Antarctic Treaty Talks Break Down As Scientists Debate Impact Of Mining

Six months ago the Antarctic Minerals Convention seemed assured of passage. The treaty, eight years in the making, proposed strict—and some say neatly impossible—environmental standards for oil and mineral prospecting in the Antarctic. But today many observers believe the measure is as good as dead. Australia, France, and several other countries have withdrawn their support of the pact under pressure from environmentalists, who fear that if a mechanism—no matter how rigorous—is created to allow mining, then mining will inevitably take place. The dissident nations now call for a total ban on mining and the conversion of the continent into a “wilderness park,” with a perpetual moratorium on mining or drilling for oil. In Paris last month, at the annual meeting of the 22 nations that set Antarctic policy, supporters and opponents of the mining convention clashed early and often without resolving the issue. Underneath the political debate lay an important scientific issue. Making the Antarctic a wilderness park, although it would enhance its environmental future, could unintentionally restrict scientific research as well. The Antarctic, as an unmatched environmental laboratory, is the site for unique work in biology, climatology, geology, and many other disciplines. But that science comes at a price, namely, increased knowledge of a once-inaccessible continent— knowledge that may include the discovery of large oil or mineral stores. For many scientists, the treaty raises the troubling question of whether it is possible to conduct research without opening the door to commercial exploitation of the continent. Under the original Antarctic Treaty signed in 1959, 12 nations agreed to jointly manage the region. Antarctica, they agreed, was to be a continent dedicated to scientific research, a unique “world background” against which to gauge humanity’s impact on the planet. Exploration, drilling, and mining—no matter how environmentally sensitive—would no doubt ruin portions of the continent for the scientists whose work depends on that purity. The treaty did not, however, establish guidelines for oil or minerals development. Until Australia and France pulled out, most parties believed the proposed Minerals Convention would finally fill that gap. Now, without a consensus, the treaty members are examining the Australian and French alternative. The wilderness park proposal means a complete ban on drilling, mining, and “prospecting" for minerals or oil. But some scientists, while agreeing with the overall goal of preserving Antarctica, worry that such a ban could also make it impossible for climatologists to take deep ice samples and for geologists to investigate the continent’s underlying rock structure. “There’s a fine line between basic research and prospecting,” notes National Science Foundation polar programs director Peter Wilkness. That line is crossed when seismic data acquired for geologic research are used by resource-hungry nations to mount efforts to exploit potential oil reserves and ore deposits. At the same time, any regulations forbidding oil and mineral exploration would likely dampen geologic research as well. No one knows if Antarctica has any useful petroleum or mineral deposits at all. And even if such sources were to be discovered, developing them would be a Herculean task. A new report by the congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) notes that 98% of the continent is covered by an ice sheet that, on average, is more than a mile deep. Such a frozen cover effectively rules out most current mining and drilling technologies. But technology doesn’t stand still. “Although little is currently known about Antarctica’s mineral resources, and no mineral resources have been discovered yet,” the report warns, “the potential that a discovery may be made is increasing.,, If world oil prices double, the report speculates, the discovery of a large enough oil reserve might make it economically worthwhile for a company to drill on the continent or off its shores. That possibility is behind the fight to dismantle a treaty cobbled together over eight years of hard negotiations. Opponents to the Minerals Convention believe that any crack in the door could result in the eventual destruction of Antarctica as a scientific preserve. “If we can’t draw the line at the Antarctic, where will we draw the line?” asks James Barnes, senior attorney for the Environmental Policy Institute. Any mechanism for legal mining, he says, will inevitably be used. “We believe that the minerals agreement leads inexorably down the path to mining,” he says. Supporters of the minerals accord, however, see the allure of potential mining as a boon, not a threat, to preservation of the fragile continent. Without an indigenous population, Antarctica must depend on the protection of a close-knit and powerful group of curator nations. And the fact that many of them have staked a claim in the region, in part for potential mineral rights, should prevent any one country from exploiting the situation, say advocates of the treaty. “Every law is only as good as the enforcement behind it,” says Paul Berkman, a biologist at Ohio State’s Byrd Polar Research Center. “And without self-interest, there's less incentive for enforcement.” The supporters say it would be a mistake to leave Antarctica without comprehensive rules regulating exploitation. “If a major minerals discovery is made in the absence of an international agreement about Antarctic minerals, an unregulated ‘gold rush’ could follow,” warns the OTA report, which endorses ratification of the treaty consensus for it. Such a new agreement, acknowledge proponents of stricter protections, is essential for the preservation of Antarctica. “If they continue to oppose the convention, then, fine, it’s dead. But they have to move on,” says Lee Kimball, director of the World Resource Institute’s Antarctic Program. In the meantime, Antarctica’s winter of discontent is likely to continue.

Antarctic Treaty Talks Break Down As Scientists Debate Impact Of Mining

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of