Order 928611: contemporary port topic

Creesy 1

Port Project 2

United States Deep Draft Arctic Port

Eleonor Creesy

MARA 416

Instructor: Mike Donelan

April 21, 2015

Aggie Honor Code Statement: An Aggie does not lie, cheat or steal, or tolerate those who do.

_______________________________________

Creesy 2

Abstract

Melting ice “in the Arctic region has increased the possibilities of resource extraction

and commercial transit accessibility” (Pegna, 2013). The United States has fallen behind in

developing this area by not allocation resources and by not ratifying the United Nations

Convention of the Law of the Sea. The United States needs to be competitive in this region

and maintain the same level of investment of other countries, such as Russia. One way that

the United States could move forward in Arctic development is by building a deep draft

Arctic port.

Background

The causes of global warming have been fiercely debated. However, there is no

denying that the polar ice caps are melting at a significant rate. In fact, the “polar ice cap is

25% smaller today than it was in 1978” (Walter, 2012). Shipping routes that would close

during certain months due to ice can stay open for a longer period of time. In 2007, “for the

first time in recorded history, both the Northwest Passage (NWP) and Northern Sea Route

(NSR) were simultaneously ice-free” (2012). The warming of the polar ice caps has shown

no signs of slowing or ending. “If the current rate of warming continues the Arctic may be

completely ice-free year-round as early as 2030” (2012).

These routes are not often used due to risk of getting stuck in the ice. As everyone in

shipping knows, a delay could prove very costly for both the shipper and the ship owner. Few

ships take the risk now. However, as the ice continues to melt, these routes will become more

feasible and more ships will be seen in the area. Capital investment in ice breakers should be

Creesy 3

made and a deep draft Arctic port in the United States should be the focus of expansion into

the Arctic market.

http://gcaptain.com/thin-ice-u-s-capability-lacking/

UN Convention Law of the Sea

The melting ice cap will allow countries that have arctic claims to seek new economic

opportunities. As the countries move forward and seek to expand their reach into Arctic

waters, the United States has run into one major problem. “Extended continental shelf (ECS)

claims and territorial disputes fall under the guidance established in the UN Convention on

Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which the U.S. has signed but not ratified. Since it is not a

member of the treaty, the U.S. cannot submit an ECS claim under Article 76 of the

convention, as other Arctic states are doing” (Walter, 2012). Arctic states have been claiming

Creesy 4

rights and ratification of the treaty has left the United States out of this group. “Once a state

has ratified UNCLOS, the state has ten years to establish the limits and boundary of the

country's extended continental shelf to be eligible to receive the benefits of the territory and

its resources within the labeled boundary” (Pegna, 2013). Since the United States has not

ratified this treaty, it cannot claim any territory or resources. Companies have been unwilling

to spend the capital to explore possibilities in the Arctic because property rights cannot be

protected without acceding the treaty.

Current Developments

While the United States has largely left the Arctic area undeveloped, “Russia has

jumped on the possibilities of Arctic shipping, providing icebreakers, improving charts,

developing search-and-rescue capabilities, and even charging tolls for passage through its

waters. Canada has proceeded more cautiously. Last year, Canada logged 22 voyages

through the Northwest Passage” (Booney, 2014). NOAA has incomplete charts in the Arctic

region. Although several expeditions have been made, they are years apart and only occur

when the budget allows. It is not seen as a priority at this time. Other Arctic nations are

gaining valuable knowledge now. The United States is falling behind in this area.

US Army Corps of Engineers

Early in 2011, the US Army Corps of Engineers and local governments of Alaska met

to discuss the possibility of creating a deep draft Arctic port. “The goal of the meeting was to

start the process of joint planning for U.S. Arctic ports in Alaska, responding to the

opportunity of study funding through the state of Alaska” (USACE, 2013). Several existing

ports were researched. “It was determined that by using an independent tool for the port

Creesy 5

site(s) selection would lend credibility to the site selection process. The Multi-Criteria

Decision Analysis (MCDA) tool developed by the Institute of Water Resources as part of the

IWR-Planning suite is available to the public without charge and was determined the best

tool for use with this evaluation” (2013). Several criteria were utilized in the assessment and

rated on a scale of 0 to 5. 5 was “very good” and 0 was very little “potential”. The included

criteria were port proximity, intermodal connections, upland support, existing water depth,

and navigation accessibility. In 2013, the Nome, Alaska was announced as the most practical

location for a deep draft Arctic port. Cost is the only hindrance in the plan. The city of Nome

would have to pay and “estimated $113 million dollars for the project while the US Army

Corps of Engineers would pay for $98 million dollars. The total cost for the project is $211

million dollars” (2013).

Source: ©Google Earth 2013. Citations added by USACE

Creesy 6

Conclusion

There has been a decline in Arctic shipping in the last two years. “The decline in

2014 was partly caused by the weather: less sea ice melted last summer than in 2013, so the

route was more dangerous” (TROMSO, 2015). The United States needs to take a long term

approach to the Arctic. “The Arctic contains vast amounts of energy which could become

accessible as the world warms and the ice retreats in summer” (2015). Other countries are

making significant investments and securing rights for their companies. The United States

should do the same. A deep draft Arctic port is a great example of how money can be utilized

to help not only Alaska but the rest of the hinterland and increase United States sovereignty

in the Arctic.

Creesy 7

References

Bonney, J. 2014. Arctic passage for ships: slow going. Journal of Commerce. Retrieved

from http://www.joc.com/maritime-news/international-freight-shipping/arctic-

passage-ships-slow-going_20140820.html

Dlouhy, J. 2015. U.S. must invest in Arctic, Senate panel told. Fuel Fix. Retrieved from

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2015/03/05/u-s-must-invest-in-arctic-senate-panel-told/

TROMSO. 2015. The Arctic: not so cool. The Economist. Retrieved from

http://www.economist.com/news/international/21641240-hype-over-arctic-recedes-

along-summer-ice-not-so-cool.

Pegna, M. R. 2013. "U.S. Arctic Policy: The Need to Ratify a Modified UNCLOS and

Secure a Military Presence in the Arctic." Journal of Maritime Law & Commerce.

44, no. 2: 169-194.

USACE. 2013. “Alaska deep draft Arctic ports study.” US Army Core of Engineers.

http://www.poa.usace.army.mil/Library/ReportsandStudies/AlaskaRegionalPortsStu

dy.aspx

Walter, E. J. 2012. On thin ice: U.S. capability lacking in the race for the Arctic. gCaptain.

http://gcaptain.com/thin-ice-u-s-capability-lacking/