Mineral deposits
Antarctica’s deposits
Antarctica is known to have mineral deposits, though any sizeable deposits that are easy to reach are rare and even then not economically viable to mine. One of the main problems is the vast covering of moving ice streams and glaciers.
Most of the continent is completely covered in snow and ice, usually hundreds or even thousands of meters thick. This poses two problems - firstly, how do we know exactly is down there without being able to easily (or even with great difficulty) test, and then even if we do know what is down there how do we get it out?
There are other issues with mining for minerals in Antarctica and that is that because it is frozen and has been for millions of years with little or no liquid water flowing, the processes that happen in other parts of the world as a consequence of weathering that concentrate minerals just don't happen in Antarctica. So it can assumed that while Antarctica most likely has minerals in the same quantities as any other comparable part of the earth's crust, they are spread out more thinly making economically viable concentrations rarer than elsewhere.
Coal has been found in two regions in Antarctica - the Transantarctic Mountains and Prince Charles Mountains. One of the Antarctic Treaty nations hired a mining consultant to carry out an economic assessment on potentially mining the Transantarctic Mountains coal. After a brief visit to Antarctica, the conclusion was not to waste money on having an appraisal done.
The coal he found was low quality - high moisture, high ash content - thin and in broken bands. Far better reserves are found elsewhere on earth and they are not yet exploited.
If the Prince Charles Mountains coal was better and had it been close to a major user of the coal, it may have been exploited. However, the distance and difficulty in getting it mean that once again it is not economically viable.
Iron Ore Iron ore is widespread in surface rocks in Antarctica and has been traced deep under the ice. Once again however the fact that it is isolated in Antarctica means that it is not worth getting. In addition, it contains only about 35% iron against other regions outside Antarctica where ores that are less than 60% are considered to not be worth mining as it is so little.
Chromium The Dufek Massif in East Antarctica has been identified as a possible source of chromium, but only theoretically (i.e. no-one has actually seen it). Chromium ores are also plentiful elsewhere on earth even if not currently exploited.
Oil and Gas Dan turns down the main Antarctic thermostat to stop it from melting Rocks in Antarctica have been suggested to contain oil or gas. Even if this was the case (no drilling has taken place to find any) it is unlikely that they could ever be exploited commercially.
Reliable authorities have estimated that it would cost over US$100 per barrel to get oil from Antarctica. Current oil prices per barrel (April 2015) are around $58.
There are over 30 years’ worth of reserves of oil left, possibly even up to 100 years’ worth, so there is no urgency to get Antarctica's oil.
There is also another obstacle, oil shale as a source of oil becomes economically viable at way below the cost of extracting oil from Antarctica and this is a potentially huge source of oil.
Currently practical difficulties and costs of extraction mean that Antarctica is not under immediate threat from mineral exploitation.
Oil Spills Oil spills affect the entire food web, and spills in Polar Regions differ from temperate regions. This makes it particularly important to have measures in place to minimise risk and clean up any spills.
In 1989, an Argentine resupply vessel with tourists on board ran aground on a reef near the US station of Palmer, on the Antarctic Peninsula, spilling about 600,000 litres of fuel - the largest marine oil spill ever to occur in Antarctica. Fortunately the spill was not the catastrophe it was first feared with effects restricted to a few kilometres from the wreck, and only negligible effect on fish, seals and whales. However it serves as a warning. Oil spills can impact on the whole food web. The feathers of oil-coated birds can't hold air or repel water, mammals such as seals die from drowning and freezing and oil toxicity can affect even the tiniest creatures at the bottom of the food chain.
Oil behaves differently at low temperatures: microbes take longer to degrade oil and the oil globules trapped in ice can take years to disperse. Moreover, in the event of a major accident it is unlikely that there would be the local resources to carry out a large-scale clean up.
Ships should use light fuels like diesel that evaporate and disperse much more easily than heavy fuel oils. They should be ice-strengthened and carry sophisticated navigation equipment. All nations operating in the Antarctic should prepare an oil spill contingency plan. Ships' crews should be trained in preventative measures. Measures need to be enacted to make nations legally and financially responsible for damage to the environment.
Oil spills are an increasing form of pollution in Antarctica as a result of increasing shipping activity in the region. While ships often have facilities to contain waste oil and separate oil from water which is then taken out of Antarctica for disposal, an ever greater presence is bound to lead to more accidents which do happen. In recent years there have been a number of groundings of tourist ships in shallow, poorly chartered waters and also accidents involving fishing boats in pursuit of the Patagonian toothfish.
November 2007, holing and subsequent sinking by an iceberg of the M/V Explorer in the Bransfield Strait:
The ship was carrying approximately 178m3 of diesel, 24m3 of lube oil and 1,200 L of gasoline some of which was seen to start leaking out over the following days creating an oil slick. Fortunately for the environment the ship sank in deep water away from land and the typically rough nature of the Southern Ocean meant that the oil was dispersed by wind and wave before it could cause any significant damage.
With the Southern Ocean being so rich in animal life and any clean-up operation being far from land, oil spills are potentially disastrous in Antarctica.
Spill clean-up is impossible There is no proven effective method for containing and cleaning up an oil spill in icy water.
We can't respond quickly to a spill The difficult conditions of the Arctic and its distance from where response capacity is stationed mean it can take days or weeks to respond to a spill, even during ice-free periods.
Spill recovery is slow The Arctic is characterized by a short productive season, low temperatures, and limited sunlight.
As a result, it can take many decades for Arctic regions to recover from habitat disruption, tundra disturbance and oil spills.
Economically and culturally important species are at risk Offshore oil exploration, drilling and production can disturb the fish and animals that are cornerstones of the subsistence and cultural livelihoods of Indigenous peoples in the Arctic. Arctic fisheries, providing both food and economic value far beyond the Arctic, are also at risk.
Loud ocean noises can injure marine mammals Whales and other marine mammals use sound to navigate, find mates, and find food in the often dark waters of the ocean. Seismic noises, like the air gun used by oil and gas companies to explore for oil offshore, can be deafening for these species. Excessive ocean noise from oil and gas exploration and drilling could cause injury, confusion, and even death.
Antarctica’s deposits
Antarctica is known to have mineral deposits, though any sizeable deposits that are easy to reach are rare and even then not economically viable to mine. One of the main problems is the vast covering of moving ice streams and glaciers.
Most of the continent is completely covered in snow and ice, usually hundreds or even thousands of meters thick. This poses two problems - firstly, how do we know exactly is down there without being able to easily (or even with great difficulty) test, and then even if we do know what is down there how do we get it out?
There are other issues with mining for minerals in Antarctica and that is that because it is frozen and has been for millions of years with little or no liquid water flowing, the processes that happen in other parts of the world as a consequence of weathering that concentrate minerals just don't happen in Antarctica. So it can assumed that while Antarctica most likely has minerals in the same quantities as any other comparable part of the earth's crust, they are spread out more thinly making economically viable concentrations rarer than elsewhere.
Coal has been found in two regions in Antarctica - the Transantarctic Mountains and Prince Charles Mountains. One of the Antarctic Treaty nations hired a mining consultant to carry out an economic assessment on potentially mining the Transantarctic Mountains coal. After a brief visit to Antarctica, the conclusion was not to waste money on having an appraisal done.
The coal he found was low quality - high moisture, high ash content - thin and in broken bands. Far better reserves are found elsewhere on earth and they are not yet exploited.
If the Prince Charles Mountains coal was better and had it been close to a major user of the coal, it may have been exploited. However, the distance and difficulty in getting it mean that once again it is not economically viable.
Iron Ore Iron ore is widespread in surface rocks in Antarctica and has been traced deep under the ice. Once again however the fact that it is isolated in Antarctica means that it is not worth getting. In addition, it contains only about 35% iron against other regions outside Antarctica where ores that are less than 60% are considered to not be worth mining as it is so little.
Chromium The Dufek Massif in East Antarctica has been identified as a possible source of chromium, but only theoretically (i.e. no-one has actually seen it). Chromium ores are also plentiful elsewhere on earth even if not currently exploited.
Oil and Gas Dan turns down the main Antarctic thermostat to stop it from melting Rocks in Antarctica have been suggested to contain oil or gas. Even if this was the case (no drilling has taken place to find any) it is unlikely that they could ever be exploited commercially.
Reliable authorities have estimated that it would cost over US$100 per barrel to get oil from Antarctica. Current oil prices per barrel (April 2015) are around $58.
There are over 30 years’ worth of reserves of oil left, possibly even up to 100 years’ worth, so there is no urgency to get Antarctica's oil.
There is also another obstacle, oil shale as a source of oil becomes economically viable at way below the cost of extracting oil from Antarctica and this is a potentially huge source of oil.
Currently practical difficulties and costs of extraction mean that Antarctica is not under immediate threat from mineral exploitation.
Oil Spills Oil spills affect the entire food web, and spills in Polar Regions differ from temperate regions. This makes it particularly important to have measures in place to minimise risk and clean up any spills.
In 1989, an Argentine resupply vessel with tourists on board ran aground on a reef near the US station of Palmer, on the Antarctic Peninsula, spilling about 600,000 litres of fuel - the largest marine oil spill ever to occur in Antarctica. Fortunately the spill was not the catastrophe it was first feared with effects restricted to a few kilometres from the wreck, and only negligible effect on fish, seals and whales. However it serves as a warning. Oil spills can impact on the whole food web. The feathers of oil-coated birds can't hold air or repel water, mammals such as seals die from drowning and freezing and oil toxicity can affect even the tiniest creatures at the bottom of the food chain.
Oil behaves differently at low temperatures: microbes take longer to degrade oil and the oil globules trapped in ice can take years to disperse. Moreover, in the event of a major accident it is unlikely that there would be the local resources to carry out a large-scale clean up.
Ships should use light fuels like diesel that evaporate and disperse much more easily than heavy fuel oils. They should be ice-strengthened and carry sophisticated navigation equipment. All nations operating in the Antarctic should prepare an oil spill contingency plan. Ships' crews should be trained in preventative measures. Measures need to be enacted to make nations legally and financially responsible for damage to the environment.
Oil spills are an increasing form of pollution in Antarctica as a result of increasing shipping activity in the region. While ships often have facilities to contain waste oil and separate oil from water which is then taken out of Antarctica for disposal, an ever greater presence is bound to lead to more accidents which do happen. In recent years there have been a number of groundings of tourist ships in shallow, poorly chartered waters and also accidents involving fishing boats in pursuit of the Patagonian toothfish.
November 2007, holing and subsequent sinking by an iceberg of the M/V Explorer in the Bransfield Strait:
The ship was carrying approximately 178m3 of diesel, 24m3 of lube oil and 1,200 L of gasoline some of which was seen to start leaking out over the following days creating an oil slick. Fortunately for the environment the ship sank in deep water away from land and the typically rough nature of the Southern Ocean meant that the oil was dispersed by wind and wave before it could cause any significant damage.
With the Southern Ocean being so rich in animal life and any clean-up operation being far from land, oil spills are potentially disastrous in Antarctica.
Spill clean-up is impossible There is no proven effective method for containing and cleaning up an oil spill in icy water.
We can't respond quickly to a spill The difficult conditions of the Arctic and its distance from where response capacity is stationed mean it can take days or weeks to respond to a spill, even during ice-free periods.
Spill recovery is slow The Arctic is characterized by a short productive season, low temperatures, and limited sunlight.
As a result, it can take many decades for Arctic regions to recover from habitat disruption, tundra disturbance and oil spills.
Economically and culturally important species are at risk Offshore oil exploration, drilling and production can disturb the fish and animals that are cornerstones of the subsistence and cultural livelihoods of Indigenous peoples in the Arctic. Arctic fisheries, providing both food and economic value far beyond the Arctic, are also at risk.
Loud ocean noises can injure marine mammals Whales and other marine mammals use sound to navigate, find mates, and find food in the often dark waters of the ocean. Seismic noises, like the air gun used by oil and gas companies to explore for oil offshore, can be deafening for these species. Excessive ocean noise from oil and gas exploration and drilling could cause injury, confusion, and even death.
Mawson Base