It is doubtful Northern Sea Route will amount to more than Northwest Passage did - which is to say, not much
 If there were to be a breakdown of those concerned about the development of the Northern Sea Route over Russia, it appears it would be dominated by those who would retard its progress or exploit its success - if any.
This pattern is unbroken in an article entitled "Arctic Shipping Routes Are Feeling the Heat" published by EOS Science News, of Washington, DC.
Not that either outcome is likely to happen to any great extent because progress for good or ill is predicated on the never-ending undulating course of global warming and the supposed impact of a 1.5°C degree rise in temperature this century will have, if any.
In her article, Jenessa Duncombe says: "The extent of Arctic melt depends on how warm the world gets. Scientists have warned that heating Earth far beyond 1.5°C will have disastrous, deadly consequences."
Quite what those consequences will be are not detailed. Certainly, there are no snappy back up quotes from scientists upon whose deliberations she relies.
"Controversy over shipping routes in the Arctic Ocean is intensifying in light of recent climate science projections of sea ice melt," Ms Duncombe says.
"By midcentury, ice-free routes in international waters once covered by summer sea ice may appear for the first time in recent history, according to new research. A more accessible Arctic could influence the timing, sustainability, and legal status of international shipping."
But Danish shipping giant Maersk rejected of the Asia-Europe Northern Sea Route over Russia after the voyage of its 3,500-TEU Venta Maersk.
"We do not see the Northern Sea Route (NSR) as a viable commercial alternative to existing east-west routes," said Maersk chief technical officer Palle Laursen at the time.
But that doesn't mean that the route is a total non-starter, only that it will be of far less use than its over excited proponents and detractors imagine. The Russians who have found it the only practical way to export their natural gas from the remote Yamal Peninsula have made a virtue of necessity. But the bulk of that trade is not the length of the Northern Sea Route but the less than half that to the Russia's western ports of Murmansk and Archangel.
The Chinese have announced grand plans of exploiting and eastern route, but global warmists will have to deliver on promises on ice melt if there can be any expectations of navigating around or through the Kosomolet Islands, the northernmost protrusion of land not only in Russia but the entire world.
While there are quite a few, the emphasis must be placed on the word "few". First, were only 86 annual transits carrying 2.75 million tons of cargo in one year. By contrast, there were 18,174 annual transits of the Suez Canal and 12,245 transits via panama. In terms of tonnage, it's 2.75 million tons via the Northern Sea Route versus 500 million tons that transits Suez.
Ms Duncombe fears exploitation of the advanages the Northern Sea Route presents. "To some, the warming Arctic presents an opportunity for trade: Funneling ships through the Arctic Northern Sea Route is 30–50 per cent shorter than taking the Suez Canal, according to a 2021 review of international shipping. Travel time could drop by more than two weeks, depending on vessel speed."
But even Ms Duncombe admits that the significance of cost-savings in terms of carbon emisssions offered by the shorter Arctic transit time offered by the Northern Sea Route are illusionary if not delusional.
Citing research by Zhaojun Wang of the Smithsonian Environmental Research Centre, published in the Maritime Policy and Management journal, Ms Duncombe concedes that diverting a small subset of global shipping trips reduced their emissions by an average of 24 per cent, conserving about 264 tonnes of fuel each.
"But those trips make up only a tiny fraction of shipping journeys: Only 20 of more than 500,000 international trade trips save money and time by taking the Arctic route. These diversions will have a low impact on global emissions," she said.
Ms Duncombe says there are many types of ships that might take advantage of ice-free waters in the future: naval vessels, cruise ships, containerships, scientific vessels, and transport ships to offshore drilling platforms.
“Diversifying trade routes - especially considering new routes that can’t be blocked, because they’re not canals - gives the global shipping infrastructure a lot more resiliency.”
"These ships would have to contend with myriad challenges in an increasingly ice-free Arctic. One of the most prominent is the fact that ice in the Arctic will vary drastically year to year. “Regardless of which climate change scenario path we’re on, interannual variability remained very high for a long period,” she said.
While Ms Duncombe acknowleges that icy unforgiving nature of the route, she ignores the cost/benefits factors involved. Whether something is technically feasible is not the big question. More relevant is whether it is economically feasible.
One can understand the Russian commitment to the route as it is the only practical way at this time to access the Yamal Peninsula gas fields to make a relatively short open water, and comparitively southernly run to Murmansk. After all, they own everything involved with gas field - lock, stock and barrel. But what makes sense for Russians is unlikely to make sense for anyone else.
When one considers the small number of smaller ships transiting the route occasionally having to be rescued by ice-breakers - a service that also must be paid for - the savings in a shorter transit time become harder to calculate in terms of profitability.
The one transiting containership, with high value cargo, the 3,500-TEU Venta Maersk, decided not to do it again. Keep in mind that the average size of containerships is running to 10,000-TEU today, but the biggest ship transiting the Suez Canal run to 24,000 TEU, the commercial prospects of the Northern Sea Route appear bleak indeed.
Add to that the China-Europe rail routes, which have transited high value cargo across the Caspian Sea by boat train from Kazachstan to Azerbaijain during the Russo-Ukrainian War. Given that, one detects yet another downside to depending on the Northern Sea Route from being much more than it is and is likely to be - an in-house Russian route for gas tankers and supply ships to keep the gas fields open. |
