Payday Loans

Research Topics

Actors and patterns of cooperation and conflict
Russia, Norway and the High North - Past, Present, Future
The United States in the 21 Century Arctic
Defining an Interest: The European Union and the High North
The Power of Energy
Law of the Sea and Ocean Governance
Climate Change and Environmental Protection

Russia, Norway and the High North - past, present, future


Expert comment: The decision to postpone the development of the natural gas field Shtokman may be interpreted as an indication of reduced interest in Arctic hydrocarbons due to changes in the gas market. Were the assessments of the Arctic petroleum potential exaggerated?


By Harald H. Eie, Research Fellow at the Norwegian Institute for Defence Studies and participant in GeoPolitics in the High North programme. (8 February 2010).


In a meeting Friday 5 February, the partners of Shtokman Development AG decided to push the development of the giant Shtokman natural gas field, situated in the Barents Sea. From a technical point of view, the three year postponement was not surprising. Previous plans envisaging the field to be operational in 2013-2014 have been deemed unrealistic by most commentators. One of the official reasons, however, was changes in the gas market. These changes could have far-reaching consequences for the prospects of Arctic petroleum developments.


The US Geological Survey has estimated the Arctic as very promising,  harbouring approximately 22 per cent of the world’s undiscovered petroleum resources of which the lion's share is natural gas located off shore. Although the survey contains a lot of uncertainties, it has spurred much attention to the Arctic.


However, in the US, new production techniques have facilitated the production of shale gas, a source previously considered technically inaccessible and economically unviable to extract from. US shale gas reserves are enormous, potentially allowing the country to be self-supplied with natural gas for decades to come. Furthermore, there are shale gas reserves in Europe as well, which could help compensate for the declining European production of conventional natural gas.


This does not bode well for Shtokman’s future, given that about half of the field’s gas has been planned to supply the US market. In the long term, Russia needs to renew its production base, and is currently doing so in part by developing the Yamal Peninsula. But European and Russian demand has shrunk due to the economic downturn, thereby making the need for new field developments less urgent. In sum, there seems to be no persuasive economic grounds for Shtokman in the shorter term.


The development of shale gas production could also have an impact on the overall prospects of Arctic natural gas production in the longer term. Overall, the Shtokman has been regarded as one of the more feasible off shore projects in the region. Given the harsh climate conditions, distance from markets and lack of existing transport infrastructure, natural gas production in the Arctic is expensive and technologically challenging. In order to be economically viable, Shtokman depends on a high and stable gas price.


The current price level and ongoing development of shale gas production could render the Arctic less appealing. Perhaps our understanding of the Arctic's future energy potential needs to be reassessed.


©2014-2017 Geopolitics in the High North. All rights reserved

Norwegian Institute for defence Studies CSIS Fritjof Nansen Institute Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik University of Tromsø Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) of the MFA of Russia University of Oslo Institute of general history Norwegian Defence Research Establishment Econ Pöyry
  The GeoPolitics in the High North research programme is now terminated, and the programme website will be preserved through 2016, but not updated.
Do you have any questions? Please contact us:
For more information about current IFS research on the High North, please visit our website:

Made by Rebirth Media