Alaska Governor – Water Policy Consulting LLC

Governor Dunleavy Nominations Graphite Creek Project to Fast-41 Permitting

Hot Springs Creek Below the Proposed Graphite One Mine Site

Due to Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy’s nomination of Graphite Creek project in the remote Kigluaik range north of Nome, as a high-priority infrastructure project, as eligible for new legislation intended to fast track the permitting process for transportation projects. Title 41 of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, (Fast-41) adopted by Congress during the Obama administration which was intended to be a surface transportation reauthorization focusing on highway, transit, and rail programs. The Act establishes a new Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council (FPISC), authorized to stream line the NEPA process including elimination of public review and comment. Due to the unprecedented authority provided to the Council, until now, the Act has traditionally been applied only to Infrastructure and transportation Projects.

However, mining companies and the Trump administration have been pressuring FPISC to include mining as a sector under the Act. According to the mining industry magazine Critical Minerals Alaska 2020, “a federal entity meant to provide a one-stop-shop capable of coordinating permits across different federal agencies, thereby streamlining and shortening the overall process for large infrastructure projects that are eligible for the program. Mining projects that supply the materials needed for the energy, communication, and transportation infrastructure in the U.S. may be eligible for Fast-41.” [1] If the proposed Graphite One Mine is included into Fast-41, Critical Minerals Alaska 2020 says it “could help reduce the seven to 10 years it takes the average large mining project in the U.S. to get through the permitting process.”[2]

The sudden surge in the mining of graphite and other precious minerals in Alaska results from a dramatic increase in demand for batteries, solar power, computers, and other high-tech products that require such minerals. For instance, graphite is a significant component of the lithium-ion batteries used for electric cars and some renewable energy systems. According to the World Bank , due to the growing global interest in such cars and energy, the demand for graphite, lithium, cobalt, and other battery metals could increase by nearly 500 percent by 2050.[1] The report says that, “[g]raphite demand increases in both absolute and percentage terms since graphite is needed to build the anodes found in the most commonly deployed automotive, grid, and decentralized batteries. ” Similarly, according the United States Geological Survey, there are currently no graphite mines in the United States, requiring American battery and other manufacturers to import 58,000 metric tons of graphite during 2019.[2] According to CMA2020, with “5.7 million metric tons of quality graphite outlined so far, Graphite One Inc.’s Graphite Creek deposit in Northwest Alaska could provide a reliable domestic supply of graphite to North America’s burgeoning lithium-ion battery sector.” [3]

[1] Shane Lasley, High priority Alaska REE, graphite projects Gov nominations elevate mine projects to Fast-41 permitting, p. 6-7, High priority Alaska 2020 (November 2, 2020).

[2] Ibid.

[3] Shane Lasley, Western Alaska deposit could feed graphite into supply chain, Mining News, CRITICAL MINERALS ALASKA, pp. 28-29 (2020)

There are alternatives to sacrificing the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge’s coastal plain

The Trump administration recently gave the final go-ahead to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which by the end of 2020 would authorize the sale of two separate 400,000-acre oil and gas leases, encompassing a major portion of the refuge’s coastal plain and 8 percent of the 19.3 million-acre Refuge.

Opponents who have filed multiple lawsuits to stop the leasing, believe that the approval process was rushed for political reasons resulting in a flawed and inadequate analysis of the environmental impacts, violating prohibitions on killing or harassing of polar bears and laws requiring the protection of indigenous subsistence resources as well as exacerbate sea level rise, extreme weather events, the spread of diseases like and other impacts of climate change.

Alaska’s political leadership, on the other hand, seems unfazed by yet another botched Trump administration environmental analysis and the fact that more drilling in the Arctic will contribute to Alaska’s carbon footprint. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, for example, said “[t]his is a capstone moment in our decades-long push to allow for the responsible development of a small part of Alaska’s 1002 Area. … I’m confident the ROD has been developed carefully and comprehensively and look forward to the lease sales mandated by law…”

Why are our political leaders still stepping in line with President Trump’s insatiable thirst for oil no matter what the environmental cost, when economists have been warning for decades that the state is too dependent on the oil and gas industry to bail it out from spending at an unsustainable rate year after year?

It should have been obvious in the mid-1980s when global oil prices crashed sending the state into a full recession, that not only were the days of the oil and gas fueling fiscal growth over, but continuing to put all the state’s eggs in one basket would actually harm the economy. That the ongoing sugar-daddy delusion was still alive and well by 2003, however, is illustrated by then-Gov. Frank Murkowski’s announcement regarding the solution to the state’s economic crises: “Ladies and gentlemen, in a single word, it’s oil.”

Today the state’s addiction to oil is partly illustrated by the millions it provides via annual tax write-offs to oil and gas corporations who drill in Alaska but do not provide much in the way of return on this investment. in 2014, for example, the state’s largest producer, ConocoPhillips, made 68 percent of its global profits from Alaska but invested only 15 percent of its global capital in the state.

Despite the delusion of some politicians that drilling in places like ANWR could take Alaska back to the days of economic Nirvana of Prudhoe Bay, one thing that could prevent development in ANWR would be if presidential candidate Joe Biden who, if elected, has promised to “permanently protect” the refuge.

But in the end, rather than politics or litigation, it is simple economics that could stop drilling in the coastal plain. Ever sense COVID-19 — which came at a time when oil prices were already down — drove those prices to historic lows, the industry as a whole has been bleeding money, shedding jobs, and interest in drilling in the remote sites with difficult conditions, such as the Arctic refuge, may be waning.

More importantly, while oil companies are making cutbacks in drilling programs, banks
are less inclined to front them capital on future investments resulting in a vicious cycle of less funding available for future drilling. This situation has been further exacerbated by the
declaration from several global banks that they will stop financing oil and gas exploration in the Arctic due to the need to move away from fossil fuels and invest in alternative energy sources because of the rapidly increasing impacts of climate change on communities and ecosystems in the Arctic.

The good news is that with the banks turning away from fossil fuel investments while they decide what kind of energy programs could benefit from COVID-19 stimulus funding, there may not be a better chance than right now to move towards green energy. Fossils fuels have become no more than an economic dinosaur and a carbon-producing disaster, especially for the Arctic.

So, rather than sacrificing the coastal plain and Alaska’s fiscal future, why not investigate the potential local and global economic impact of renewable energy in the Arctic, including solar, and hydro and wind power as part of Alaska’s financial recovery?

This Op-ed also appeared in the September 24, 2020 edition of Arctic Today.

Lawsuits Filed on ANWR

Three lawsuits have been filed seeking to block the Trump administration’s efforts to sell oil leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The National Audubon Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, Friends of the Earth, and Center for Biological Diversity have signed off on a lawsuit sighting insufficient concern over increased greenhouse gas emissions and melting permafrost, poor air quality, and negative impacts to the region’s wildlife. The lawsuit alleges violations of the National Environmental Protection Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, and the Endangered Species Act. A second lawsuit, filed by the Gwich’in Steering Committee also sites violations of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and includes plaintiffs in Canada’s Yukon chapter of Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. Most recently, a third lawsuit was put forth by fifteen states including California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. Concerns addressed in this lawsuit include habitat damage and greenhouse gas emissions, as well as impacts to waterfowl hunting and a lucrative birdwatching industry for birds that breed on the Arctic plain and overwinter in the lower 48 states.

Imagine A Day Without Water in the Arctic

The theme of last year’s World Water Day was “Imagine a Day Without Water,” which focused attention on how we would manage for a single day without the many benefits that water brings to our lives. It appears that many coastal communities in Alaska, do not need to “imagine” not having access to running water because they are just one step away from the breaking down of their water systems due to the often intricate relationship of such systems to other critical infrastructure.

A case in point -, to work with the tribal staff on an instream flow data collection project. While waiting for my flight to Nome at the airport in Anchorage, during a business trip to Elim a couple of weeks ago, I received a text from out Project Coordinator, stating that “someone ran into a power pole and the entire village has no electricity or running water.”

While I was staying in the Village and the water was still out, I had a conversation with one of the janitors at the Aniguiin School, who said that once the power line was knocked out, “everything went down like a dominos because without electricity, the water pump blew a fuse. The city ordered a new pump but there’s no telling how long it will take to get here.” At the same time, people couldn’t rely on nearby creeks for drinking water which were frozen due to the temperature being in the teens.

Meanwhile city and school employees were working tirelessly to find back-up water for the school and other critical facilities. Ultimately, it took 5 days for the part to arrive before running water could be restored. But several days later, some were still boiling water because of worries about sanitation.

Last week’s situation in Elim is vivid example of the vulnerability of small Alaska communities to the impacts of climate change on water infrastructure. This winter, for example, the Arctic experienced the warmest March on record, and the second consecutive winter with extremely low levels of ice in the Bering Sea. The unprecedented loss of shoreline sea ice which normally acts a kind of barrier to protect coastal communities in the Arctic, from increasing storm surges means that drinking and other water infrastructure are more vulnerable to flood damage.

Other climate related changes to water resources in Alaska include the earliest recorded breakup for many rivers including the of the Tanana and Kuskokwim. Shorter ice seasons on rivers have profound impacts for the villages which use rivers for their main transportation routes. As of the end of April this year, for example, around a dozen people died or had to be rescued after their snow machines or 4-wheelers fell through ice that was too thin. When rivers become too dangerous or otherwise, unavailable to use villagers are forced to either not travel at all or to rely on planes or other more expensive alternatives.

In light of the substantial impacts to Arctic coastal communities in the most rapidly warminig state in the country, it’s unfortunate that when asked about his strategy for addressing climate change during the campaign for Governor of Alaska, Mike Dunleavy’s response was “We are not a smokestack state, so we don’t contribute that much to climate change.” Ignoring the fact, therefore, that Alaska is one of the largest oil producing states in U.S., immediately after taking office, Dunleavy eliminated the Climate Action for Alaska Leadership Team established by Gov. Bill Walker, and removed the group’s strategy and action recommendations for helping Alaska Native and other communities adapt to climate change.

According to Dermot Cole, who is a columnist for Arctic Today, scrapping of the Team is a major loss for villages threatened by climate change because many of them “are one major storm away from being wiped out. If and when such a storm strikes, the state will respond — it just won’t be as organized as it could be with a mitigation plan.”

So, with the official response from the Dunleavy administration to impacts of climate change on the Alaska Native and other communities and for planning for the rapid changes coming to the state, being a resounding “We don’t care”, it’s a good thing that communities like Elim are already setting the example for resiliency when the grid actually does go down. Maybe the rest of us should take a page from their book.

This article was re-printed in the May 2, 2019 edition of the Nome Nugget News: http://www.nomenugget.com/sites/default/files/05_02_2019NN_0.pdf