**1. Introduction**

Combating climate change is the United Nations' 13th Sustainable Development Goal [1]. According to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [2], the Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the world, which is highlighted in every report. For example, a global warming has already reached 1 ◦C above pre-industrial period (1850–1900). At the same time, the measured temperature increase in the Arctic was two to three times higher, and there were significant differences between Arctic regions [3]. IPCC climate models predict that this trend will continue: a 2 ◦C increase by 2100 globally is projected to result in a 4–7 ◦C increase in Arctic temperatures.

There are a number of studies on climate change on Earth that link warming processes with anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions [4,5]. Global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions increased by 1.7% in 2017 and by about 2.7% in 2018 [6]. But even with all current national commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, an average global average annual temperature increases of 3 ◦C is projected, corresponding to an average nighttime temperature increase of 7–11 ◦C in the Arctic [3].

Over the past decades, global warming has led to a widespread decrease in the cryosphere with loss of ice sheet and glacier mass, reduction in snow cover, and an increase in the area and thickness of Arctic sea ice, as well as an increase in permafrost temperatures [7]. Permafrost temperatures have risen to record-high levels (from 1980 to the present), including a recent increase of 0.29 ± 0.12 ◦C from 2007 to 2016 in the average polar and high-altitude regions of the world. Widespread thawing of permafrost is expected with high confidence this century and in future years [2].

The relevance of developing solutions aimed at ensuring the stability of foundations of objects located in the zone of permafrost spreading has recently increased in light of global climate change on planet Earth. For example, the accident at CHPP-3 of Norilsk-Taimyr

**Citation:** Buslaev, G.; Tsvetkov, P.; Lavrik, A.; Kunshin, A.; Loseva, E.; Sidorov, D. Ensuring the Sustainability of Arctic Industrial Facilities under Conditions of Global Climate Change. *Resources* **2021**, *10*, 128. https://doi.org/10.3390/ resources10120128

 Academic Editor: Ben McLellan

Received: 30 October 2021 Accepted: 13 December 2021 Published: 15 December 2021

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

Energy Company on 29 May 2020, can be attributed to the consequences of the loss of bearing capacity of the foundations located in the permafrost spreading zone [8]. The incident spilled about 21,000 tons of oil products, of which 6000 tons ended up in the ground, and the rest in the Ambarnaya River and its tributary Daldykan, which flows into the large Pyasino Lake. From this lake flows the Pyasina River, which flows into the Kara Sea.

#### *1.1. Increase of CO2 Emissions as Permafrost Melts*

A number of studies have noted the acceleration of climate change processes in the Arctic region, while an inverse relationship is observed in the Antarctic [9,10]. It is predicted that melting permafrost in the Arctic will lead to the emission of "additional" 25–85 billion tons of greenhouse gases per year (in terms of carbon), given that all mankind emits about 13 billion tons of carbon [11]. As a result, tundra soils will not absorb, but release "extra" carbon dioxide and methane. Currently, the tundra and other areas of permafrost are among the absorbers of greenhouse gases—areas in which natural systems absorb more greenhouse gases, including CO2 and methane, than they are formed in this area. A large proportion is deposited in peat or soil, some of which is in a state of permafrost.

Due to higher temperatures and CO2 concentrations, plants will be able to absorb more carbon dioxide—their "productivity" will increase from 69 to 88 billion tons of carbon. On the other hand, the melting of permafrost will cause organic deposits in the tundra soil to "unfreeze" and begin to rot, releasing carbon dioxide and methane [12].

By 2100, according to projections, the near-surface (within 3–4 m) permafrost area will decrease by 24 ± 16% (probable range) for RTC2. 6 (scenario with warming of 1.1–2.0 ◦C during 2031–2050 and 0.9–2.4 ◦C during 2081–2100) and 69 ± 20% (probable range) for RTC8.5 (1.5–2.4 ◦C during 2031–2050 and 3.2–5.4 ◦C during 2081–2100), Figure 1 [2,6,7,13,14].

**Figure 1.** Historical observations and projections from RTK2.6 and RTK8.5 for near-surface permafrost [14].

#### *1.2. Rising Global Sea Levels and Risk to Infrustructure*

For coastal regions, including the Arctic, sea level rise poses a threat to the stability of industrial structures [15,16]. The risk of seasonal flooding of such territories increases, including that caused by the formation of a surge wave in the water area [17–19].

Even if the world goes down the path of low greenhouse gas emissions, the global sea level is likely to rise at least 0.3 m above 2000 levels by 2100. If we go down the high emission pathway, we cannot rule out a worst-case scenario where the 2100 level will exceed the one of 2000 by 2.5 m [14,20].

About 60% of the territory of the Russian Federation is in the permafrost zone with major mineral reserves in it, as shown in Figure 2 [21–26]. One of the important tasks of ensuring sustainable functioning of facilities in the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation is to prevent defrosting and thawing of permafrost [27,28].

**Figure 2.** Global Permafrost zonation for Russia [26].

The wide distribution of permafrost over the entire Arctic shelf and the presence of an extremely harsh climate pose enormous difficulties for construction [29–31]. There are many ways of building objects in the Arctic conditions. For example, ventilated basement, which provides heat removal from the building and prevents its penetration into the ground, an injection consolidation technology or improvement of soil properties using Jet Grouting [32].

The main part of the shelf area under consideration is shallow, with prevailing depths of 1–3 m. Only in the extreme southern part of the area, the sea depth reaches 5 m and more. The presence of a weak subsoil base carries a risk associated with the insufficient stability of structures. For such conditions, the possibility of forced freezing with subsequent thermal stabilization of weak bottom sediments becomes topical in order to locate remote Arctic objects, both on land and at sea. Anyway, since the environmental impact of infrastructure facilities is known, it is necessary to apply the best technologies for the construction and operation of such facilities [33,34].

The aim of this paper is to search for answers to modern challenges arising from global climate change: thawing of permafrost and loss of stability of pile foundations, sea level rise and, as a consequence, an increase in the intensity of seasonal flooding of coastal Arctic territories.

The paper solves the problems related to design of modular pile foundations, modeling the consequences of global warming and its impact on the pile foundations bearing capacity, development a methodology for predicting changes [35] and monitoring changes during the operation of remote Arctic objects, development of measures for saving the bearing capacity of modular pile foundations.
