The Polar Retrospective – Arctic leaks
The Polar Retrospective looks at stories of the past week that are related to the Arctic and Antarctic and focuses on one or more aspects. This time, the focus lies on the numerous reports of pollution in Arctic regions, which raise numerous questions about environmental safety.
Continuous cyanide leaks from a gold mine in Canada’s Yukon region, diesel leaks with thousands of liters of fuel spilled in various Nunavut communities, leaking pipelines in Alaska, much more microplastics in large parts of the Barents Sea than previously assumed: The reports of environmental pollution in the Arctic continued unabated last week and the weeks before, painting a bleak picture of the environmental status of the far north.
Leaks due to damaged infrastructure
Rankin Inlet, Mittimatalik, Sanikiluaq. These three communities have more in common than the fact that they are located in Nunavut in the Arctic part of Canada. They were also the scenes of diesel fuel spills in recent weeks. More than 25,000 liters of fuel were spilled in a total of four incidents, contaminating coastal areas and soil in the communities. According to media reports, in Sanikiluaq almost a third of the approximately 3,000 inhabitants had to leave their homes after the leak and were only able to return hours later. The authorities had organized the evacuation as a precautionary measure, as the diesel had leaked from the town’s fuel tanks. In Mittimatalik, formerly known as Pond Inlet, a pipeline rupture caused fuel to leak into the Arctic Ocean, threatening the nearby national park, which prompted an investigation by the Canadian government’s Environment and Climate Change Canada. And in Rankin Inlet, the authorities had to sound the alarm twice within four weeks, recording around 12,000 liters of leaked diesel.
In three of the four cases, “technical or mechanical” failure was the cause of the pollution, and in one case “human” error. Burst tanks and pipelines are the main culprits, as is often the case. An example is the environmental disaster in Norilsk four years ago, when over 21,000 tons of diesel leaked from a ruptured tank belonging to the Nornickel company, contaminating the area for kilometers.
Another leak that did not occur as a result of a burst infrastructure, but which has caused serious environmental damage, is the seepage of water contaminated with heavy metals from the Eagle Mine, which is operated by Victoria Gold in the subarctic Yukon region. The environmental authorities found significantly elevated levels of heavy metals in the surrounding rivers and in fish, an important source of food for the local inhabitants. Higher levels of cyanide, which is used in gold mining, were also detected. According to a report, the reasons for the leak are flaws in the construction of the contaminated water collection basins. Experts fear that the fish population may be damaged for a long time to come and may be unfit for consumption. Since fish such as trout and salmon are also hunted and eaten by other animals, these too are likely to be affected.
Leak in one place, effects in other places and times
Therein lies one of the major problems of such pollution: it is not limited to a specific time or place. The pollution is widespread and affects soils and water bodies, adheres to rocks and plants, and continues to have an effect for years and decades in what is known as “low-dose chronic exposure”. Such pollution accumulates in the food web over a long period of time and has an effect at a wide range of levels. They influence genetics, health and even entire populations of organisms. This not only affects plants and animals directly affected by the pollution, but also other species. At the end of the food web, top predators such as polar bears and humans accumulate high levels of pollution and its products. This can lead to health problems, but also to major social problems. If the authorities were to issue warnings or bans on consumption, other solutions would have to be found, such as the expensive supply of water and food from other areas, which would place a heavy financial burden on individuals and communities.
Infrastructure and climate change
This begs the question of why such defects have not been discovered earlier, since tanks and pipelines in cities and towns are important infrastructure for local communities, which still depend on diesel for electricity and heat generation, as well as for transportation. Is it a lack of knowledge, manpower or money for more inspections and new infrastructure? The fact is that such infrastructure is exposed to extreme physical environmental conditions that have become even more severe in recent years and decades due to climate change. Teams of experts have long pointed out that thawing permafrost, greater temperature fluctuations and more extreme weather events are wearing down infrastructure faster and increasing the risk of contamination. But abandoning infrastructure is not the answer, at least not yet. After all, fuel dependency is still very high and it will take time for new technologies for more sustainable energy production to be developed and implemented in the Arctic regions.
Nevertheless, the will to act is slowly growing, and areas, even those rich in raw materials, are increasingly being placed under protection, with funds being made available for better monitoring and infrastructure rehabilitation. Projects that develop new technologies for energy production, transportation and storage are receiving more attention and funding from both private and state subsidies. Because one thing is clear: the population and political decision-makers in the Arctic do not want any leaks in their infrastructure, nor any pollutants in their water or food.
Dr. Michael Wenger, Polar Journal AG
More on the subject
