Environmental and natural resource issues are often framed in multiple ways by different stakeholders. Given their complexity, how these issues are framed can diverge significantly, leading to ‘frame conflicts’. Frame conflicts have implications for decision makers when addressing socio‐ecological problems; this is especially the case for Arctic offshore petroleum. Q‐methodology is used to explore framings found across a group of stakeholders on the issue of Arctic offshore petroleum development, to empirically demonstrate the extent of frame conflicts and to explore possible bridges for consensus between these framings. The issue was framed in various ways: a global sustainability concern, a development panacea for Arctic communities, an issue where economic reality clashes with environmental idealism and an issue centred on local sustainability concerns. Despite significant divergence across framings, some potential bridges of consensus were evident, centring on ideas of traditional livelihoods, the importance of emphasizing ‘human’ aspects of the debate and the inherent risks involved in Arctic offshore petroleum. The implications and challenges of frame conflicts around Arctic offshore petroleum are discussed. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment