DOCSLIB.ORG

IMVPA Project No. C-0506-15 Arctic Offshore Technology Assessment Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Arctic Offshore Technology Assessment IMVPA of Exploration and Production Options for Project No. C-0506-15 Cold Regions of the US Outer Continental Shelf EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Objective The objective of this study is to deliver an assessment of oil and gas technology that may be applied to cold regions of the United States Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Advances in harsh environment offshore exploration and production technology have made it economically and technically feasible for projects to proceed in ice-covered waters. This study assesses the current state of offshore technology in arctic and sub-arctic regions. The results of this assessment are then used to provide insight and guidance into existing/future exploration and development technologies that might be applied on the US OCS, in particular those areas in the Beaufort, Chukchi and Bering Seas. The work covers exploration structures, bottom-founded and fixed production concepts, floating production concepts, terminals, pipelines and subsea facilities, and also touches on other technologies that might be relevant to Alaskan OCS exploration and development. Assessment Methodology This study draws on a review of current state-of-practice and state-of-the-art used in, or proposed for, arctic and sub-arctic offshore development areas. Assessments of exploration and production options are primarily based on technical feasibility. As appropriate, other aspects have also been considered, including constructability, capital costs, environmental considerations, operations, maintenance and repair, abandonment and decommissioning. Given the large geographic area encompassed by the Beaufort, Chukchi and Bering Seas, location scenarios were adopted to help focus the assessments. These locations were chosen based on current and historic activity and interest (including lease sales, drilling, studies, projects, etc.) and water depths (given the general differences in offshore facilities configuration with water depths). Overall applicability of the technology to the region of interest was also considered. 01/31/2008 Page i of xxvi Rev. 0 Arctic Offshore Technology Assessment IMVPA of Exploration and Production Options for Project No. C-0506-15 Cold Regions of the US Outer Continental Shelf Technical Feasibility Bottom-Founded Structures In multi-year ice areas of the Alaskan OCS, there are bottom-founded, e.g., gravity base structure (GBS), solutions that would be considered safe and economical up to around 250 ft (75 m) water depths when foundation properties are good, and up to around 200 ft (60 m) water depths when foundation properties are relatively weak. There are no known bottom-founded platform design solutions for water depths greater than 330 ft (100 m) that could be deemed workable or proven for multi-year ice areas. In the more southern areas, where multi-year ice is absent and only first-year consolidated ridge loadings are possible, bottom-founded solutions out to 500 ft (150 m) water depths are potentially viable. Jacket & Jack-up Structures The ice reinforced jacket platform was first successfully used in sea ice in the mid 1960’s for Cook Inlet, Alaska developments. Previous studies have suggested that jacket structures are suitable for areas of the Bering Sea. However, these studies did not consider the vibration responses associated with the dynamic ice loading. Jacket type structures could likely be made to work in light first-year ice and in water depths less than 200 ft (60 m). However, the jacket structure’s potentially poor response to dynamic loading and the need for conductor system protection are significant design issues for application in the Bering Sea. Current design practices and understanding of jacket design make their application unsuitable for the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Developments in jack-up technology and the advancement of ice maintenance programs indicate that the operating range and season of jack-up exploration could potentially be extended in the Bering Sea. Ice Islands Grounded ice islands have been used successfully as exploration drilling structures in nearshore areas of the US and Canadian Beaufort Sea. In practice, operational ice islands have been employed in water depths of up to 25 ft (7.6 m) in the Beaufort Sea. 01/31/2008 Page ii of xxvi Rev. 0 Arctic Offshore Technology Assessment IMVPA of Exploration and Production Options for Project No. C-0506-15 Cold Regions of the US Outer Continental Shelf Based on work sponsored by the MMS, the use of operational ice islands might be achieved in water depths of up to approximately 30 ft (9 m). The MMS Ice Island Study (2005) suggests that “incremental improvements in equipment capacity with higher productivity would allow islands to be constructed into deeper water and it is considered that 40 ft (12 m) water depth should not present a problem”. The use of ice islands in the nearshore Chukchi would likely be infeasible due to the unstable and unreliable landfast, or contiguous, ice zone. Ice islands would be generally infeasible for Norton Sound due to its warmer and shorter winter season. However, definite conclusions can only be reached through more detailed study. Gravel Islands Although not a “high tech” technology, gravel islands have been successfully used in the Beaufort Sea for decades and continue to be viewed as a candidate structure for exploration and/or production in this area of the Alaskan OCS. Since no gravel island structure has been used in the Chukchi Sea, a more detailed assessment would be required to determine feasibility. Due consideration would need to be given to the fact that the nearshore Chukchi Sea ice environment may be more dynamic than the Beaufort Sea. In the nearshore Bering Sea, gravel islands may be subject to higher waves and larger wave loads, which would need to be taken into consideration during detailed assessment. Floating Structures There are only a limited number of floating exploration or production structures that have been used in ice environments. Seasonal exploration can be carried out in the Alaskan OCS using drillships and drilling barges and, in areas without multi-year ice, semi- submersibles or a TLP. However, for exploration, the only location that a floating structure might be capable of staying on station year-round might be the Bering Sea under light ice conditions. A Semi-rigid Floater structure might work year-round under first-year ice conditions but would need to have the ability to disconnect and leave station in the event of potentially higher loads. Floating production systems for the Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea and North Bering Sea are not considered to be technically feasible, even with continuous ice management. No floating production structures could be economically designed to stay on station with multi- 01/31/2008 Page iii of xxvi Rev. 0 Arctic Offshore Technology Assessment IMVPA of Exploration and Production Options for Project No. C-0506-15 Cold Regions of the US Outer Continental Shelf year ice loads found in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, and possibly northern Bering Sea depending on local ice conditions. Floating systems may have some merit in southern Alaskan OCS areas, however. Subsea Solutions In some cases, there may not be a requirement for a production island or platform offshore. If the wellhead is located in water of sufficient depth, protection from ice would not be necessary. In areas with water depths less than the maximum ice keel depth, glory holes may need to be considered to protect the subsea facilities from ice ridge keels. Improvements in the area of subsea facilities and processing have been made in recent years in the pursuit of resources in harsh and remote environments. As a result of these improvements, fields requiring longer, deeper subsea tiebacks are now becoming much more technically and economically feasible. Gas tiebacks have reached 105 miles (170 km) and oil tiebacks have reached 40 miles (65 km). Subsea facilities can potentially be considered for any development on the Alaskan OCS. However, there are limitations on which technology should be or would need to be considered. Glory holes would only offer protection from gouging keels. Where active ridge building is taking place or there are grounded ridges present, there is the potential for a ridge keel to be pushed into an open glory hole as the ridge keel is being formed. Beyond the zone of active gouging, subsea facilities might be placed directly on the seabed (depending on the ice gouging regime). Pipelines & Flowlines Pipelines have been designed, constructed and are operational in the arctic, but these are in relatively shallow water depths and relatively close to shore. Pushing the limits to developments further offshore in deeper water will require that additional consideration is given to aspects related to design, construction and operation. Some of the main considerations with respect to pipeline design in the arctic are strudel scour, thaw settlement of permafrost, upheaval buckling and ice gouging. It is generally felt that the first three considerations can be designed for on future projects. However, pipeline burial for protection in water depths from approximately 65 to 130 ft (20 to 40 m) will be a challenge given the more severe gouging in these water depths and the fact that the pipeline can likely not be installed from the ice in winter. While trenching from the ice to a 01/31/2008 Page iv of xxvi Rev. 0 Arctic Offshore Technology Assessment IMVPA of Exploration and Production Options for Project No. C-0506-15 Cold Regions of the US Outer Continental Shelf certain water depth has been proven on projects in the nearshore Beaufort Sea, trenching and pipeline installation from floating vessels has not yet been attempted. Export Terminals The technical feasibility of marine terminals in arctic areas has been established through successful experience in a wide range of port facilities. A general review of experience in operation of high-latitude oil and gas marine terminals indicates that existing technology of port structures design and construction is sufficient to support operations in the Alaskan OCS.
Recommended publications
  • Transits of the Northwest Passage to End of the 2019 Navigation Season Atlantic Ocean ↔ Arctic Ocean ↔ Pacific Ocean

    Transits of the Northwest Passage to End of the 2019 Navigation Season Atlantic Ocean ↔ Arctic Ocean ↔ Pacific Ocean

    TRANSITS OF THE NORTHWEST PASSAGE TO END OF THE 2019 NAVIGATION SEASON ATLANTIC OCEAN ↔ ARCTIC OCEAN ↔ PACIFIC OCEAN R. K. Headland and colleagues 12 December 2019 Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge, Lensfield Road, Cambridge, United Kingdom, CB2 1ER. <[email protected]> The earliest traverse of the Northwest Passage was completed in 1853 but used sledges over the sea ice of the central part of Parry Channel. Subsequently the following 314 complete maritime transits of the Northwest Passage have been made to the end of the 2019 navigation season, before winter began and the passage froze. These transits proceed to or from the Atlantic Ocean (Labrador Sea) in or out of the eastern approaches to the Canadian Arctic archipelago (Lancaster Sound or Foxe Basin) then the western approaches (McClure Strait or Amundsen Gulf), across the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea of the Arctic Ocean, through the Bering Strait, from or to the Bering Sea of the Pacific Ocean. The Arctic Circle is crossed near the beginning and the end of all transits except those to or from the central or northern coast of west Greenland. The routes and directions are indicated. Details of submarine transits are not included because only two have been reported (1960 USS Sea Dragon, Capt. George Peabody Steele, westbound on route 1 and 1962 USS Skate, Capt. Joseph Lawrence Skoog, eastbound on route 1). Seven routes have been used for transits of the Northwest Passage with some minor variations (for example through Pond Inlet and Navy Board Inlet) and two composite courses in summers when ice was minimal (transits 149 and 167).
  • Diamond Jenness (1886-1969)

    Diamond Jenness (1886-1969)

    Diamond Jenness (1886-1969) HENRY B. COLLINS and WILLIAM E. TAYLOR Jr. Canada’smost distinguished anthropologist, Dr. Diamond Jenness, formerly Chiefof the Division of Anthropology, National Museums of Canada, and Honorary Associate of the Arctic Institute of North America, died peacefully at his home in the Gatineau Hills near Ottawa on 29 November, 1969. He was one of that rapidly-vanishing, virtually extinct kind - the all round anthropolo- gist, who, working seriously, turned out first-class publications in all four major branches of the discipline : ethnology, linguistics, archaeology, and physical anthropology. One must also add a fifth: applied anthropology, a fitting designa- tion for theseries of monographs on Eskimo administration in Alaska, Canada, and Greenland which he wrote after his retirement and which were published by the Arctic Institute between 1962 and 1968. Diamond Jennesswas born in Wellington,New Zealand, on 10 February 1886, and attended Victoria University College, one of the four branches of the University ofNew Zealand, wherehe graduated withfirst class honours in classics in 1908. Later he studied at Balliol College, Oxford, under one of the outstanding ethnologists of the time, Professor R. R. Marett. He received both a B.A. in Lit. Hum. and a diploma in Anthropology at Oxford in 1911. In 191 1-12 he was designated Oxford Scholar in Papua and was sent by the Uni- versity to make anthropological studies among the Northern d’Entrecasteaux, a primitive tribe dwelling on the islands of the D’Entrecasteaux Archipelago off the east coast of New Guinea. The results of this first field-work were published by Oxford University (1 920a).
  • Stratification in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago's

    Stratification in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago's

    POLAR KNOWLEDGE Aqhaliat POLAR KNOWLEDGE Aqhaliat These narrow passages have hard bottom substrate canadien. La région est unique dans l’Arctique en raison STRATIFICATION IN THE CANADIAN ARCTIC inhabited by suspension feeders, while soft sediments de ses seuils limitrophes peu profonds et de son apport with deposit feeders are found in areas of weaker massif en eau douce par rapport à sa zone. Ainsi, trois ARCHIPELAGO’S KITIKMEOT SEA: currents elsewhere. Our analysis reveals a dynamic thèmes guident l’étude : (1) l’apport estuarien d’origine ecosystem characterized by pelagic-benthic coupling pacifique, qui établit la structure océanographique; (2) Biological and geochemical consequences modified by the physical flow field and constrained by l’origine et les voies d’accès de l’eau douce, qui influent external inputs of nutrients and fresh water. sur les équilibres et la stratification des nutriments; (3) les communautés biologiques influencées par les marées Résumé dans des passages étroits. Pour étudier ces thèmes, nous utilisons une série d’outils déployés par le navire L’étude scientifique de la mer de Kitikmeot a été lancée en de recherche océanographique Martin Bergmann. 2014 afin de fournir à la Station canadienne de recherche William J. Williams1 *, Kristina A. Brown1, Bodil A. Bluhm2, Eddy C. Carmack1, Laura Dalman4, dans l’Extrême-Arctique une base scientifique pour la Nos résultats montrent que la mer de Kitikmeot est Seth L. Danielson3, Brent G. T. Else5, Rosalyn Fredriksen2, C. J. Mundy4, Lina M. Rotermund6, surveillance et
  • Arctic Marine Transport Workshop 28-30 September 2004

    Arctic Marine Transport Workshop 28-30 September 2004

    Arctic Marine Transport Workshop 28-30 September 2004 Institute of the North • U.S. Arctic Research Commission • International Arctic Science Committee Arctic Ocean Marine Routes This map is a general portrayal of the major Arctic marine routes shown from the perspective of Bering Strait looking northward. The official Northern Sea Route encompasses all routes across the Russian Arctic coastal seas from Kara Gate (at the southern tip of Novaya Zemlya) to Bering Strait. The Northwest Passage is the name given to the marine routes between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans along the northern coast of North America that span the straits and sounds of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. Three historic polar voyages in the Central Arctic Ocean are indicated: the first surface shop voyage to the North Pole by the Soviet nuclear icebreaker Arktika in August 1977; the tourist voyage of the Soviet nuclear icebreaker Sovetsky Soyuz across the Arctic Ocean in August 1991; and, the historic scientific (Arctic) transect by the polar icebreakers Polar Sea (U.S.) and Louis S. St-Laurent (Canada) during July and August 1994. Shown is the ice edge for 16 September 2004 (near the minimum extent of Arctic sea ice for 2004) as determined by satellite passive microwave sensors. Noted are ice-free coastal seas along the entire Russian Arctic and a large, ice-free area that extends 300 nautical miles north of the Alaskan coast. The ice edge is also shown to have retreated to a position north of Svalbard. The front cover shows the summer minimum extent of Arctic sea ice on 16 September 2002.
  • Shell U.K. Limited Brent Remote Flare Decommissioning Programme and Revision to the Brent Spar Decommissioning Programme (Anchor

    Shell U.K. Limited Brent Remote Flare Decommissioning Programme and Revision to the Brent Spar Decommissioning Programme (Anchor

    Shell U.K. Limited May 2004 Brent Remote Flare Decommissioning Programme and Revision to the Brent Spar Decommissioning Programme (Anchor Blocks) SUBMISSION TO DTI & THE SECRETARY OF STATE, MINISTRY OF TRADE & INDUSTRY Keywords: Decommissioning, Remote Flare, Anchor Blocks, Brent This document is the property of Shell U.K. Limited, and the copyright therein is vested in Shell U.K. Limited. All rights reserved. Neither the whole nor any part of this document may be disclosed to others or reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means (electronic, mechanical, reprographic recording or otherwise) without prior written consent of the copyright owner. Brent Remote Flare Decommissioning Programme & Revision to the Brent Spar Decommissioning Programme (Anchor Blocks) Page i 1 Contents 1 Contents ........................................................................................................................................................i 2 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................1 3 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................3 4 Items To Be Decommissioned ...................................................................................................................4 4.1Remote Flare............................................................................................................................................4
  • 4. Embedding Human Rights Mechanisms Within Shell Headquarters

    4. Embedding Human Rights Mechanisms Within Shell Headquarters

    4. Embedding within Shell Headquarters 4. Embedding human rights mechanisms within Shell Headquarters This first empirical chapter describes and analyses the process of embedding (implementation and internalisation) of the human rights mechanisms within the Headquarters of Shell1. This way, an answer is provided to the first research question (identifying the mechanisms of embedding human rights) by providing an analysis about the mechanisms through which Shell Headquarters embeds human rights in its policies and procedures. In addition, the degree of implementation and internalisation of human rights is also determined at Shell Headquarters level (second research question). Finally, by describing the process of implementation and internalisation, this chapter also provides more insight in explaining the degree of implementation and internalisation of these human rights mechanisms within Shell Headquarters (third research question). The chapter starts with explaining the use of data (section 4.1), after which the overall policy and objectives of the company (section 4.2) and the company’s approaches to embed human rights (section 4.3). Section 4.4 will introduce the Shell Group’s management system, after which sections 4.5 to 4.10 will then analyse how human rights is embedded according to Shell’s spheres of influence: employees (section 4.5), contractors (section 4.6), security forces (section 4.7), communities (section 4.8), government (section 4.9) and the international society (section 4.10). Section 4.11 continues the analysis with determining the degree of internalisation of human rights in Shell Headquarters. The chapter ends with a short summary and initial conclusion in section 4.12.
  • Northstar Project Final Environmental

    Northstar Project Final Environmental

    BEAUFORT SEA OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT/ NORTHSTAR PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Volume I: Cover Sheet Executive Summary Volume II: Chapter 1.0 Introduction Chapter 2.0 Traditional Knowledge Chapter 3.0 Oil and Gas Development/Production Options for the Alaskan Beaufort Sea Chapter 4.0 Northstar Unit Development/Production Alternatives Volume III: Chapter 5.0 Affected Physical Environment and Impacts Chapter 6.0 Affected Biological Environment and Impacts Chapter 7.0 Affected Human Environment and Impacts Volume IV: Chapter 8.0 Effects of Oil on the Physical, Biological, and Human Environments Chapter 9.0 Effects of Noise on the Biological and Human Environments Chapter 10.0 Cumulative Effects Chapter 11.0 Comparison of Project Alternatives and Their Impacts Chapter 12.0 List of Preparers Chapter 13.0 Consultation and Coordination Glossary Index Appendix A: Appendix A Final Project Description Appendices B Through K: Appendix B Biological Assessment Appendix C Updated Mailing List Appendix D Northstar Unit Lease Stipulation Summaries and Applicable Alaska Regulations Appendix E Technical Appendices Appendix F Draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Appendix G National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Fact Sheet Appendix H Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation Appendix I Section 103 Evaluation Appendix J Draft Underground Injection Control Permit Appendix K Public Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix K (Continued) Through P Appendix K Public Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix L Response to Public Comments Appendix M Biological Opinions Appendix N Final Underground Injection Control Permit Appendix O Preliminary Final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Appendix P Reports of the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS BSOGD/NP EIS LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AAC Alaska Administrative Code ACMP Alaska Coastal Management Program ACS Alaska Clean Seas A.D.
  • Power & Politics

    Power & Politics

    POWER & POLITICS Langone (Draft) MGMT-GB.3366.10 Fall 2017 Professor R. Kabaliswaran Office: KMC 7-56 Class: KMC 4-80 E-mail: [email protected] (best way to reach me) Class Hours: W 6:00:9:00. Dates: 9/27-12/20. Office Hours: Usually an hour before class and by appointment Deliverables: My Constituency Map due session 7. One individual midterm case report due session 9. Class Reflection Journal: Do each session on previous session’s case/s and discussion. Put it all together , broken by session, and post as ONE word document before last class session. No need for journal write up on content of midterm case session and the last session. One take-home final due last session. Welcome to the elective course in Power & Politics! Course Theme Politics is not a dirty word! We just got to learn how to play good politics and keep out bad politics. By the same logic, power by itself does not necessarily corrupt though absolute power may corrupt absolutely. In other words, this course is about how to conquer the world, or at least survive the corporate jungle, without losing our soul. Even if you don’t want to play politics, good or bad, you still need the skills from this course to ensure that you don’t become a victim of politics. Course Objectives • Understanding what power is: People often have a misperception of what power, the basis of political behavior, really means. By the end of this course you should be able to have not only a conceptual understanding of what power is within an organizational context but a practical grasp of what the actual sources of power are.
  • Economic Outlook 2011 12 Final.Indd

    Economic Outlook 2011 12 Final.Indd

    Northwest Territories Economic Review 2011-12 Contents Introduction Minister’s Statement i Introduction 1 Key Economic Indicators 2 Investment 4 Employment 5 Economic Outlook Economic Outlook 7 Sustainability 11 Diavik Wind Farm 14 Economic Factors Introduction 16 Land 16 Population 18 Transportation Infrastructure 20 Business Climate 21 Business Distribution 22 Income Distribution Median Incomes 23 Income Distribution 24 Gender Incomes 26 Economic Sectors Non-Renewable Resources 29 Mackenzie Gas Project 34 Retail Trade 37 Wholesale Trade 38 Construction 39 Manufacturing 40 Tourism 41 Energy 44 Arts and Fine Crafts 49 Film 52 Fur and Fish Harvesting 55 Forestry 59 Agriculture 60 Conclusion 62 Honourable David Ramsay Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment Government of the Northwest Territories The Northwest Territories is embarking on an era of opportunity and growth. Global economies are changing, new markets are growing, and international focus is shifting north – and we are poised to take full advantage of this incredible opportunity. Our vast natural resource base continues to provide the backbone to our territorial economy and provide opportunities to our residents. The NWT exports approximately $3 billion in diamonds and oil annually. However, signifi cant potential remains. Last year industry bid over $500 million in the Sahtu Region for land parcels that will be explored for oil potential. The rugged, pristine and isolated nature of the Northwest Territories is also a perfect fi t for the large and growing international tourism market – tourism contributes $100 million annually to our economy, and, like our resource industry, it is on the brink of tremendous growth. Our smaller industries are also capitalizing on the unique Northern setting.
  • Coral Growing on North Sea Oil Rigs These Installations Are Home to Thriving Colonies of an Endangered Cold-Water Coral

    Coral Growing on North Sea Oil Rigs These Installations Are Home to Thriving Colonies of an Endangered Cold-Water Coral

    brief communications Coral growing on North Sea oil rigs These installations are home to thriving colonies of an endangered cold-water coral. his summer the coral Lophelia pertusa The occurrence of the coral raises ques- was found growing on oil platforms in tions about how to deal with this species, Tthe North Sea and on the Brent Spar which is listed under the Convention on oil-storage buoy during its decommission- International Trade in Endangered Species ing. The findings indicate that Lophelia has a (CITES), when platforms are decommis- wider distribution and a more rapid rate of sioned. At a meeting in Sintra in 1998 of growth than previously believed. The dis- countries belonging to the Oslo–Paris covery also has implications for the debate (Ospar) convention on protecting the over oil exploration in the Atlantic Ocean marine environment, Ospar decision 98/3 and the perceived benefits of onshore dis- indicated that the ‘footings’ of large plat- mantling of deep-water platforms. forms (jacket weight of more than 10,000 When Brent Spar was raised out of the tonnes) might be left in place. Such an sea in stages for dismantling (Fig. 1), option would preserve existing colonies colonies of Lophelia of up to 20 cm linear Figure 1 The top of Brent Spar being removed from the Heerema and might allow Lophelia to spread in the growth were found on the sides and bot- heavy-lift barge during its dismantling in Yrkefjorden, Norway. North Sea. tom, which had been at depths of 60–109 Niall Bell, Jan Smith m.
  • Canada's Sovereignty Over the Northwest Passage

    Canada's Sovereignty Over the Northwest Passage

    Michigan Journal of International Law Volume 10 Issue 2 1989 Canada's Sovereignty Over the Northwest Passage Donat Pharand University of Ottawa Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil Part of the International Law Commons, and the Law of the Sea Commons Recommended Citation Donat Pharand, Canada's Sovereignty Over the Northwest Passage, 10 MICH. J. INT'L L. 653 (1989). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil/vol10/iss2/10 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Journal of International Law at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CANADA'S SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE NORTHWEST PASSAGE Donat Pharand* In 1968, when this writer published "Innocent Passage in the Arc- tic,"' Canada had yet to assert its sovereignty over the Northwest Pas- sage. It has since done so by establishing, in 1985, straight baselines around the whole of its Arctic Archipelago. In August of that year, the U. S. Coast Guard vessel PolarSea made a transit of the North- west Passage on its voyage from Thule, Greenland, to the Chukchi Sea (see Route 1 on Figure 1). Having been notified of the impending transit, Canada informed the United States that it considered all the waters of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago as historic internal waters and that a request for authorization to transit the Northwest Passage would be necessary.
  • Dolphin and Union Caribou Herd Status and Trend

    Dolphin and Union Caribou Herd Status and Trend

    Population Estimate of the Dolphin and Union Caribou herd (Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus x pearyi) Coastal Survey, October 2018 and Demographic Indicators Lisa-Marie Leclerc1 John Boulanger2 1Wildlife Biologist Kitikmeot Region, Department of Environment Wildlife Research Section, Government of Nunavut, P.O. Box 377 Kugluktuk, NU X0B 0E0 2Integrated Ecological Research, Nelson, BC NUNAVUT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT WILDLIFE RESEARCH SECTION KUGLUKTUK, NU Executive Summary Dolphin and Union (DU) Caribou (Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus x pearyi) have a large distribution covering Victoria Island (Nunavut and Northwest Territory) and the northern region of the Canadian mainland in Nunavut. The DU Caribou calve and summer on Victoria Island, resulting in the sharing of the northwestern extents of their seasonal ranges with Peary Caribou (Rangifer tarandus pearyi). While Peary Caribou winter on Victoria Island, the DU Caribou generally display migratory behavior by crossing the sea-ice of the Coronation Gulf to winter on the Canadian mainland. Once on the mainland, DU caribou over-winter with other tundra- wintering caribou in the eastern part of their winter range. In addition to this specific movement and seasonal range, the DU Caribou can also be distinguished, with certainty, genetically from other caribou herds (Peary Caribou and Barren-ground Caribou), highlighting the conservation importance of this herd. A coastal survey methodology, originally developed by Nishi (2004), has been used to estimate the DU caribou since 1997 as they physically separate from the Peary caribou in the fall. This methodology is based on hunter observations and Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit of Dolphin and Union Caribou gathering during rut into a narrow band on the southern coastline of Victoria Island.