Global scenarios of cooperation in the Arctic against the backdrop of the development of the global economy and energy

3.3. Global scenarios of cooperation in the Arctic against the backdrop of the

extremely important to guarantee that a negative scenario, that is, the absence of future environmental disasters in the region, will become unlikely.

Further, the state of multilateral relations between the Arctic countries and the influence of incoming factors on them become a significant factor. An important role is played by both the UN and the Arctic Council. For the adequate development of relations in the region, it is necessary that the influence of the general state of international relations does not radically affect the situation in the region. There was a precedent when Canada used its chairmanship in the Arctic Council to pursue an anti-Russian line because of the Ukrainian crisis. Obviously, such a position will be destructive even if it appears in the future.

Another factor is the state of bilateral relations between the Arctic countries. There are only five of them, and the vast majority of intersections of interests between them can be resolved by gradually converging positions, as is the case between Russia and Norway on some issues. However, some positive developments should be noted, for example the agreement between the two countries on the joint development of natural resources located on both sides of the dividing line in the Arctic shelf. The weak point now and in the near future will probably be the position of the United States, which, for internal political reasons, has not yet signed and ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. In addition, Washington has the least favorable territorial prospects in the Arctic, which entails its special position on key issues of action in the region. Another thing is that the largest American companies can be invited to cooperate in the sectors of the Arctic, to which the exclusive economic zone of other Arctic states extends or will extend.

The bilateral relations of individual Arctic and non-Arctic countries are also important in predicting the future of the region. China, India, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam and some other countries are showing increasing attention to the region. It can be assumed that over time their number will increase, and all of them will try to use their voice on the influence and balance of power in the Arctic region.

The ability to change the rules of the game in the Arctic can play a certain role. This may affect both the efforts of the United States, not interested in the current situation, and the actions of international organizations, including the UN. We can also assume the impact on the situation of non-Arctic countries that are interested in access to the region’s resources.

Finally, it is obvious that in the nearest future the development of the Arctic resources is impossible. The problem is the profitability of the projects, their technical complexity, unresolved issues of legal access to a certain part of the fields. This thesis has already been proved by Shell's decision to “freeze” work on the shelf of the Chukchi Sea. And for an indefinite period the entire oil exploration program off the coast of Alaska has been

discontinued. Refusal from drilling can be caused both by the results of drilling and by pressure from environmentalists.

The abovementioned statementsare based on the announcements on the postponement of the start of hydrocarbon production at eight fields of Rosneft and five - Gazpromneft. The start of production at Dolginsky, the largest offshore field in the Pechora Sea, was postponed by the decision of Rosnedra until 2031.

These general decisions of the largest oil and gas companies were taken for three main reasons. Firstly, the point is that only by preliminary estimates, the cost of oil production on the Arctic shelf of Russia will be at least $ 100 per barrel, which is excessively high for the current level of oil prices on international markets. Secondly, both Shell and Gazpromneft allude to problems with exploration. In particular, the Russian company noted the low quality of the performed seismic surveys and the need to adjust the substandard existing geological model.

Shell has its own reasons for delaying intelligence in the Arctic. Thirdly, the risk of environmental disasters in the event of an accident is too great not to postpone any active actions.

Possible scenarios for the development of relations in the Arctic can be conditionally divided into three groups: optimistic, pessimistic, and intermediate. However, it should be noted that a group of scenarios is also highlighted separately, the development of events for which is unpredictable. In other words the impact of factors that currently do not exist (or exist exclusively potentially) and which cannot be previously calculated due to too wide a fan of opportunities. An unexpected breakthrough in the development of hydrogen energy can dramatically, albeit temporarily, change the attitude towards Arctic resources for a foreseeable period of time. There are many such examples. To calculate their impact on international relations in the Arctic region at the moment seems utopian.

In all cases medium-term scenarios are described. Every scenario is based on the assumption that in the foreseeable future the world economy will grow and the price of oil and gas will rise. Otherwise, scenario analysis will be virtually unnecessary, as interest in the region will drop sharply, and international relations in the Arctic will become predictable. In addition, it should be borne in mind that short-term forecasts will inevitably become conservative at the present time, and long-term forecasts are simply impossible, since they are not calculated now due to the unpredictability of some key variables.

The optimistic scenario suggests that international relations in the Arctic will develop in a positive way in the vast majority of their aspects. This scenario takes into account that the world community is rallying around a common fight against international terrorism and Covid-19 in general. Problems in relations between the powers remain, but they fade into the background.

The West is turning a blind eye to the Crimean problem; relative calm has been achieved in eastern Ukraine. Russia will neutralize attempts at isolation, although the issue of sanctions remains relevant.

The moderate growth of the global economy, despite periodic crises, leads to a gradual increase in hydrocarbon prices in world markets. Shale oil and gas are again becoming profitable. However, interest in the Arctic and in these conditions remains unchanged. It is about the future, and all members of the international community understand this.

Satisfactory overall decisions to expand exclusive economic zones in the Arctic have been taken by the UN in all countries except the United States, which have not yet submitted their application. However, the country is conducting vigorous research that could form the basis of such a proposal if the balance of power in the Senate changes, which would allow the United States to sign and ratify the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Russia and other Arctic countries are beginning to search for partners for the development of the Arctic shelf. To overcome problems, funds and new technologies are needed.

Interest in new opportunities within the exclusive economic zones of the Arctic states is mainly shown by American oil and gas companies. At the same time, interest from China, India, Japan, South Korea and other states is growing. They are joined by the largest countries in Latin America - Brazil, Argentina, Mexico. Russia is showing a restrained interest in cooperation with foreign companies in the Arctic.

The global economy continues to grow, albeit interrupted by crises. The Arctic is attracting more and more attention, taking into account its prospects. International relations remain generally stable, despite intermittent problems. Be that as it may, there is a decrease in conflict in this area.

The situation in the Arctic leads to arguments that can convince the necessary majority in the United States Senate to agree to ratify adherence to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Suppose the US administration is signing a document. The representative power of the country, after some delays and internal struggles, ratifies the Convention. Following this, the United States is submitting an application to the UN to expand the border of its exclusive economic zone in the Arctic. At the same time, Washington is lobbying the interests of its largest oil and gas companies wishing to participate in the development of the Arctic shelf, which belongs to the exclusive economic zones of other Arctic states.

Progress is evident in the use of the Northern Sea Route. However, it is still not a significant competitor to the Suez Canal, although the intensity of its use is growing significantly.

Multilateral relations between the Arctic countries are difficult, but there are practically no attendant circumstances due to the relative stability of the international situation. The Arctic Council is gaining new opportunities, although not the power to make decisions. Relations between countries in this structure as a whole are constructive. Due to the interaction between its member states and the general improvement of the international climate, the importance of non- governmental organizations in the Arctic Council is growing relatively.

The state of bilateral relations between the Arctic countries remains restrained, but positive. Contradictions remain, however, are not a decisive factor in influencing the situation in the region. The dominant trend is the search for mutual understanding. Russia finds a difficult but almost complete understanding with Norway and is looking for it with other countries. The United States insists on the principle of freedom of navigation in the Arctic and does not encounter any opposition from other states in the region, with the exception of Russia, which defends its right to control the Northern Sea Route. The issue of the right to develop the resources of countries outside the exclusive economic zones is not discussed, since in the foreseeable future it will not have any serious significance.

Bilateral relations between individual Arctic and non-Arctic countries are becoming somewhat tense. Non-Arctic countries want to participate in Arctic exploration, but for the most part demonstrate this with caution. They basically do not have the appropriate technology to become real players in the Arctic, but they protest when the Arctic countries are skeptical about their intentions. At this stage, the financial resources of a particular non-Arctic company are not significant.

The region is gradually approaching the possibility of starting the development of Arctic resources. The potential profitability of possible projects begins to increase significantly, the needs of the world economy for hydrocarbons are growing significantly. The level of mutual understanding of the states in the Arctic is beginning to favorably affect the general level of international relations.

The negative scenario suggests that in the medium term, international relations in the Arctic will be negatively affected by the general situation in the world and the situation in the region itself.

The moderate growth of the world economy, despite periodic crises, pushes up the price of hydrocarbons. Shale oil and gas are becoming profitable again, however, prices are growing even more actively, which forces us to look more closely at the prospects for the Arctic.

The influence of conservatives in the representative power of the United States is increasing, which affects international relations in the Arctic. There is a parallel struggle between the United States, which seeks to torpedo UN decisions regarding the prospect of expanding the

exclusive economic zones of other Arctic states, and the intentions of the latter. The United States declares its unshakable intention to achieve freedom of shipping in the Arctic and freedom of access to the region’s resources. The militarization of the region is increasing dramatically.

Russia begins the search for partners in the development of the Arctic shelf. The search is, on the one hand, among large American companies capable of exerting pressure on executive and representative power in the United States, and on the other hand, among large Chinese and Indian companies. Preference is given to the last two options, especially since sanctions against Russia have not yet been lifted. In this regard, there is a concern of environmental organizations in connection with the possibility of a technological catastrophe during the extraction of hydrocarbons on the shelf. International relations are heating up even more.

The world economy continues to grow, the price of oil is also increasing. The Arctic is becoming an object of stirring world attention, although there is no talk of hydrocarbon production in the region yet. The United States begins urgent construction of new icebreakers.

The level of conflict increases significantly.

The increase in tension in international relations leads to the fact that the majority in the US Senate tends to declare the Arctic free from any territorial delimitation. The Northern Sea Route is also becoming an object of American attention. This implies a denial of the right of the Russian Federation to exclusive control over this route. The militarization of the region is increasing.

Multilateral relations between the Arctic countries are increasingly turning into a confrontation. The Arctic Council is virtually paralyzed due to circumstances that have little to do with real regional problems. The value of non-governmental organizations in this structure falls to a minimum. The state of bilateral relations between the Arctic countries is extremely tense. The United States and its allies are uniting against Russia. Moscow, in turn, is trying to enlist the support of non-Arctic countries. The dominant trend is the search for reasons for confrontation.

The state of bilateral relations between individual Arctic and non-Arctic countries is becoming tense. Non-Arctic states seek to participate in the affairs of the region, however, they are allowed only to problems that can be called marginal against the background of general attention to the potential production of hydrocarbons and minerals. Moreover, this group of countries does not have the necessary technologies that would allow its companies to participate in the development of Arctic resources. The only advantage is their financial capabilities, but at the moment it is at least in second place. The region is gradually approaching the possibility of starting the development of Arctic resources, since the needs of the global economy for hydrocarbons are growing significantly.

The level of tension in the Arctic is increasingly negatively affecting the state of international relations in general on the planet.

The intermediate scenario suggests that international relations in the Arctic in the medium term will be between optimistic and negative development options. Tensions erupt periodically on various occasions. Russia and China adhere to the unacceptability of a unipolar world; the United States continues its previous course. The Western powers continue the policy of sanctions against countries with which they have serious disagreements.

The moderate growth of the world economy, despite periodic crises, leads to a certain increase in prices for hydrocarbons in world markets. Shale gas and oil are again becoming profitable. Interest in the Arctic is still high.

Russia and some other Arctic countries are beginning to search for foreign partners for the development of the Arctic shelf in their exclusive economic zones. Their role is claimed mainly by American oil and gas corporations, combining ownership of new technologies and the necessary financial resources. At the same time, companies of such countries as China, India, Japan, and South Korea demonstrate interest. It is possible that the largest states of Latin America are joining them.

Oil and gas prices are gradually rising, which makes the attractiveness of the Arctic even more pronounced. International relations are periodically complicated, although they rarely reach conflict levels.

Reconnaissance drilling resumes in several sectors of the Arctic. It passes without major disruptions that could lead to environmental disasters. However, work in the region is under the scrutiny of environmentalists, who periodically organize protests and express concern about the possible negative consequences of economic development in the Arctic. The tension along this line is constantly maintained.

The use of the Northern Sea Route is developing, although it is still incomparable with the route through the Suez Canal. However, the intensity of movement increases significantly.

The United States declares its inalienable right to free navigation in the Arctic Ocean, including along the Northern Sea Route.

Multilateral relations between the Arctic countries are difficult. They are periodically affected by swings in the general international environment. As a result, mutual understanding in the Arctic Council is relative. An increase in the influence of this organization is not expected.

The state of bilateral relations between the Arctic countries can be characterized as “tense stability”. The dominant trend is alertness. The state of bilateral relations between individual Arctic and non-Arctic countries remains somewhat tense. The question of the participation of

companies of non-Arctic countries in projects in the exclusive economic zones of the Arctic is discussed, but the situation is far from being resolved.

The region is gradually approaching the possibility of starting the development of Arctic resources. The potential profitability of possible projects begins to increase significantly, the needs of the world economy for hydrocarbons are growing significantly. Thus, we can conclude that in any given scenario, the level of international relations in the Arctic as a whole is a reflection of the general world situation and is constantly fluctuating.

Most of the set long-term goals and objectives of the development of the Arctic region were not realized due to the changed geo-economic and geopolitical situation. An imbalance is observed in the short term of strategic planning (until 2020), the absence of a macroeconomic forecast, and the inaccuracy of forecasting hydrocarbon production volumes. The definition of economically sound strategic directions for the development of hydrocarbon resources of the Arctic shelf of Russia requires long-term and comprehensive planning, taking into account macroeconomic parameters. Since long-term planning models are subject to limitations and changes, at the moment it is possible to offer only forecasting.

Scenario forecasts for the possible development of oil and gas resources of the Arctic shelf of Russia until 2050 differ in macroeconomic indicators, the pace and trends of the global energy market, the intensity of development of the Arctic shelf and the risks involved.

Conclusion

Currently, the Arctic is being maintained as a zone of peaceful cooperation and low political tension. I would like to hope that the cooling of relations between Russia and the West due to the events of 2014 will not affect the activities of the Arctic Council. The armed forces of the Arctic countries have begun to cooperate with a view to monitoring the Arctic territories and joint actions in necessary cases for search and rescue operations. The latest decisions taken by the member countries of the Arctic Council have strengthened the organization, as well as advance their international cooperation. Non-regional powers are more and more involved in mutually beneficial cooperation on specified conditions and its profiling in the desired direction.

Such countries are attracted to finance research and environmental programs and projects in the Arctic.

Interest in the Arctic does not wane over time, despite the fact that there is still no answer to the question of which direction the climate is changing - to cooling or warming. The intensity of such interest is expressed in the active development of international intercompany cooperation in the oil and gas sector, aimed at the Far North.

In the Arctic, there are a number of contradictions and specific threats that do not appear anywhere else in the world. Since the expansion of the economic development of the Arctic will be comprehensive, it becomes necessary to coordinate different, sometimes conflicting interests.

The main problem is the threat of pollution of the Arctic by oil spills during its extraction and transportation. All countries participating in the Arctic Council recognize the principle of sustainable development, at least theoretically, and express their willingness to develop the Arctic, taking into account the protection of the environment, the preservation of its mineral and biological resources, the interests of future generations and the local population, leading a traditional Lifestyle. However, legally this principle is not fixed anywhere. Despite the lack of reliable oil spill response methods, oil and gas companies are already actively exploring hydrocarbon deposits and are preparing for the development of Arctic deposits.

It is necessary to maintain a balance of interests between mining companies and those who are more concerned about the state of the Arctic nature and the stability of the climate.

Currently, this task has not been completed. It is also complicated by some changes in the world market, which increase interest in the extraction of oil rather than gas, although from an environmental point of view, the development of offshore gas reserves is less dangerous.

Currently, a number of Western oil and gas companies have suspended or postponed projects for several years near Alaska, the Beaufort Sea and other places in the Far North.

Overall, there is a tendency for western companies that used to cooperate with Russian oil giants, to curtail or postpone their own projects in the Arctic. The expansion of the number of