2015 saw increased attention paid to the Arctic from the international community and the state. Issues such as climate change, an uptick in marine traffic and infrastructure concerns have driven many of the discussions among stakeholders so far this year. Over the next several weeks, The Arctic Sounder will bring you conversations with state and regional leaders outlining their priorities for the Arctic in 2016. This week, we hear from Gov. Bill Walker.
Q: What are your priorities for the Arctic in 2016?
A: Well, there's a number of things. Obviously, health and safety is an issue we're concerned about with the villages that are threatened that have been targeted for potential relocation in some fashion. We often refer to Kivalina as one storm away from a major problem. We have engaged with the community but not just on a temporary (level). We want a longer fix. We've been there a couple of times and now it's time to get something done. What we're trying to do also is make sure we don't go in and force something upon a community or a village that's not ready for it. There's certain decisions they need to make.
When I was in Kivalina, I met with tribal and community leaders. They hadn't resolved some longstanding issues and I'm just not a big believer of going in and telling folks what their problem is and what our solution is for their problem. So, there's more work to be done on their part in that regard.
Another priority is making sure they can live with the energy costs. Some of the challenges we've seen in some of the villages is when a school closes, the cost of energy goes up because sometimes the school is the largest consumer of energy in a village. We're looking at renewables, but renewables that are affordable.
One of the other things we heard a lot was that Internet bandwidth was so slow. I know the Quintillion project may bring some relief to that but I want to make sure the people have working Internet.
Q: I'd like to follow up with Kivalina. Do you have any practical solutions that you're looking at right now? If something does happen, is the state prepared to help?
A: I came back from my first trip to Kivalina and said, if someone pushes the red button, are we ready to go? I'm told we are ready. There's two pieces to Kivalina: There's the immediate, which I'm assured from my people that we're prepared for that, more so than the last time, but it's really the bigger piece also that we're looking at in the longer term.
Q: With Shell pulling out of the Arctic, what will you be looking at this year for both encouraging development and making sure environmental protections are in place for future development?
A: With Shell having spent many billions of dollars and having the result they had, I think that's going to have an extremely chilling effect on anything additional offshore. We've seen Statoil pull out. Everybody's watching Shell. I don't see offshore being aggressively (pursued), certainly not at these prices for oil.
I'm an onshore guy. I don't oppose offshore, but from a safety standpoint, I just think having two feet on the ground is a good thing if there's going to be a problem. I think there's things that can be safely developed as far as additional exploration activity. But, the cost is so much higher because of the ice road issue; you can only work certain times of the year.
I look at Wyoming with their 16,000 wells they've built and I look at our 600. I look at the expanse of our area versus theirs. I think there's more that can be done responsibly and I think we do it very responsibly.
Q: The first cruise ship is coming through the Arctic later this summer and we're seeing increased maritime traffic. Right now there aren't many ports and harbors in the region. How are you thinking about providing a safe working environment in light of increased Arctic marine traffic?
A: It's like the opening of the Panama Canal with the traffic to the Arctic, and that's one of the reasons Craig Fleener is here and in the position he's in as far as Arctic policy. Let's not wait until there's a need that can't be responded to before we get prepared. I think they anticipate the number of ships potentially coming through at as many as 2,000. So, it's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. Ships have problems, things happen. I'm very concerned about us not having the infrastructure to be able to respond to that. I don't think we're prepared now.
I don't know that that's strictly a state of Alaska issue, though. I think we've got to invite the federal government to participate in some of that. This is the first administration that has somebody with Arctic policy at a capital level position because it's that critical. While we're pleased with the additional activity up there in lots of different ways, we have to make sure we're prepared for the challenges that come up.
Q: Something we're hearing over and over again is the importance of centering Native voices in the conversation about the Arctic and making sure that local communities don't just have a seat at the table but are actually guiding discussions. How is your administration working to support that?
A: The fact that we've put somebody on our Cabinet specifically on Arctic policy (shows that). We reach out to the various communities to listen and know what's happening. We have begun a tribal advisory council to the governor because we wanted to hear from the tribal organizations. Those are the people in the communities that are going to be impacted and we want to make sure that they're at an Alaskan table to have that discussion and dialog. I need to hear from them as far as what they're seeing, what they're concerned about, what their issues are. It's not any sort of regulatory process. It's really just my eyes and ears out in rural Alaska.
Q: With regard to high fuel prices and energy costs in the Arctic, what are some practical solutions you've been looking at?
A: There's a number of them. With the advancement of technology, if the technology shows there's gas, let's find that. I think that's really our role. Rather than helping subsidize the cost of energy, which I think is an important piece of what we do, let's put some infrastructure in there so it brings the energy costs down. It would be a shame if all these years we've been sending all of our money to Seattle for diesel when we're sitting on top of a gas field.
We're such a vast state. We've got Nome with the Pilgrim field out there with the potential geothermal opportunities and wind, and I think it's a matter of, as difficult as it is to say, finding the seed money to explore some of these options. Now there's these hydroelectric turbines in rivers. We have thousands of rivers in Alaska and what an incredible opportunity. That's a technology that's being developed here in Alaska and being tested in one river and it's shown that it does not interfere with anything happening in the river and yet we're able to get the energy from the river and turn it into electricity.
Those are the kinds of things that we should be on the cutting edge of because we have some of the coldest temperatures, the most extreme costs of energy, and we have all of these different methods of capturing that energy.
Q: The state's budget has been in trouble for a while. With regard to the Arctic and infrastructure projects there, what (do) you see as being the divide of finances; who should be funding what?
A: I definitely think the federal government has a role in that and we are going to invite them to participate in that. It's one thing for them to come up and see the problem and acknowledge the problem, but some of the villages are where they are because the federal government placed them there. On the infrastructure, Craig Fleener has done a good job already in a number of meetings and associations on the federal side to talk about what's necessary. There's been acknowledgement of that. We just need to turn that into a funding source.
Q: Melting permafrost is another thing that people are raising concerns about. We've heard from locals that the ground is getting mushy, seasons are changing and houses are falling. What are you looking at with regard to that, and what opportunities would people up there have to utilize the state's resources for prevention?
A: The state's resources consist of our savings. With a deficit of $400,000 an hour, it's pretty challenging on the state resource side. I certainly feel that the federal government would be a good participant in that process. The Denali Commission -- there's a good relationship. That was set up not specifically for that but it's an ideal vehicle to go between, with the federal government funding and the state allocation and whatnot.
Q: What do you think the Arctic's place is in Alaska? What kinds of opportunities do you see there that you'd like to take advantage of over the next year?
A: I think the Arctic represents an opportunity for almost sort of an awakening of Alaska's opportunities, but I want to do it in such a way that we're working with those that are there and have been there for thousands of years, and let them be part of the discussion early on rather than saying, here's what we're going to do, what do you think? Listen to them. They know the Arctic better than anybody. They realized there was oil in Prudhoe Bay decades, if not generations, before it was discovered in the 1960s. Really, it's a matter of reaching out to them and including them in the discussion early on is what I see as an appropriate role.
Q: Is there anything you want to add that I didn't ask you about?
A: I just want to make sure that Alaskans don't just focus on our financial situation, on our deficit, those kinds of things. We'll fix that, it's fixable. But really, the long-term vision for the state and for a sustainable economy (is what we should focus on) -- one that maybe is not tied 90 percent to one non-renewable resource, which is what we've done since the early 1970s. Gov. Hammond did a good job of warning us. We completely ignored his warnings and we are at the day he talked about. So, let's make sure that we not only fix the situation for today but for the generations to come so we have a sustainable economy in Alaska, and we have that opportunity by making the changes on the fiscal side.
This story first appeared in The Arctic Sounder and is republished here with permission.