The European Union found a way to the North bypassing the Arctic Council and now intends to seriously and permanently settle in the region
Brussels claims its right to dictate new conditions for the Arctic
The European Union considers itself a full-fledged player in the Arctic and wants to actively participate in the development of rules for this region. This conclusion follows from the EU strategy for the Arctic, promulgated by the European Commission. The first requirement of Brussels is a complete ban on the extraction of coal, oil and gas in the Arctic and neighboring regions. In Russia, the EU's claims to the Arctic are rejected. According to Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak, the new demand of the European Union “is not motivated by anything, except for political reasons.” And one of Kommersant's sources in the state structures of the Russian Federation said that the EU “decided to try on the role of an elephant in a china shop.”
“The European Union is in the Arctic”
The European Union is fundamentally changing its approach to the Arctic. Since 2008, Brussels has been trying to obtain at least observer status in the Arctic Council – an organization uniting eight circumpolar states (Denmark, Iceland, Canada, Norway, Russia, USA, Finland and Sweden). This structure is sometimes called the “shadow government of the Arctic”, since its members have been trying for 25 years to resolve key issues in the region among themselves, not allowing non-regional players there.
The Arctic Council has observers (countries and organizations), but their rights are severely limited. However, the European Union cannot even get this status. Until 2014, due to the veto of Canada, outraged by the ban imposed by Brussels on the import of meat and fur of seals – the traditional trade of the indigenous peoples of the Arctic. And after 2014 – because of the objections of Russia, which thus responds to the sanctions imposed by Brussels against it.
In the Arctic Council, decisions are made by consensus. Three member states of the EU (Denmark, Finland, Sweden) are lobbying for the request of Brussels, but to no avail. And although even states as far from the Arctic as Singapore and South Korea have observer status, it does not seem to shine for the European Union in the coming years. It seems that Brussels also realized this, and therefore decided to simply declare that the European Union is already an important player in the Arctic, whose position from now on everyone else will have to reckon with. This is what the European Commission document says: “The European Union is in the Arctic. As an influential geopolitical actor, the EU has strategic and day-to-day interests in both the European Arctic and the wider Arctic region. Full EU participation in Arctic issues is a geopolitical necessity. ” For those who do not understand, the last phrase in the document is highlighted in bold.
The change in approach saves the European Union from having to negotiate with Russia on the issue of observer status in the Arctic Council. Moreover, he does not need to take on the key obligation of observers – to respect the sovereign rights of the eight circumpolar states to decide the fate of the Arctic. Although the EU strategy says that Brussels will continue to seek observer status in the Arctic Council, the very essence of this document boils down to the fact that the European Union considers itself entitled not only to observe the processes in the Arctic, but to dictate its own conditions to this region.
The European Commission wants to see the Arctic “safe, stable, sustainable, peaceful and prosperous.” The strategy identifies several key threats to the region, including “a sharp increase in military activity.” Further, it is explained who is the main troublemaker here – the Russian Federation. The document says about “Russia's building up of its military power in the Arctic” and about “aggressiveness in Arctic waters and airspace.” This, as follows from the document, worries not only the EU, but also NATO. The EU is also suspicious of China's growing interest in the Arctic.
However, the intention to get involved in a military rivalry for the Arctic with Russia is out of the question (NATO is doing this). The EU countries intend to continue to cooperate more actively in such areas as strategic forecasting, geospatial analysis, incident prevention, search and rescue operations and building emergency response capacity.
But the main threat that the Arctic Circle faces, as stated in the document, is climate change. The fight for the environment is the basis on which the European Union declares itself a full-fledged player in the region. The document says that “the EU has a significant impact on the Arctic due to its environmental impact and the demand for resources and products derived from it.” The strategy refers to a whole set of measures that Brussels intends to use to combat “the main sources of pollution in the Arctic regions in the air, on land and at sea, such as plastic / marine debris, soot, chemicals and transport emissions, as well as the unsustainable exploitation of natural resources. “.
The last point is especially important for Russia. The document specifies: “The European Commission will work with partners on a multilateral legal obligation not to allow further development of hydrocarbon reserves in the Arctic or neighboring regions, as well as not to acquire such hydrocarbons if they are produced.” In other words, we are talking about plans to achieve a global ban on the production of oil, coal and gas in the Arctic.
“An elephant in a china shop”
According to available estimates, potential oil reserves in the Arctic reach 90 billion barrels, gas – 47.261 trillion cubic meters. m, gas condensate – 44 billion barrels (data from the report of the US Geological Survey). The largest total reserves are in the West Siberian basin, the Arctic shelf of Alaska and the eastern part of the Barents Sea.
Most of the northern energy projects have been launched in the last decade. Among them are the Vankor field (launched in 2009), the Bovanenkovskoye gas field and the Bovanenkovo-Ukhta pipeline (in 2012). Later, the Prirazlomnoye and Novoportovskoye, Vostochno-Messoyakhskoye and Paiyakhskoye fields were launched; in 2017, the Yamal LNG projects, the Zapolyarye-Purpe oil pipeline and the second Bovanenkovo-Ukhta pipeline were launched.
New projects being developed in permafrost regions include NOVATEK's Arctic LNG-2 project; in the longer term, the Tambeyskoye field will be developed. In addition, the Russian Federation is developing transportation along the Northern Sea Route, which connects Europe and Asia through the Arctic seas. The most ambitious plans for oil production in the Arctic are announced by Rosneft and Gazprom Neft. For example, oil companies are conducting exploration in areas of the Arctic shelf, but its development under the conditions of Western sanctions, which complicated the search for partners and access to technologies, has an extremely uncertain prospect. The only field on the Arctic shelf is being developed by Gazprom Neft (Prirazlomnoye).
The most ambitious onshore export-oriented project in this region, which is not subject to sanctions, is Vostok Oil in the Krasnoyarsk Territory, where Rosneft hopes to produce 30 million tons by 2024, that is, just under 40% of the planned cargo turnover along the Northern Sea paths. In addition, if the EU requirements for Arctic drilling are ultimatum, then first of all it will complicate the attraction of foreign investments and technologies. Thus, Rosneft hopes to find financial partners in Vostok Oil, while Gazprom Neft tried to involve Shell in its Arctic production projects. According to Vygon Consulting, the Arctic produces more than 15% of oil and 20% of gas from the total production in the Russian Federation.
Dmitry Akishin from Vygon Consulting believes that the implementation of drastic measures can lead to unpredictable consequences, such as, for example, the energy crisis of the last month, so it is more expedient to make informed decisions. “In this case, this is a common effort to decarbonize production in the Arctic. To do this, the Arctic countries need to jointly develop a set of measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the introduction of the best available technologies and industry practices, as well as the creation of incentive tools for such projects, “he told Kommersant.
Sergey Kapitonov, gas analyst at the Skolkovo Moscow School of Management Energy Center, noted: “The EU proposal is not something new: at one time, discussions about the feasibility of developing water areas for oil and gas arose around such projects in Iceland, Greenland, the Lofoten Islands, Yan Island -Mayenne, Svalbard “. “Objectively, it is difficult to imagine a situation in which the EU could adopt some kind of sanctions against oil and gas projects in Norway, Canada, Russia and the United States, especially if they meet the ESG criteria,” said Mr. Kapitonov. there are even fewer questions, because gas is not only a fossil resource in the Arctic, but can also play a critical role in decarbonizing vulnerable ecosystems, in particular in the field of autonomous generation based on LNG and LNG as marine fuel. “
On the eve of Russian Energy Week, Russian President Vladimir Putin was asked whether the Russian economy could suffer from the ban mentioned in the EU strategy. He did not dramatize the situation: “If such decisions lead to certain price spikes, then in general it will not suffer so much, because we will reduce production, but at prices we will get everything we hoped for.”
Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak confessed in an interview with CNBC: “I was very surprised when I heard about this (the content of the EU strategy – Kommersant ). Why exactly in the Arctic, why, for example, not in Imatra (in Finland – “b” ), there are many places on the planet where it is possible to ban the extraction of oil and gas. Not motivated by anything, except for political reasons. “
In general, Kommersant's interlocutors in the RF government agencies are critical of the EU's claims to the Arctic. “It cannot but be alarming when the European Union, which is not also an observer of the Arctic Council, suddenly began to try on the role of an elephant in a china shop, indicating an appetite to engage in the arrangement of the Arctic landscape – this requires the appropriate competencies and knowledge of the region,” One of them said. According to him, attempts to restrict or prohibit the purchase of products from any other regions for political reasons (“otherwise it’s difficult to name the plans of the European Union”) may not only cost dearly for the Europeans themselves (“the current situation on the EU energy market demonstrates all the dangers ill-considered decisions ”), but will also negatively affect the inhabitants of the Arctic, including indigenous peoples, for whom investment and economic activity are important.
“To make a sustainable transition to a climate-neutral perspective without shocks like those currently observed in the European energy market, as well as to fulfill the goals and objectives of the 2015 Paris Agreement, natural gas will be needed,” the source insists. And he adds: gas is needed, for example, for “the production of hydrogen fuel, as well as ammonia and methanol necessary for green shipping.” “This will require the appropriate hydrocarbons, which the Arctic region is rich in,” he explains.
Another official, who spoke to Kommersant on condition of anonymity, drew attention to the fact that the military-political situation in the region “is clearly assessed from a pro-NATO angle.” According to him, “references to partnership with NATO in the document only increase the suspicion and rejection of this document.” “It's good that even at the very end of the document,“ people living in the Arctic ”are not forgotten. Only now, the Russians, including indigenous peoples, did not at all become the beneficiaries of the decision of the EU countries in 2014 (against the background of the conflict over Ukraine. – “Kommersant” ) to freeze the credit lines of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development in Russia, which are extremely important for sustainable development, – continued the interlocutor of Kommersant. “This is another example of an EU-centric document that does not improve the prospects for cooperation between Russia and the European Union in the Arctic.”
Elena Chernenko, Tatiana Dyatel, Dmitry Kozlov
Read also:
