|
Friday, May
21, 2010
Remarks to Center for Oceans Law and Policy Conference on the Arctic
and Law of the Sea Treaty
Thank you.
Good
afternoon.
It is my
pleasure to address you today at the 34th annual Center for Oceans
Law and Policy conference. I have to commend the Center for putting
together a very impressive conference.
As all of us in this room are aware, the United States IS an Arctic
nation because of Alaska. And I am very privileged to be the Senior
Senator for America's Arctic State. But, what does it mean to be an
Arctic nation? I believe that the Federal Government is just waking
up to this reality and we are trying to define exactly what that
distinction means. In my view, being an Arctic nation means that the
United States, by virtue of our land and waters, has a fundamental
interest in the region and a responsibility and obligation to
protect those interests.
I speak to you at a time of great change for the Arctic. That pace
of change demands that greater attention be focused on the region.
The implications of the dynamic changing Arctic for the residents
and important international security, economic, environmental, and
political interests, depend on it.
Interest in the Arctic, by both the general public, the media and
Arctic and non-Arctic nations, continues to grow. The attention is
primarily due to the impacts of climate change and subsequent loss
of seasonal sea ice, and interest in shipping lanes, energy and
natural resources.
Until recently, the resources of the Arctic were deemed to be too
difficult and expensive to develop. But with increasing access and
high energy and mineral prices, the Arctic's wealth is now being
increasingly discovered, explored, and developed. This includes
conventional oil and natural gas but also methane hydrates and other
less conventional forms. Offshore Alaska we are estimating 15
billion barrels of oil in a concentrated area of the Chukchi Sea and
8 billion barrels in the Beaufort Sea, and I am hopeful that
exploratory wells will prove up this summer.
The United States Geological
Survey tells us that the region has possibly up to 30 percent of the
world's undiscovered gas and 13 percent of its oil. We also think it
holds huge amounts of other minerals - like coal, nickel, copper,
tungsten, lead, zinc, gold, silver, diamonds, manganese, chromium
and titanium. But there's a natural, sometimes reflexive tendency to
question how in the world it can ever be safe or even economical to
drill and produce in such harsh, misunderstood, and distant
environments. But it's happening, and the technology and engineering
behind some of the existing and proposed activities is fascinating.
We already know that Russia
is turning its eye to the Arctic's vast energy reserves as they are
building the first offshore oil rig that can withstand temperatures
as low as minus 50 degrees Celsius and heavy pack ice. As
their oil production is in decline, they are also reducing taxes and
bureaucratic hurdles in order to encourage new oil development in
the Arctic. They are also planning for a near wholesale replacement
of their icebreaker fleet in order to better operate in the polar
region. By the same token, an energy company from England is now
readying to seriously explore for oil and natural gas for the first
time off the coast of Greenland.
The spill in the Gulf of Mexico has shown that there will always be
risks and impacts associated with producing energy. We must take
every appropriate step to minimize the risks into the future. But we
also need to be rational in our response to the Deepwater Horizon
tragedy. We don't yet know exactly what failed. Until we do, we
should be careful and not pass reactionary legislation that hasn't
been fully thought through. We must learn the lessons from the Gulf
accident, but we are still collecting information. Once we have a
full understanding of the cause of the accident, it will guide us in
our decision making on drafting new regulations and improving our
safety procedures.
The Deepwater Horizon incident may have made us more reticent to
drill in the deep offshore, but it did nothing to reduce our need
for oil and gas and it did nothing to change the value of those
resources in what is still a growing global economy. Even as we take
steps to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, we're going to
continue to need oil and gas for decades to come.
I believe that we will rise from this tragedy not only as Americans,
but that the world will learn and grow stronger in terms of
understanding the values and risks of energy production.
Alaska's offshore oil and natural gas resources are vital to the
nation's strategic economic and energy security, and I remain
committed to responsible exploration and production in the Beaufort
and Chukchi seas. Since the Deepwater Horizon tragedy has been
unfolding, we have demanded and achieved even greater protections
surrounding those exploratory activities. There are differences
between the deepwater Gulf activity and the Arctic- specifically,
the relative shallow water depths and pressures in that area. In
addition, the Shell permits have had more regulatory environment and
judicial scrutiny than any other exploration permit in recent
history. All eyes are on us in Alaska, and we need to be given the
chance to prove we can explore safely.
The exploration activity in the Arctic, combined with declining
summer sea ice, has positive implications for energy security across
borders, because LNG and oil tankers will in some cases be able to
have alternatives to their current, more dangerous and clogged
routes through South-East Asian straits and the Gulf of Aden and of
course the Suez Canal. So non-Arctic nations are going to benefit in
this way, but importantly they can also benefit through the funding
element of these huge projects. The exploration, the production, and
certainly the construction necessary to develop Arctic resources is
going to require all types of financing not just for the sheer scale
and remoteness of the projects, but for the levels of technology
needed to bring them online in a way that's safe for workers, safe
for the environment, and as insulated from risk as possible.
Recently I had the experience of visiting a 4-D seismic room in New
Orleans - where the images acquired through 3-D are basically
animated to give a sense of shifting oil and gas reservoirs so that
geologists can study trends and get a much more telling picture of
the resource potential. It's almost surgical compared to the basic
exploratory drilling which occurred in the last century - and it
gives me confidence that a well can be targeted and explored with
limited impacts to surrounding areas.
This is just one example of the ways in which technology is able to
provide a reassuring answer to questions about whether the world is
ready for increased energy development in the Arctic. Another great
example - and specifically an Arctic example - is the Liberty
project in Alaska. Some of you may already be familiar with this
extended reach drill rig which Parker drilling helped develop for BP
to access an oilfield directionally 8 miles away. It's not quite
there yet, but I'm hoping, and I'm betting, on good news from
Alaska's North Slope on just how far we can continue to reach both
literally and figuratively.
And this brings me to a point - technology is advancing because oil
and natural gas are still the most economically valuable energy
sources in the world. The term "easy oil" is being slowly redefined
as these technologies develop, and I have to predict that we will
see a measured but certain expansion into Arctic lands and waters.
This is significant because the first peoples of the Arctic have, I
believe, a right to benefit by all of their resources, not just
energy but the fisheries and marine mammals on which they depend for
their nutrition and livelihoods. And I am encouraged by what I am
seeing to be an increasing level of engagement, rather than
opposition, from these constituencies. 30 years ago in Alaska, we
were able to establish production from America's largest single
oilfield at Prudhoe Bay by involving our Native peoples in almost
every aspect of this new and substantial change to their land and
lifestyle. There was engagement - sometimes contentious and
sometimes very difficult - on the legislative level, on the
administrative level, on the operational level, and on the personal
level. The ultimate result has benefitted all Alaskans and our
national energy security in ways beyond any of our predictions at
the time.
It isn't just Arctic energy
that is drawing increased activity into the region. The impacts of
an ice diminished Arctic are already affecting marine shipping. We
recently saw two German vessels complete a commercial transit from
Asia to Europe through the Arctic Ocean north of Russia. Two
multipurpose heavy lift carriers transited through the North
East-Passage or Northern Sea Route during August and September of
last year. The route is now open for a short time in late summer and
cuts about 4,000 nautical miles from the 11,000 miles long
traditional journey through the Suez Canal and the Gulf of Aden.
We now have reports that a
Russian shipping firm has announced that it will use one of its ice
strengthened arctic tankers to carry oil from the Kara Sea across
the Northern Sea Route to Japan this year. This would be a proof of
concept that could also apply to LNG tankers based on the same
dual-acting icebreaker-tanker design used for the oil tankers.
"While the Arctic Marine Shipping assessment predicts it will be
decades before these routes are open for many months of the year, I
think we must consider that this is only the beginning and if it
proves to be economical, it will happen.
"We know that there are national security and sovereign interests
for all the Arctic coastal states in the region. The United States
Navy has a new roadmap for the Arctic and they are studying the
feasibility of a deepwater port in the far north. In support of
their efforts, I introduced legislation that directs the Department
of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security to study the
feasibility, location and resource needs for an Arctic deep water
port. This study will determine whether it is in the strategic
interest of the United States, as I believe it is, to build a port
and where it might be located. A deep water port would not only
serve our military and Coast Guard needs, but as we develop our
offshore oil and gas reserves and see more shipping, tourism and
vessel traffic in the Arctic, a deep water port could provide
valuable support for these activities as well.
The Coast Guard has also embarked on a high latitude study to
determine what assets and infrastructure they need to be prepared
for an ice diminished Arctic Ocean. With increased maritime activity
in the Arctic and such a shortage of infrastructure, it is vital we
determine what the needs are and actively work to provide resources
to protect the Arctic residents and environment.
I believe we are at a very critical time in the Arctic right now.
There seem to be two paths that we can go down in regards to
international relations- one is a path of competition and conflict,
and the other is one of cooperation and diplomacy. I believe the
decision on which path we ultimately take will require dynamic
leadership.
One of the first areas that we need leadership is in the United
States and the Senate ratification of the Convention for the Law of
the Sea Treaty.
I believe it is crucial for the United States to be a party to this
Treaty and be a player in the process, rather than an outsider
hoping our interests are not damaged. Accession to the Convention
would give current and future administrations both enhanced
credibility and leverage in calling upon other nations to meet
Convention responsibilities. Given the support for the Treaty by
Arctic nations and the drive to develop natural resources, the
Treaty will also provide the environmental framework to develop
these resources while minimizing environmental impacts.
The United States in the only Arctic State that is not a party to
the Law of the Sea convention, having first submitted the treaty to
the U.S. Senate for approval in 1994 but not yet acceded to it.
Canada and Denmark joined the treaty in 2003 and 2004 respectively.
There are some who do not see the point in joining the rest of the
world in ratifying the treaty. They say that the U.S. already enjoys
the benefits of the Treaty even though we are not a member. That by
not becoming a party to the Treaty, we can pick and choose which
sections we abide by, while not subjecting our actions to
international review. I respectfully disagree.
The United States MUST
ratify the treaty but we remain at a stalemate: the White House
looks to the Senate to lead and the Senate waits for stronger
support from the Administration. In part, the Senate calendar is to
blame. It is anticipated that should the majority leader move the
Treaty to the Senate floor, it would consume at least a week of
floor time. And considering that there are less than 40 legislative
days before the August recess, it is highly uncertain that such time
will be carved out unless it becomes a priority for this
Administration. Given the President's focus on advancing the START
Treaty, I see even less of an opportunity to schedule the Law of the
Sea Treaty this year. I wouldn't say it is impossible, but certainly
would say it's unlikely. Unfortunately, failure to ratify continues
to keep the United States at a disadvantage internationally and
outside the process, without a seat at the table.
Until the U.S. accedes to the treaty it cannot submit its data
regarding the extent of its extended continental shelf to the
Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, established under
the Treaty. Without a Commission recommendation regarding such data,
the legal foundation for ECS limits is much less certain than if the
U.S. were a party to the Treaty.
According to the U.S. Arctic
Research Commission, if the United States were to become a party to
the Treaty, we could lay claim to an area in the Arctic of about
450,000 square kilometers-or approximately the size of California.
While the United States has not ratified the Treaty, we continue to
map our extended continental shelf and have been working
cooperatively with Canada the last two summers on extended
continental shelf data collection in the Arctic and are scheduled to
work again in the summer of 2010. The US Icebreaker Healy completed
the second summer of joint mapping with the Canadian icebreaker
Louis St. Laurent. Though each ship has their own equipment in order
to accomplish the mission, combining their efforts provides better
data and they can cover more area together.
Canada is expected to make its submission to the Commission in
December 2013, so as to meet its deadline under UNCLOS, the U.S., as
I have previously stated, will not be able to submit its claim. Not
until we ratify the Law of the Sea Convention.
I am pleased that ever so
slowly, the United States seems to be waking up to the fact that we
are, indeed, an Arctic nation. I am confident that with the
leadership of members of Congress, the Administration and from the
Arctic community at large, we can continue to highlight the
strategic importance of the Arctic for the United States.
Thank you. |
