. 194 VI. UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON ALPI NEW DEVELOPMENTS ........................................................ 202 VII. SELECTED CONFERENCES ....................................... 202 I. INTRODUCTION: ARCTIC NEWS HIGHLIGHTS In April 2015, Canada passed the Arctic Council Chair to the United States. In assuming the chair, the United States adopted as its theme: One Arctic: Shared Opportunities, Challenges, and Responsibilities. The U.S. chairmanship goals are detailed in Section IV.B. Early Predictions for 2015 A January 21, 2015, article in The Economist proclaimed that the Arctic “hype” is receding, and that while the Arctic still matters; mainly for environmental reasons, the surge of interest in its economy and politics has ebbed.1 Global Climate Change Agreement As 2015 drew to a close, delegates attending the 21st Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP21) in Paris reached unanimous agreement on measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Although non-binding, the Agreement was hailed as a major win for the environment.2 The Arctic Report Card Arctic Ice Conditions: In 2015, the winter maximum Arctic sea ice extent reached a record low, extending 1. Not So Cool: The Hype Over the Arctic Recedes, Along with the Summer Ice, ECONOMIST (Jan. 31, 2015), http://www.economist.com/news/international/21641240- hype-over-arctic-recedes-along-summer-ice-not-so-cool. 2. About COP21, CLIMATE ACTION (2015), http://www.cop21paris.org/about/cop21/. For a more detailed discussion, see infra Section II.B. Published by UW Law Digital Commons, 2015 3 Washington Journal of Environmental Law & Policy, Vol. 5, Iss. 1 [2015], Art. 10 74 WASHINGTON J. OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW & POLICY [Vol. 6:1 only 14.54 million square kilometers—approximately 1.1 million square kilometers below average. In September, the summer minimum Arctic sea ice extent was 4.63 million square kilometers, the fourth lowest September sea ice extent in the modern satellite record, which started in 1979.3 Arctic Climate Conditions: The average annual surface air temperature anomaly (+1.3°C relative to the 1981– 2010 baseline) over land north of 60°N between October 2014 and September 2015 was the highest in the observational record beginning in 1900. This represents a 2.9°C increase since the beginning of the 20th century. On Dec. 30, 2015, the high temperature at the North Pole reached 42° Fahrenheit. 4 U.S. Oil and Gas Activities On December 23, 2015, the price of Brent crude oil, the global benchmark for oil prices, fell to $36.11 per barrel—its lowest level in eleven years—as global
Recommended publications
  • THE CLIMATE CASE AGAINST ARCTIC DRILLING August 2015

    THE CLIMATE CASE AGAINST ARCTIC DRILLING August 2015

    AUGUST 2015 UNTOUCHABLE: THE CLIMATE CASE AGAINST ARCTIC DRILLING August 2015 Conceived, written and researched by Hannah McKinnon with contributions from Steve Kretzmann, Lorne Stockman, and David Turnbull Oil Change International (OCI) exposes the true costs of fossil fuels and identifies and overcomes barriers to the coming transition towards clean energy. Oil Change International works to achieve its mission by producing strategic research and hard-hitting, campaign-relevant investigations; engaging in domestic and international policy and media spaces; and providing leadership in and support for resistance to the political influence of the fossil fuel industry, particularly in North America. www.priceofoil.org Twitter: @priceofoil Greenpeace is the leading independent campaigning organization that uses peaceful protest and creative communication to expose global environmental problems and to promote solutions that are essential to a green and peaceful future. www.greenpeace.org Cover: ©Cobbing/Greenpeace CONTENTS SUMMARY 2 Key Findings 3 UNBURNABLE CARBON 4 ARCTIC OIL FAILS THE CLIMATE TEST 5 THE PERCEPTION OF NEED AND A BET ON CLIMATE FAILURE 6 Arctic Oil Is Too Expensive for the Climate 8 LEADING THE PACK IN THE HUNT FOR UNBURNABLE CARBON 10 STRANDED ASSETS 11 FOSSIL FUEL FATALISM 13 #SHELLNO: PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY RISKS 14 CONCLUSION 16 2 SUMMARY There is a clear logic that can be applied to the global challenge of addressing climate change: when you are in a hole, stop digging. An iceberg spotted in calm waters on the edge of Kane Basin, If we are serious about tackling the global climate crisis, we need in late evening light. to stop exploring, expanding, and ultimately exploiting fossil fuels.
  • District Court Pleadings Caption

    District Court Pleadings Caption

    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF SEATTLE 8 In the Matter of the Appeal of: ) Hearing Examiner File No. S-15-001 9 ) (DPD Project No. 3020324) FOSS MARITIME COMPANY ) 10 ) from an Interpretation by the Director, Department ) 11 of Planning and Development. ) ) 12 _________________________________________ ) ) Hearing Examiner File No. S-15-002 13 In the Matter of the Appeal of the: ) (DPD Project No. 3020324) ) 14 PORT OF SEATTLE, ) ) PUGET SOUNDKEEPER’S 15 from Interpretation No. 15-001 of the Director of ) THIRD UPDATED EXHIBIT the Department of Planning and Development. ) LIST AND WITNESS LIST 16 ) ) 17 18 Puget Soundkeeper Alliance, Seattle Audubon Society, Sierra Club, and Washington 19 Environmental Council (collectively “Soundkeeper”) respectfully submit this third updated list 20 of exhibits and witnesses. Soundkeeper will provide two hard copies of the exhibits to the 21 Hearing Examiner for the Examiner and the Witness binders. Soundkeeper is submitting these 22 exhibits to address objections and issues that have been raised in the direct testimony and cross- 23 examination of some of the Port’s witnesses. 24 25 Earthjustice SOUNDKEEPER’S THIRD UPDATED 705 Second Ave., Suite 203 EXHIBIT LIST AND WITNESS LIST - 1 - Seattle, WA 98104-1711 26 (206) 343-7340 27 1 Additionally, Soundkeeper originally submitted excerpts of documents as PSA Exs. 13- 2 15 and 17-18; Foss objected to the excerpted nature of the documents at hearing. Soundkeeper 3 has provided the complete documents to counsel and has asked whether they would be willing to 4 stipulate to submitting only the excerpts since the remainders of each of the documents have no 5 relevance to this proceeding.
  • Catalogue of the Rauma Maritime Cluster Businesses 2019 New Edition

    Catalogue of the Rauma Maritime Cluster Businesses 2019 New Edition

    Catalogue of the Rauma Maritime Cluster businesses 2019 New edition Rauman kaupunkikehitys / Rauma City Development Catalogue of the Rauma Maritime Cluster businesses Rauma Maritime Cluster Catalogue of the Rauma Maritime Cluster businesses 2019 New edition Catalogue design group: Heikki M. Nurmi Iiro Laine Jukka Mäkelä Publisher: Rauma City Development Layout: Jukka Mäkelä Printed at: Laine Direct Oy, Rauma 2019 Catalogue of the Rauma Maritime Cluster businesses 2019 New edition 3 Rauma Marine Constructions Rauma Marine Contents Rauma maritime cluster - Modern and versatile .............. 5 Maritime Industry ................................................................... 6 Maritime Transport ................................................................ 27 Port Operations ...................................................................... 32 Public Sector ........................................................................... 39 4 manufacturers. The park is a significant investment in the future for the city of Rauma. After five years running, the area houses around 30 companies col- laborating with each other. Their location in the indus- trial park gives them a competitive edge and promotes networking. Between the years 2014 and 2016 the Business Ser- vices of the City of Rauma ran the Rauma subproject of Turku Seas 2020 project which was part of the Meri programme by the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment. The aim of the project was to develop the operative environment of the companies belonging to the maritime cluster in Rauma, promote networking among these companies and support their marketing efforts. The first catalogue of maritime cluster companies in Rauma was compiled as part of the Turku Seas 2020 subproject. The current, updated version has been put together by Rauma City Development. The need for this catalogue was generated by the changes in the marine industry’s operational environment that call for effective marketing and constant presentation of expertise and client references by the companies.
  • 16-17 March 2016, Fairbanks, Alaska, U.S.A

    16-17 March 2016, Fairbanks, Alaska, U.S.A

    Arctic Council SAO plenary meeting (eDocs code: ACSAOUS202) 16-17 March 2016, Fairbanks, Alaska, U.S.A. Document Title Overview of measures specifically designed to prevent oil pollution in the Arctic marine environment from offshore petroleum activities Agenda item number 7.1a Submitted by Norway Document filename EDOCS-3194-v1- ACSAOUS202_Fairbanks_2016_7-1a_Overview_Measures_OPP_Norway_report Number of pages, not including this cover sheet 266 Type (e.g. report, progress report, etc.) Report Proactima Stavanger Proactima Oslo Proactima Bergen Proactima Trondheim Postboks 8034 Postboks 2369 Solli Kong Christian Fredriks plass 3 Abelsgate 5 4068 Stavanger 0201 Oslo BI-bygget, 5006 Bergen 7030 Trondheim Norway Norway Norway Norway t: +47 40 00 19 33 – f: +47 51 87 57 41 – org. no. 915 641 938 – [email protected] – proactima.com REPORT Petroleum Safety Authority Norway (on behalf of the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs) Overview of measures specifically designed to prevent oil pollution in the Arctic marine environment from offshore petroleum activities Arctic Council, Task Force On Pollution Prevention (TFOPP) Table of contents 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 8 1.1 Background .............................................................................................................................. 8 1.2 Purpose ...................................................................................................................................
  • THE YEAR 2015 01 • the Year 2015 • New at Arctia in 2015

    THE YEAR 2015 01 • the Year 2015 • New at Arctia in 2015

    THE YEAR 2015 01 • The year 2015 • New at Arctia in 2015 ..................................................................04 Arctia 2015 • The year 2015 in figures ............................................................. 05 • CEO’s Review ................................................................................06 02 • Arctia • Operating environment ...............................................................08 • Core messages and organisation ................................................12 • Corporate responsibility management ......................................17 • Financial responsibility ................................................................20 • Society and human rights ...........................................................23 EXPERT IN ARCTIC • Environment ................................................................................26 03 • Service areas CONDITIONS • Icebreaking services ......................................................................32 • Offshore services ..........................................................................34 Arctia’s icebreakers ensure the reliability and safety of • Oil spill prevention and response ................................................36 • Harbour icebreaking ....................................................................37 Finland’s shipping lanes in the winter. In 2015, we met • Arctia Events .................................................................................38 all service targets set for us in the Baltic Sea. Outside
  • Russian Energy Sector Import Substitution

    Russian Energy Sector Import Substitution

    A GRI SPECIAL REPORT RUSSIA'S ENERGY SECTOR: EVALUATING PROGRESS ON IMPORT SUBSTITUTION AND TECHNOLOGICAL SOVEREIGNTY KNOW YOUR WORLD APRIL 2018 WHO WE ARE Founders Emil Graesholm, Basim Al-Ahmadi, Evan Abrams, Sammy Halabi Editor in Chief Alisa Lockwood Managing Editors Wiliam Christou, Robyn Kelly-Meyrick Senior Editor for this edition Nicholas Trickett Contributors to this edition Maria Shagina Design Alisa Lockwood “We can count on GRI for commentary that is timely, relevant and insightful. They get behind the GLOBAL RISK headlines to provide thoughtful analysis on what is really going on and what it means.” INSIGHTS - Kerim Derhalli, CEO & Founder of Invstr, Former Head of Equity Trading at Deutsche Bank Political RIsk for the 21st Century CONTENTS Introduction • p3 Impact of sanctions in the energy sector • p4 Joint projects cancelled or delayed due to sanctions • p5 Russia's dependence on foreign technologies • p6 Pivot to Asian technology • p7 Russia's strategy for import substitution • p9 Homegrown technology • p11 Success of import substitution? • p13 Four reasons to be skeptical • p16 About the authors • p17 INTRODUCTION 3 YEARS OF IMPORT SUBSTITUTION: WHAT NOW? Russia represents a large import After three years, the success of the market for oil and gas field equipment. import substitution programme is The country is the 6th largest mixed. equipment importer in the world and its market amounts to $25 billion Although some companies succeeded in annually. developing homegrown technologies, equipment for deepwater, Arctic Before 2014, Germany and Italy were offshore and shale exploration has not Russia’s main EU sources for oil and been produced. gas equipment, taking 16% and 11% of Russia’s market respectively.
  • The Future of Energy and the Case of the Arctic Offshore: the Role of Strategic Management

    The Future of Energy and the Case of the Arctic Offshore: the Role of Strategic Management

    Journal of Marine Science and Engineering Article The Future of Energy and the Case of the Arctic Offshore: The Role of Strategic Management Elias G. Carayannis 1, Alina Ilinova 2,* and Alexey Cherepovitsyn 2 1 School of Business, George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052, USA; [email protected] 2 Organization and Management Department, Saint-Petersburg Mining University, 199106 Saint-Petersburg, Russia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +7-921-349-3472 Abstract: As risk and uncertainty factors have become more prominent in the already volatile energy market because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the development of Arctic hydrocarbon resources has become a debatable issue. At any rate, oil and gas companies need to improve their strategic manage- ment systems (along with the development of technologies) for the successful implementation of such complex projects. The purpose of this study was to propose the conceptual basis for transforming strategic management and planning systems of oil and gas companies so that they can successfully face global challenges when implementing offshore oil and gas projects in the Arctic as well as provide more sustainable energy sources. The article discusses the current situation with Arctic initiatives and the results of an analysis of price instability in the energy sector, along with an analysis of several megatrends affecting oil and gas companies. All this allows for presenting a conceptual vision of how a strategic management system should be transformed in order to become able to meet the requirements for implementing Arctic projects, with the emphasis being placed on sustainability, management requirements, and the key principles.
  • Russia's Northern Fleet and the Oil Industry – Rivals Or Partners

    Russia's Northern Fleet and the Oil Industry – Rivals Or Partners

    Russia’s Northern Fleet and the Oil Industry – Rivals or Partners? Petroleum, Security and Civil-Military Relations in the Post-Cold War European Arctic Kristian Åtland Described as one of the world’s most promising new energy provinces, the European Arctic is no longer seen primarily as a military playground. Russia’s approach to the region is increasingly governed by national economic interests, rather than by national security interests. The development of offshore oil and gas fields, the construction of new pipelines and terminals, the increasing traffic of oil tankers to Western Europe and the United States, and the conversion of naval yards to civilian production, represent both new challenges and new opportunities for the Russian Navy. Issues that were previously considered crucial to the country’s national security have slowly but steadily been “desecuritized”, and new patterns of civil- military relations have emerged. This article discusses the relationship between the Russian petroleum industry and the Northern Fleet, and the interplay between Russian commercial and military interests in the post-Cold War European Arctic. Twenty years ago, the European Arctic1 was among the most heavily militarized regions of the world. The fiords on the northern coast of the Kola Peninsula were full of naval bases, and Soviet nuclear submarines were frequently operating in the frigid waters of the Barents Sea. The level of tension on NATO’s northern flank was high, and this was reflected in the position of the Soviet Northern Fleet. Civilian activities in and by the Barents Sea were severely restricted, and Soviet politics on the Arctic were largely governed by military-strategic interests and national security concerns.
  • 2017 Annual Report

    2017 Annual Report

    THE YEAR 2017 1 THE YEAR 2017 News in 2017 ......................................................................... 04 Arctia 2017 The year 2017 in figures ..................................................... 05 CEO’s review .......................................................................... 06 2 ARCTIA Operating environment ....................................................... 08 Core messages and organisation ......................................... 12 Corporate social responsibility management ..................... 17 Financial responsibility ......................................................... 22 Society and human rights .................................................... 25 RELIABLE SERVICES IN Environment ......................................................................... 29 3 SERVICES CHALLENGING CONDITIONS The Baltic Sea ........................................................................ 35 Polar and subpolar regions .................................................. 38 Oil spill preparedness and response .................................... 40 Arctia’s key task is to safeguard icebreaking operations and Harbour icebreaking ............................................................ 41 winter navigation in the Finnish marine areas. We offer our Arctia Events ......................................................................... 42 customers reliable maritime services in challenging conditions 4 PERSONNEL AND GOVERNANCE throughout the world. In 2017, we achieved all the service Personnel and governance
  • ISBRYTNING I ÖSTERSJÖN Kort Historik Och Framtidsutsikter

    ISBRYTNING I ÖSTERSJÖN Kort Historik Och Framtidsutsikter

    Examensarbete, Högskolan på Åland, Utbildningsprogrammet för Sjöfart ISBRYTNING I ÖSTERSJÖN Kort historik och framtidsutsikter Axel Åkerlund 2021:07 Datum för godkännande: 12.05.2021 Handledare: Björn-Olof Erikson EXAMENSARBETE Högskolan på Åland Utbildningsprogram: Sjöfart Författare: Axel Åkerlund Arbetets namn: Isbrytning i Östersjön - Kort historik och framtid Handledare: Björn-Olof Erikson Uppdragsgivare: - Abstrakt I mitt examensarbete skriver jag om hur isbrytarna i Östersjön och speciellt i Finland och Sverige har utvecklats genom tiderna och varför isbrytare är så viktiga för Finland och Sverige. Hur ser framtiden ut för de finska och svenska isbrytarna med tanke på klimatförändringen och i och med att de hårda isvintrarna blivit mindre vanliga än vad de var på t.ex 80-talet. Jag har använt mig av litteraturstudier och intervjuer med sakkunniga både från Finland och Sverige. Finland och Sverige har ett välfungerande samarbete vilket syns tydligt då de arbetar med att ta fram en ny gemensam design för nästa generationens isbrytare. Detta tyder på att vi fortsättningsvis kommer att ha isbrytare i våra vatten, samt andra faktorer som jag beskriver i detta arbete. Nyckelord (sökord) Sjöfartsverket, Väylävirasto, Aker Arctic Högskolans ISSN: Språk: Sidantal: serienummer: 2021:07 1458-1531 Svenska 40 sidor Inlämningsdatum: Presentationsdatum: Datum för godkännande: 03.05.2021 12.05.2021 12.05.2021 2 DEGREE THESIS Åland University of Applied Sciences Study program: Nautical Science Author: Axel Åkerlund Title: Icebreaking in the Baltic Sea Academic Supervisor: Björn-Olof Erikson Technical Supervisor: - Abstract In my thesis I am writing about how the icebreakers in the Baltic Sea have developed specifically in Finland and in Sweden and why they are so important for Finland and Sweden.
  • Vector Data Extraction from Forward-Looking Sonar Imagery for Hydrographic Survey and Hazard to Navigation Detection

    Vector Data Extraction from Forward-Looking Sonar Imagery for Hydrographic Survey and Hazard to Navigation Detection

    Vector Data Extraction from Forward-Looking Sonar Imagery for Hydrographic Survey and Hazard to Navigation Detection R. Glenn Wright Cheryl M. Zimmerman GMATEK, Inc., Annapolis, MD USA FarSounder, Inc. World Maritime University, Malmo, Sweden Warwick, RI USA [email protected] / [email protected] [email protected] Abstract— This paper describes research to determine the investigating its use as a means to navigate in uncharted and effectiveness of forward-looking sonar as a means to safely poorly charted areas are described along with their results navigate vessels in frontiers such as the Arctic and other regions illustrating the effectiveness of this technology and limitations that may be lacking recent or comprehensive hydrographic that may restrict its use. Conclusions regarding the viability of survey. Key elements of this investigation include the range at FL sonar to aid in vessel navigation are provided, along with which valid measurements may be taken, uncertainty in future directions in research likely to follow. measurement, confidence level of the measured value and resolution available to detect underwater hazards affixed to the II. CHARTING DEFICIENCIES bottom and suspended within the water column to provide time sufficient to enable the crew to take action to alter course and/or The deficiencies of hydrographic surveys in areas such as speed to avoid casualty. An additional factor involves examining the Arctic and the vast archipelagos of the Pacific Ocean have forward-looking sonar measurements as a means to survey been demonstrated through dramatic groundings of vessels. shallow sea bottom where hydrography data does not exist or is One example is the cruise chip M/V Clipper Adventurer that not accurate, potentially offering a valuable resource to ran aground on 27 August 2010 in Coronation Gulf, Nunavut supplement scarce national hydrographic office assets to in the Northwest Passage on an uncharted shelf in an area accomplish this task.
  • Analyses of Key Companies Having Business Operations in the Arctic

    Analyses of Key Companies Having Business Operations in the Arctic

    Analyses of Key Companies having Business Operations in the Arctic Extract of the report Climate Change in the Arctic April 2017 1 Main companies from key sectors in the Arctic Table 4 List of main companies from key sectors in the Arctic Shell, conoco, bp, noble energy, transocean Sector Company Logo Oil & Gas (19) Mining (10) Fishery (7) Others (3) 2 Analyses of Key Companies having Business Operations in the Arctic A. Oil and Gas Sector Royal Dutch Shell Climate change or carbon emission Main business activities reduction related initiatives within in the Arctic and beyond the Arctic • Shell owns 27.5% interest in Sakha- • Shell ended the offshore exploration lin-2 on the Sakhalin Island (Russia), drilling operations in Alaska in an integrated oil and gas project locat- September 2015. ed in a subarctic environment. • Shell works with Wetlands Interna- • In 2015, Shell has made drillings for tional to identify and assess critical oil and gas at the Burger J well habitats in the Arctic regions, develop- in the Chukchi Sea (offshore Alaska, ing a tool that predicts the distribution US ), but the discoveries were of Arctic species; and ever since 2006, insufficient to warrant further explora- it has funded a science programme tion in the area and the well was with the local governments of the Royal Dutch Shell deemed a dry hole. The well was North Slope in Alaska. sealed and abandoned in accordance HQ: The Hague, Netherlands with US regulations. • Shell and IUCN have been work- ing together since 2004 to minimise Ticker: • Shell has 18 state leases in the Beau- the impact on Western gray whales RDS/A fort Harrison Bay area in Alaska at Shell’s jointventure operations in Market Cap (USD mil.): (US ).