Supporting Arctic exploration for American leadership

Since the 2010 spill in the Gulf of Mexico, a great deal has been accomplished to improve the safety and environmental performance of U.S. offshore energy activities. Through a combination of public-private sector collaboration, voluntary industry efforts, and what Interior Sec. Sally Jewell termed “the most aggressive and comprehensive offshore oil and gas regulatory reforms in the nation’s history,” offshore energy activity in the U.S. is indeed safer than ever.

President Barack Obama recently said that “nobody is more mindful of the risks involved and the dangers” of offshore drilling than he is, and that renewed Arctic exploration activity in Alaska’s Chukchi Sea would be contingent on meeting very high standards. That’s why the Department of the Interior (DOI) has given Shell conditional approval to drill in that region this summer because experts have concluded that the company has indeed met those very standards.

“I would rather us – with all the safeguards and standards that we have – be producing our oil and gas, rather than importing it, which is bad for our people, but is also potentially purchased from places that have much lower environmental standards than we do,” Obama said.

That’s why anti-development organizations and other opposition groups should vacate the Port of Seattle, where equipment used for Arctic energy exploration is staged and maintained. And why they should also stop with the frivolous lawsuits designed to do nothing more than delay the process. 

It’s also why 18 members of the United States Senate, hailing from a variety of states, none of which include Alaska, should exercise better judgment than to push a “just say no to energy” approach by recently urging Interior Secretary Jewell to prohibit U.S. Arctic energy leasing and development. This is particularly the case when public polling shows overwhelming support for Arctic offshore drilling among Alaskans and Americans across the country from South Carolina to New Hampshire and Iowa.

Delaying development in the Arctic would also harm Americans in many other ways – namely, national security.

Because of a continued lack of infrastructure and funding commitments, America lags behind in activity in the Arctic frontier. We’re not only missing out on emerging fisheries, rare earth minerals, and enough resources to power the United States economy and American homes for decades to come, we’re also jeopardizing our energy security by sitting on the sidelines allowing rival nations to beat us to the punch.

Even though the U.S. has taken over the chairmanship of the eight-nation Arctic Council, the seven other members have, been far more effective at staking claim to the region’s previously untapped resources. Even non-Council members are in the mix. India and China are investing in new, high-tech icebreakers, all while America has been delayed with frivolous legal actions and regulatory obstacles.

Most concerning, perhaps, is Russia, which depends on oil revenue to fund more than half of its coffers and has intensified its militarization in the region to unprecedented levels.

Despite his country being in a recession, Russian President Vladimir Putin boosted his military spending by 33 percent this year. Russia then rehabilitated a Soviet-era base, increased the number of fighter jets and combat helicopters, and upped its fleet of nuclear-powered submarines, state-of-the-art search-and-rescue ships, and icebreakers patrolling waters near the U.S. in the Arctic.

Do we really like having Russian forces that close to American soil equipped with that type of advanced weaponry? And do we really like that they’re taking advantage of access to Arctic resources, while anti-development groups have helped render Arctic resources inaccessible?

I don’t think so.

Exploring, developing and defending the Arctic is in fact just as much our challenge and calling as a nation as it is Alaska’s. If anti-development groups have their way again and delay work in this geopolitically sensitive region, countless jobs and billions in revenue will be lost – and enemy nations will again have the upper hand on us. That wouldn’t sit well with me. I doubt it would sit well with the rest of America either.

The United States finally has a path forward to be a trailblazer in the resources-rich Arctic. Let’s not stand in the way of that.

Hunt is a retired U.S. Army colonel and a former security adviser to the FBI. He served as counterterrorism coordinator for the 1988 Summer Olympic Games in Seoul.