Arctic Gold: Nations Compete for Control Over Oil, Gas, and Territory in the North

The Arctic Circle, encompassing vast untapped natural resources, new shipping routes and a delicate ecosystem, has increasingly become a hotbed for international concerns. New alliances and rivalries are emerging, driven by the allure of Arctic “gold” and control over vital maritime routes. This evolving landscape brings fresh challenges, with potential conflicts over sovereignty, environmental protection, and resource management shaping the region’s future.

Countries with Arctic coastlines, including Russia, Canada, Denmark (through Greenland), the United States, and Norway, hold territorial rights over the seafloor close to their shores, extending up to 200 nautical miles (370 km). Within these exclusive economic zones (EEZs), nations control access to fish stocks, infrastructure development, and resource extraction, which includes rich deposits of oil and natural gas. However, Arctic nations can claim additional territory beyond these boundaries if they prove their continental shelves extend further.

In particular, Alaska, which is geographically part of the Arctic Circle, has long been known for its oil reserves due to a geological history of ancient seas depositing organic material that transformed into oil and gas over millions of years. This history culminated in the discovery of the Prudhoe Bay oil field in 1968 on Alaska’s North Slope, which remains the largest oil field in North America. The North Slope is rich in resources but also challenging, characterized by tundra and permafrost that complicate extraction efforts. Yet despite the high potential yields, estimating the true quantity of Arctic oil remains difficult. Much of the Arctic’s deep, ice-covered waters are still largely unexplored. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that roughly 13% of the world’s undiscovered oil and 30% of its untapped natural gas could lie within the Arctic. However, these resources come with high costs and technical difficulties, deterring many oil companies from investing in Arctic exploration. Compared to other global reserves, the Arctic’s yield may be relatively modest, but ongoing interest persists as Arctic ice recedes, exposing more accessible drilling areas.

A major area of contention in the Arctic is the Lomonosov Ridge, a 1,070-mile (1,721 km) underwater mountain chain that spans the North Pole. Canada, Russia, and Greenland each assert that this ridge is a natural extension of their respective landmasses, and thus, falls within their territorial rights. Control over the Lomonosov Ridge would give the successful claimant rights over approximately 55,000 square miles of sea around the North Pole. The stakes are high, as the U.S. Geological Survey estimates the Arctic may hold 160 billion barrels of oil and about 30% of the world’s untapped natural gas reserves. This ongoing dispute intensified in 2007 when Russian explorers made headlines by planting their national flag on the seabed beneath the North Pole, signaling their intent to solidify Arctic claims. The move alarmed Arctic neighbors, sparking concern over escalating competition for control of the region’s valuable resources. The Arctic, often seen as one of the planet’s last frontiers, holds considerable appeal for countries like Russia and the United States, both of which have been involved in Arctic resource extraction for years.

Global warming has opened new possibilities for Arctic drilling, as the ice caps continue to thin and retreat. This melting ice eases drilling operations and opens previously unreachable areas for exploration. Nonetheless, the environmental costs are significant, as Arctic drilling threatens fragile ecosystems already under strain from warming temperatures.

Unlike the Antarctic, where an international treaty prohibits economic exploitation, no such protection exists for the Arctic. This absence of regulatory oversight has allowed Russia, the U.S., and other Arctic nations to pursue resource extraction relatively unchecked. Russian oil companies, for example, have been active in Arctic drilling for over a decade. However, environmental incidents such as the massive oil spill in the Russian Arctic two years ago underscore the potential dangers of such activities in the region.

The U.S. has also faced challenges with Arctic oil extraction, particularly after the Exxon Valdez spill of 1989, which released 11 million gallons of crude oil into Alaska’s Prince William Sound. The disaster, one of the worst oil spills in history, served as a stark reminder of the risks involved in Arctic drilling. Despite this, recent proposals suggest the U.S. may soon expand drilling opportunities in northern Alaska. These proposals have sparked debate among environmental advocates, policymakers, and energy companies weighing the benefits of accessing these resources against the risk of further ecological damage.

Arctic Ambitions: An Overview of National Strategies and Emerging Policies in the North

The Danish Arctic Strategy, launched in 2011 for the period until 2020, draws on the principles of the 2008 Ilulissat Declaration. This declaration emphasizes that decisions regarding Arctic territorial claims should be grounded in scientific and geological evidence as well as international law. It signals to non-Arctic countries that issues related to Arctic territorial division are reserved solely for Arctic states. The 2011 Danish strategy was a marked shift, highlighting a broader Danish interest in the Arctic, beyond its previous focus on Greenland alone.

The Ilulissat Declaration has shaped how Arctic states approach the region, especially among Arctic Council members (Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United States). Founded in 1996, the Council concentrates on environmental preservation and sustainable development, leaving out security, defense, and trade issues. Its decisions are made by consensus, ensuring that no single country can impose its policies on others, acknowledging the varying strengths and resources among Arctic states.

Each Arctic country has devised its own strategy over the past decade. Norway set the stage in 2006, followed by Russia in 2008, Canada in 2009, Finland in 2010, and others in subsequent years. Russia, for example, developed a plan in 2008 that envisions the Arctic as a vital resource base and aims to maintain it as a zone of peace and cooperation. A later decree in 2020 extended this vision through 2035, detailing a three-stage implementation plan focused on social, economic, environmental, and security developments.

Norway’s Arctic approach emphasizes ideological and cooperative development with a unique focus on collaboration, especially with Russia. This is evident in educational scholarships and research programs between the two countries. Canada, meanwhile, frames its Arctic strategy as integral to its national identity, emphasizing its longstanding ties to the North. The Canadian Northern Strategy of 2009 aims to solidify Canada’s leadership in the Arctic through sustainable development, governance, and environmental preservation.

In the U.S., the Arctic Policy Directive of 2009 outlines a robust stance on national security interests in the Arctic, focusing on missile defense, maritime security, and freedom of navigation. In 2019, the U.S. Department of Defense updated its Arctic strategy to reflect evolving geopolitical dynamics, particularly security concerns related to Russia and China.

The evolving Arctic policies reflect an expanding interest in the region’s resources, security concerns, and environmental responsibilities. The Arctic’s strategic importance continues to grow, compelling each nation to define its role in this frontier.

Global Stakeholders in the Arctic: Competing Interests and Strategic Alliances

Geostrategically, states with Arctic interests are generally grouped into three categories, each vying for influence within international forums. The first group, known as the “Arctic Five,” includes the coastal Arctic states: Russia, Canada, the United States, Denmark, and Norway. These five countries first met in 1973, leading to an agreement on polar bear conservation. In recent years, this informal alliance has become more active due to climate change, rising economic interest from non-Arctic states, and disputes over territorial claims since the mid-2000s. Arctic governance, however, operates less as a hierarchy and more like a network with the Arctic Council at the center. On three key occasions—at Ilulissat, Chelsea (Canada, 2010), and Oslo (Norway, 2015)—the Arctic Five have presented a united stance, especially on matters impacting security and their collective interests.

Within the Arctic Five, the United States, Denmark, Canada, and Norway are NATO members, heightening the risk of military tension between NATO and Russia in the region. Strategic documents from Canada, Russia, the United States, and Norway outline a shared vision for Arctic policy. Common objectives include: (1) recognizing the Arctic’s strategic importance globally, (2) reinforcing sovereignty in their respective Arctic zones, (3) fostering economic, social, and environmental development, and (4) ensuring a military presence through specialized Arctic land and sea forces, new bases, and enhanced border security.

The second group consists of subarctic states—namely Iceland, Finland, and Sweden—which, while lacking direct access to the Arctic Ocean, are members of the Arctic Council. Although these nations have no legal rights to the Arctic shelf, they aim to enhance their status and influence within the Council’s framework.

The third group, comprised of non-Arctic states (Brazil, India, China, Singapore, South Korea,

Japan, EU countries, etc.), poses a challenge for Arctic nations. Countries from Asia and the European Union are increasingly interested in Arctic affairs, driven by environmental, economic, and trade concerns, seeking a meaningful role in regional decision-making without undermining Arctic nations’ control.

Geopolitical Shifts in the Arctic: Climate Change, New Shipping Routes, and Emerging Tensions

The effects of climate change have made the Arctic more accessible, creating new shipping lanes like the Northern Sea Route (NSR) and Northwest Passage (NWP) and spurring interest in developing ports, particularly by Russia. Once a region marked by cooperation and low tension, the Arctic is now viewed as an area of geopolitical rivalry among the U.S., China, and Russia, according to a U.S. Congressional Research Service report. This competition involves questions of sovereignty, military security, and economic interests, particularly around control of these routes and resource extraction.

The NSR, claimed by Russia as within its territorial waters, is supported by China, which collaborates with Russia to develop the route as an alternative for global shipping. This partnership has raised concerns in the U.S. about growing Sino-Russian influence in the Arctic. Similarly, Canada claims the NWP, while the U.S. and EU view it as an international strait, sparking sovereignty disputes.

Additionally, Russia’s establishment of new Arctic ports signals its strategic and commercial ambitions, drawing U.S. comparisons to Chinese activities in the South China Sea. This expansion reflects Russia’s commitment to securing its Arctic interests but also increases regional military presence.

With increased traffic and resource interest, concerns about sovereignty, transnational crime, and regional security are intensifying. Russia and Canada may need stricter border control, which could heighten military involvement and, potentially, geopolitical tensions. Although rapid changes are occurring, states still have time to adopt coordinated, strategic policies to address Arctic governance without rushing into conflict.

As the Arctic becomes more accessible, the competition for control and access to its resources will likely intensify, with significant geopolitical implications. This rivalry among Arctic nations could reshape global energy markets, especially as traditional oil and gas reserves become scarcer. With so much at stake, international negotiations and environmental concerns will play critical roles in determining the future of this rapidly changing region. For now, the Arctic remains a battleground for national interests, a frontier for untapped resources, and a focal point for urgent environmental challenges.