Contents:

• Introduction………………………………………………………………………………….1

• Section 1.: The ANWR: What is at Stake?..........................................................3

• Section 2: Exxon Valdez: Lessons (Un)learned………………………………...7

• Section 3: A Green and Sustainable Way Forward………...……………….11

• Section 4: Final remarks…………………………………………………………...….13

• References…..………………………………………………………………………………15

Introduction

This pristine region, which has been called “the Last Great Wilderness” is under threat of

disruption. The US Congress passed a tax bill in December 2017 which contained a provision for

the leasing of two essential areas of the ANWR to oil drilling companies. The following

document is a plea by Alaska ecologists for the immediate secession of such plans and the

subsequent operations. We are highly concerned with the catastrophic effects oil exploration

and exploitation activities will have and the associated risks of oil spills could have on the

ecosystems and the whole region.

Our argumentation will be split into three sections. First, we will present a brief outline of the

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) by tracing its history, outlining its natural treasures, the

interest of the indigenous and local inhabitants as well as the Trump Administration’s plans for

leasing it out. Instead of outlining apocalyptic hypothetical scenarios about possible risks of oil

exploitation in the region, we will introduce the devastating immediate and long-lasting effects

of the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989. In the light of our unwavering defiance of the drilling plans,

we shall present our policy recommendations and discuss the possibilities for creating jobs,

supporting the economy and strengthening our state’s sustainable future through a number of

development opportunities.

1

2

Figure 1. Map of ANWR accompanied with one of the proposed plans for oil drilling

Sources: James L., USFWS, NOAA, Alaska Department of Fish and Game (2018) & NRDC (2008)

Section 1: The ANWR: What is at Stake?

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is the biggest national wildlife refuge in northeastern Alaska, United States spreading across 78,050.59 km2 of yet undisturbed lands containing five different ecological regions: lagoons, beaches and saltmarshes of coastal marine areas; coastal plain tundra; alpine tundra; the forest-tundra; and tall spruce, birch and aspen of the boreal forest. It is home to 42 fish species, 37 land mammals, 8 marine mammals and more than 200 migratory and resident bird species which are part of a complex and still vaguely understood ecosystem. Some of these species, such as the porcupine caribou, are an essential part the lives of indigenous people’s subsistence communities. This Section will present the environmental and societal aspects of the ANWR as well as its history and the proposed plans for oil exploration and drilling. It will conclude with a short discussion of the three main arguments put forward by proponents of drilling and test their viability in light of expert and official opinions. The following subsections will follow Fig. 1 in explaining the environmental habitat of the ANWR: (1.) history of the Refuge (2.) the caribou calving areas, the polar bear birthing dens and others; (3.) the interests of indigenous people in the area; (4.) proposed relevant policies by the US administration for oil drilling, including a discussion of the so-called Area 1002 and (5.) the impacts of oil drilling in the ANWR.

History

By: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

● 1903 - President Roosevelt founds the National Wildlife Refuge ● 1960 - the Refuge is protected by federal law ● 1977 - start of the drill-or-not-to controversy after a turbulent decade for

oil consumers and new estimations of possible oil reserves ● 1980 - the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act passed in

Congress; it protects more than 174,000 km2 across Alaska while leaving 6,070 km2 open to possible oil exploitation as outlined in Section 1002

(Meyer, 2017); ● 1989 - bipartisan bargaining intensifies until Clinton’s administration

comes the closest to opening Area 1002 to the oil industry, but this is rendered politically impossible after the devastating oil spill of Exxon Valdez just off Alaska’s southern coast;

● 2017 - Congress passes the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act which authorizes the selling of oil and gas leases for two areas of the Refuge on Alaska’s North Slope (Meyer, 2017);

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3

Wildlife and Habitat The incredible ecological zone of Coastal Plain is the biological heart of the refuge, supporting a diverse array of animals, including grizzly bears, arctic foxes, wolverines, Dall sheep and birds that migrate from six continents and all 50 states. It is the principal calving ground of one of North America’s last great caribou herds; it is our country’s most important onshore denning habitat for polar bears; and is a landscape sacred to the native Gwich’in people. A comprehensive assessment of the refuge by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommended the highest level of protection for the Coastal Plain.

• Threats to the Epic Migration of Caribou Every year for thousands of years the Porcupine caribou herd of the Arctic Refuge has migrated hundreds of miles to reach the Coastal Plain to birth and raise their young. The infrastructure, chronic noise and spills associated with oil drilling would likely cause the caribou to abandon these historic calving grounds, forcing them into the mountains where forage value is low, and predators are more abundant. (Defenders, 2017).

• With seasonal sea ice in the Arctic Ocean continuing to shrink, onshore denning habitat on the Coastal Plain has become vital to the survival of polar bears. These federally threatened bears have very low reproductive rates and are highly sensitive to human disturbance. Mother bears come ashore in the fall to make their dens to give birth and raise their cubs through the winter. Oil drilling activities, such as seismic testing, aircraft and vehicle noise, or even the mere presence of humans, can lead mother bears to abandon their dens and cubs.

• During the summer months, hundreds of bird species migrate from the lower 48

states and beyond to find breeding, nesting or resting places on the Coastal Plain.

Disturbing this avian nursery is likely to have population scale impacts on many

of these species, including snow geese, trumpeter and tundra swans and arctic

terns.

• Muskoxen, relics of ice-age live on the coastal plain year-round and are uniquely adapted to survive the frigid winter conditions. Any disturbance that forces them to expend extra energy, could decrease calf production and threaten species survival.

Indigenous peoples

The Refuge is home to two main indigenous communities: the Inupiat and the Gwich’in. Both are quite vocal on the topic of drilling in the Refuge, but their official positions and interests are quite different. This could be attributed to their physical locations and relationship to the region. The Gwich’in tribe consists of roughly 9,000 people who live across north-central Alaska and northern Canada. Their settlement in the Refuge is Arctic Village located on the southern border where they have lived for the past 25,000 years and using the caribou as their main source of substance (CNN, 2018). Therefore, the Gwich’in people consider the porcupine caribou sacred along with its calving areas located in the so-called Area 1002 which they refer to as Iizhik Gwats’an Gwnadaii Goodlit, or “the Sacred Place Where Life Begins”.

4

Considering their location – in the south away from existing and possible oil reserves, and their spiritual relationship to the Refuge and its inhabitants, the Gwich’in people are strong proponents of keeping the ANWR pristine and stop any plans for petroleum exploration. Their position is reinforced by the proposed exploration which would involve the use of seismic testing right in “the Sacred Place Where Life Begins” (Jones, 2018). This, however, is quite different from the official position of the Inupiat who live along the North Slope, mainly in Kaktovik. Due to their location, they have had a complex relationship with oil. On one side, they lost most of their ancestral lands to oil exploration in 1971, when oil was struck in Prudhoe Bay (CNN, 2018 However, many were employed in the rigs, drills and refinery and the field brought millions of dollars to the community developing infrastructure, schools and public services (Meyer, 2017). In exchange for the take-over of their lands, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act provided them with shares in 13 regional corporations reaping billions in oil company royalties (CNN, 2018). Their official position clearly follows these interests and celebrates the potential oil exploration. Two months before the singing of the Tax Bill in 2017, the Voice of the Arctic Iñupiat, an organization with 21 members from across the North Slope, voted unanimously to support petroleum development in the 1002 area (Rexford, 2017). Furthermore, if oil development commences in the area, the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation’s1 stakeholders, about 13,000 members of the Inupiat tribe, will benefit the most from the wealth. Overall, we have observed community divisions and the potential of opening the Refuge to petroleum exploitation pits these communities against each other. We believe that this is caused by the overly resource-dependent state of Alaska and its settlements. Their homogenous sources of income only endanger the communities’ sustainable future and this proposed oil development project has reserves only for about 20 years. It may bring millions to the local communities, but it will simply exacerbate their resource-dependency and delay the inevitable end of their substance resource.

Policies and Area 1002 To drill or not to drill? The major duality of the debate lies in two facts: one, the possibility that the North Slope of the ANWR (Area 1002 on Fig. 1) could contain large deposits of oil and the other, that as the largest pristine region of the United States, the ANWR has numerous complex ecosystems which can be negatively impacted in ways still unknown. In terms of the actors advocating for the two main opposing camps, there are Big Oil supported by most Alaskan government officials who in their majority are Republicans as well as a number of oil lobbyists in Washington. On the other hand, there are powerful environmental organizations, private persons both from the local population and activists from across the country (Meyer, 2017).

1 The Arctic Slope Regional Corporation was founded in 1972 in accordance with the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (AMCS). The ASRC owns about 5 mln acres in the region and therefore, if oil is struck in the area, its stakeholders whose members are in their majority of Inupiat origin, will profit in the scope of millions of dollars.

5

The event which prompted the writing of this statement of concern was the passing of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by Congress in December 2017. The title does not allude to the monumental chain of policies that it triggered. Yet, it is within its text, where the Alaskan governor managed to introduce the bill for two lease projects in the ANWR (Meyer, 2017). The U.S. Geological Survey recently estimated that somewhere between 5.7 and 16 billion barrels of oil lie beneath the plain (Dye, 2017). This fact is of special importance for the current government, which, led by Donald Trump, explicitly brings three arguments for drilling on the table: revenues for Alaska, jobs for Alaska economy and the question of energy security. Alaska’s congressional representatives, who are all Republican, strongly support the drilling plan, suggesting it could bring in $1bn to state and federal governments in the next decade. When plans ANWR for oil and gas exploitation was announced, senator Lisa Murkowski said it was “the single-most important step we can take to strengthen our long-term energy security and create new wealth” (Murkowski, 2017). The important thing to notice in this area is that, besides the environmental organizations and Gwich’in people, the investors look at this a poor investment. By the words of Thomas P DiNapoli: ‘Drilling in the ANWR is an exceedingly high-risk gamble that companies and investors should avoid’.

The impacts of oil drilling in the ANWR (Sources: U.S. fish & wildlife services; The wilderness society) Species, including mosses, lichens, vascular plants and previously mentioned wild animals, that are adapted to the cold arctic environment are especially at risk from oil drilling – related impacts including:

● Disruption of wildlife migration routes and habitats from noise pollution, traffic and fences - Increased vehicle traffic, construction of the industrial infrastructure, roads and pipelines, drilling operation at oil drilling sites contribute significantly to noise pollution in wildlands. Wild mammals and birds respond to noise disturbances with short-term avoidance behavior. Negative impacts include disruption of songbird communication in breeding and nesting seasons, as well as altered predator and prey dynamics.

● Oil spills and offshore drilling sites – Based on the example of the EVOS, we can conclude that the risk of hazards of oil spills is a risk which Alaskan wildlands can’t afford. Even after almost 30 years have passed since the EVOS, the ecosystems and populations at PWS still haven’t recovered, and maybe never will. Exposing the fragile tundra and wildlife to toxic chemicals and oil spills, in a much harsher and colder climate then the one in the PWS, will have unrepairable consequences, which include: damaging of animals’ organs such as liver, kidney, spleen or brain; causing cancer, immune system suppression and leading to reproductive failure; disturbing animals due to response activities and long-term ecological changes.

● Landscape changes from well pads and roads - Construction activities associated with oil and gas drilling leave behind radical impacts to the landscape. Well pad and road construction require the use of heavy equipment such as bulldozers, road graders and gravel trucks. Development of oil and gas complexes: Strip the environment of vegetation, increase erosion (which could lead to landslides and flooding) and the opportunity for weed infestation, disturb the land’s ground surface and seriously fragment once unspoiled wildlife habitats.

6

● Haze, toxic chemicals and dust that pollute the air and water - Open pits, ponds, and lagoons can contain wastewater, organic chemicals, petroleum hydrocarbons, surfactants and other substances which compromise the safety of our water. Pipeline explosions and wells (even if properly drilled) can cause drinking water problems by cross-contaminating aquifers. Development of gas wells may even require releases of methane and myriad toxic gases into the atmosphere.

Section 2: Exxon Valdez: Lessons (Un)learned

Tanker Exxon Valdez grounded on Bligh Reef in northern Prince William Sound (PWS) on 24 March 1989 and spilled an estimated 42 million liters of crude oil (Wolfe et al., 1994) into the cold, clear waters of Alaska's PWS, an act that contaminated to some degree at least 1990 km of pristine shoreline (Figure 1.) (Peterson et al., 2003). Four days later, a storm with winds of seventy miles per hour drove the oil onto the sand and rock beaches and then southwest from the PWS along Alaska’s outer coast on the Gulf of Alaska, eventually spreading nearly five hundred miles from the spill site and fouling one thousand miles of irregular shoreline.

Figure 1. The extent of the spilled oil coverage in the PWS in 1989 (USGS, 2013)

7

Figure 2. The extent of the spilled oil coverage in the PWS in 1989 (USGS, 2013)

Mortalities due to oil in the weeks to months following the Exxon Valdez oil spill (EVOS)

were estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands of marine birds (Piatt et al., 1990),

several thousand sea otters (Garrott et al., 1993; Ballachey et al., 1994), significant

proportions of resident (33%) and transient (41%) pods of killer whales (Matkin et al.,

2008), 300 harbor seals that were killed from inhalation of toxic fumes leading to brain

lesions, stress, and disorientation (National Research Council, 2002) and billions of

salmon and herring eggs were destroyed. Mass mortality also occurred among

macroalgae and benthic invertebrates on oiled shores from a combination of chemical

toxicity, smothering, and physical displacement from the habitat by pressurized wash-

water applied after the spill (Peterson et al., 2003).

Recovery timelines across wildlife species

Different species can distinctively vulnerable to the varying effects of oil spills, acute or chronic. Those vulnerabilities are influenced by life history characteristics, such as generation times, reproductive potential and natural survival rates, along with natural history characteristics, such as habitat use, diet, and foraging behavior (Esler et al., 2018).

As seen on Figure 2., some of the species were under the acute effect of the oil spill, while other suffered from the effects of chronical exposure and the persistent existence of oil in the habitat, while the third ones suffered injuries from both acute and chronical effects. Amongst the species whose populations have recovered are glaucous-winged gull (Larus glaucescens, Naumann 1840) and they represent species for which relatively small numbers of acute mortalities were detected (Piatt et al., 1990). In PWS, densities may have been depressed during the year of the spill, but no chronic injury or lack of recovery was evident (Day et al., 1997; Irons et al., 2000; Cushing et al., 2017).

Furthermore, bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus, Linnaeus 1766) have experienced 5% acute mortality and reduced their reproductive performance in oiled areas during 1989 from acute effects and have recovered by the year 1995. However, bald eagles

Figure 3. Examples of timelines of injury and recovery of selected species following the Exxon Valdez

oil spill in PWS, Alaska (Esler et al., 2018)

8

were at low risk of exposure to oil within beach sediment and no differences in survival or reproduction were observed in subsequent years (Bowman et al., 1995). River otters (Lontra canadensis, Schreber 1777) are not marine mammals, but they spend considerable time in coastal areas and forage in marine habitats. River otters are primarily piscivores, and in PWS, their diet was dominated by marine fishes (Bowyer et al., 2003), particularly those found near shore. Habitat use, diet, and body mass differed between river otters living in oiled and unoiled areas during that period (Esler et al., 2018). By the mid-1990s, many of these attributes had improved, and Bowyer et al. (2003) concluded that river otters had recovered by 1997.

Two pursuit-diving, piscivorous seabirds that have undergone long term declines and have failed to recover following the EVOS are pigeon guillemots (Cepphus columba, Pallas 1811) and marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus, Gmelin 1789) (Bixler, 2010; Cushing et al., 2017). Studies undertaken in PWS found reduced incidence of high lipid forage fishes in the diet of pigeon guillemot nestlings during the two decades following the oil spill, compared to the late 1970s (Golet et al., 2002; Bixler, 2010). Adult body condition, chick growth rate, and productivity also were lower after the oil spill (Golet et al., 2002; Bixler, 2010). Similarly, adult body mass of marbled murrelets during summer decreased between the late 1970s and late 1990s (Kuletz, 2005). Over the period 1989–2012, many marine bird taxa that utilize pelagic habitats and prey resources such as forage fish decreased in abundance within PWS, while few taxa that utilize benthic resources declined (Cushing et al., 2017). The PWS herring stock also declined during this time (Hulson et al., 2008). These community-level patterns indicated that changes in the pelagic food web (perhaps independent of the EVOS) likely contributed to sustained, long-term declines of a suite of piscivorous seabird species, including pigeon guillemots and marbled murrelets (Esler et al., 2018).

Sea otters (Enhyrda lutris, Linnaeus 1758) and harlequin ducks (Histrionicus histrionicus, Linnaeus, 1758) were among the species with the most protracted recovery times following the EVOS, with lingering oil implicated as the primary constraint to full recovery (Bodkin et al., 2002; Esler et al., 2002). Sea otters and harlequin ducks share some relevant attributes, including high fidelity to relatively small home ranges, use of intertidal habitats where oil persisted, consumption of benthic invertebrates, and life histories constraining population growth potential (e.g. delayed maturity and limited annual productivity) (Peterson and Holland-Bartels 2002). Recent data provided new insights on the recovery timeline of sea otters and harlequin ducks, and the EVOSTC declared both species recovered in 2014 (Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, 2014).

Killer whales (Orcinus orca, Linnaeus 1758) suffered acute mortalities in both a major resident pod and a unique transient population that occur in PWS (Matkin et al., 2008; Bodkin et al., 2014). Neither has recovered to pre-spill numbers, although it is unlikely that exposure to lingering oil is leading to chronic direct effects (Esler et al., 2018). Instead, killer whale recovery appears to be constrained by demographic factors associated with life history characteristics and small population size: resident pod population suffered a disproportionate loss of adult and juvenile females as a result of the spill, which has further delayed recovery; the transient population has not produced a viable calf since 1984 and the loss of females following the spill reduced any

9

significant reproduction in this already small threatened population (Esler et al., 2018). Timeline to recovery for this species is unknown, and it is likely that the transient population will never recover and is headed toward eventual extinction (Matkin et al., 2008; Bodkin et al., 2014).

Indigenous peoples and EVOS The EVOS had economic, cultural and psychological effect on people (Figure 4.).

• Economic: Herring fisheries, which represented 50% of the clan’s economy and it

has not recovered due to herring long-tern collapse of population (Carls et al.

1999; Heintz et al. 1999). Financial impact on commercial fishing between 1989-

90 approached $155 million US dollars. (Cohen, 1993;1997)

• Cultural: ‘The Alaskan dream was stolen from us, one which stayed intact for

hundreds of years (Dune Lankard, Eyak Alaska Eagle clan).

• Psychological: slower in manifestation but very lasting and damaging, it resulted

in increase of suicides, alcoholism, despair. Severe levels of depression and PTSD

were recorded. There has been a dramatic decrease in “Social capital” -

individuals declining to participate actively in the community, followed by

increased divorce rates, domestic violence and bankruptcies - “corrosive

community” (Picou, 2004)

Figure 4. Summary of social structural, cultural and individual impacts resulting from the EVOS

10

Section 3: A Green and Sustainable Way Forward

The greatest opportunity for ANWR lies in using its natural potential in a sustainable

manner. Strong players in accomplishing this goal are the members of Arctic Council,

peculiarly the Sustainable Development Working Group (SDWG). The SDWG maintains

focus on three pedestals of sustainable development – environmental protection, economic development and social equity.

Even though there are projects like ‘Arctic renewable energy atlas’ (AREA) which focuses on mapping the area of the Arctic in search for more environmentally friendly sources of energy which include Alaska and ANWR, there is a lot more that needs to be and can be addressed through the work of SDWG. This would represent a basis for stronger environmental protection of the ANWR and could be a great opposition against drilling actions.

The most viable solution that addresses the economic development and the protection of environment is the implementation of sustainable tourism. Sustainable tourism is rooted in the balance between environmental, economic and socio-cultural aspects, which would fulfil the need for money resources, on one side and the need for further environmental protection, on the other. There are many activities which are now being offered to ecotourists, such as cultural tours of Eskimo villages, hiking, river rafting and wildlife viewing, which, to accommodate the needs of environmental, social and economic sphere need to be more developed and bring more revenues in order to be contradict the possible income of oil drilling. This can be achieved through better marketing and introduction of tours which will raise the public knowledge about the importance of ANWR. Two central players in sustainable tourism should be indigenous communities and wildlife. Members of indigenous would have a chance of employment, since they could be employed as tour guides or work in wildlife management, since they have been present on these lands for centuries. There is no need to mention that wildlife of ANWR should be protected, but in this way, it will be protected, but could also provide economic benefit.

‘Building self-sufficient, resilient, and healthy

Arctic communities for present and future

generations – while protecting the environment,

subsistence lifeways, and cultural traditions – is a

primary goal of the working group.’ (SDWG)

11

The Way Ahead (Fang, 2015)

The question is, if not drilling, what can the Alaskan state use as a reliable source of income? Two of the most cited solutions have been either to pursue development of renewable energy through government subsides, or the improvement of production energy efficiency. Others have proposed the development of the Refuge’s oil to be left as a “Last Resort”.

Alternative Energy

A viable alternative to the phasing out of oil production do exist. However, such alternative energy sources as wind, hydro, and solar, require not only technological development but also governmental support. One of the reasons for this is that compared to conventional petroleum energy sources, alternative energy has little short-term economic gain and may not be readily accessible (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2015). Therefore, the government needs to be ready to subsidies and support the development of this alternative energy. Unfortunately, the current administration’s policies seem to be in opposition to supporting such projects (FSFCCCSWF, 2015). Thus, the issue needs to be addressed on even larger scale.

Oil and Energy Efficiency

Another option is the decrease in waste of the produced energy. Across the world, an “increasing number of countries has adopted targets and policies to improve the efficiency of buildings, appliances, transport vehicles, and industry.” (Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century, 2015). This can potentially decrease the accelerating levels of overly dependency of fossil fuels, but cannot be a sole solution to the problem.

Alternative Oil Sources

The Arctic region is infamous for its harsh conditions for oil extraction. Therefore, the cost of testing and development can be extremely high compared to other more hospitable areas. One example of this took place in 2015, when Shell dropped a project in the Arctic after the costs were too high to pursue this initiative. Some research reveals that most of the oil can be found offshore and underwater (Bourne, 2015).

12

Section 4: Final remarks

We are ecologists and stand for the conservation of the natural resources of the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge and the protection of the interests and lifestyle of the indigenous population of Alaska. We, yet, the US arctic state, are screaming for the earliest possible release of our resource curse depending economy of the extractive industry and the export of energy. The state should rely on the development of the tertiary sector, such as services - ecotourism, hospitality and recreational business, as well as high-tech sectors, information technology, science, research, education and transport. The federal authorities see the Arctic sector only from a position of their need to extract our rich natural resources. In this connection, the question arises: how does the US intend to combine two contradictory development models-the development of the region's natural resources and the preservation of its unique social and ecological systems? Why should rapid financial benefits be above the welfare of the nature and mankind?

Alaska produces 20% of all American oil – it ranks second in the US. In the north of the

state, huge reserves of oil and gas were explored. The Prudhoe Bay deposit is the largest

of the traditional land in the USA - 8% of US oil production. Oil revenues are particularly

important for Alaska's welfare, since they make 98% of all revenues to its budget from

the extraction of natural resources and 90% of all budget revenues. Moreover, 50% of

all employees in the Alaska’s economy somehow depend on the extraction or

transportation of oil (McDowell Inc., 2017). We need changes! Unfortunately, the state

authorities of Alaska as general Republicans support the active development of

hydrocarbon production both on land and on the Arctic shelf, seeking to create conditions for attracting investors. We are against such initiatives.

In the north-west of Alaska, the National Petroleum Reserve is located, where oil fields

are only explored - occupies a vast territory, but production was not yet conducted for

strategic and environmental reasons. Only geological exploration was allowed on a

limited scale. Now Washington, and especially Alaska’s authorities, have great views on

the exploiting oil and gas resources on the Arctic shelf and the production is taking

place now. Studies have shown that in the Arctic regions, the share of North America in

undeveloped oil reserves is 65% and that 26% is attributable to undiscovered natural

gas reserves. Most of these oil reserves are on the shelf of Alaska. (UGSG, 2017)

Moreover, the Trump’s Administration is actively inclined to allow for the first time in

more than 30 years the exploration of gas and oil fields in the Arctic National Wildlife

Refuge (Jones, 2018) - this can not be allowed. Alaska has not recovered from the

catastrophe that killed hundreds of thousands of unique living species and will never recover unless we create new sustainable Alaska’s policy.

If the problem of a sharp decline in oil production in Alaska won’t be resolved it may

face a collapse of the oil industry and the whole economy. We need a new model of our

13

13

economic development now! Recently, low oil prices, uncertainty in the regulation of

drilling in the Arctic and high drilling costs have prompted oil companies to refuse

drilling in the region. So, Royal Dutch Shell in September 2015 abandoned its plan to

drill on the shelf of Alaska and spent $ 7 billion for a failed attempt (Macalister, 2015), followed by other companies such as ConocoPhillips and Statoil.

The authorities are obliged to take into the account environmental considerations, the

interests of the indigenous people of Alaska and ordinary people. We have no doubt

about the possibility of creating the enough concept of sustainable development for the

US Arctic sector, which would be smoothly integrated and include all three necessary

structural components - economic, social and environmental aspects. And instead of

defending the narrow interests of individual financial greed and engaging in populism,

all parties must begin a constructive dialogue on the development of the new

sustainable policy for Alaska now or otherwise we are at the doors of a new devastating catastrophe.

14

References

1. Ballachey, B.E., Bodkin, J.L., DeGange, A.R., 1994. An overview of sea otter studies. In: Loughlin, T.R. (Ed.), Marine Mammals and the Exxon Valdez. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 47–59.

2. Biel S. 2001 American disasters, available at https://crrc.unh.edu/sites/crrc.unh.edu/files/media/docs/Workshops/human_dimensions/reading_materials/day_the_water_died_gillpicou_chapter.pdf (Accessed 25 July 2018)

3. Bourne, Joel K. Jr. (2015). What Obama’s Drilling Bans Mean For Alaska and the Arctic. National Geographic. Retrieved from: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/02/150205-obama-alaska-oil-anwr-arctic-offshore-drilling/

4. Bixler, K.S., 2010. Why Aren’t Pigeon Guillemot in PWS, Alaska Recovering from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill? (Thesis). Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA, pp. 144.

5. Bodkin, J.L., Esler, D., Rice, S.D., Matkin, C.O., Ballachey, B.E., 2014. The effects of spilled oil on coastal ecosystems: lessons from the Exxon Valdez spill. In: Maslo, B., Lockwood, J.L. (Eds.), Coastal Conservation. Cambridge University Press, NY, pp. 311–346.

6. Bodkin, J.L., Ballachey, B.E., Dean, T.A., Fukuyama, A.K., Jewett, S.C., McDonald, L., Monson, D.H., O'Clair, C.E., VanBlaricom, G.R., 2002. Sea otter population status and the process of recovery from the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill. Environmental Science & Technology 241, 237–253.

7. Bowman, T.D., Schempf, P.F., Bernatowicz, J.A., 1995. Bald eagle survival and population-dynamics in Alaska after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. The Journal of Wildlife Management 59 (2), 317–324.

8. Bowyer, R.T., Blundell, G.M., Ben-David, M., Jewett, S.C., Dean, T.A., Duffy, L.K., 2003. Effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on river otters: injury and recovery of a sentinel species. Wildlife Monographs 153, 1–53.

9. Brooks J., 2017 ANWR drilling approved, Juneau Empire available at http://juneauempire.com/nation-and-world/news/state/2017-12-19/anwr-drilling-approved (Accessed 25 July 2018)

10. Brooks J., 2018 State asks Legislature for $10 million to survey ANWR for oil, Juneau Empire available at http://juneauempire.com/state/news/alaska-legislature/2018-02-20/state-asks-legislature-10-million-survey-anwr-oil (Accessed 25 July 2018)

11. Carrington D., 2018. Investors urge fossil fuel firms to shun Trump's Arctic drilling plans, The Guardian. available at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/14/investors-urge-fossil-fuel-firms-shun-trump-arctic-drilling-plans-alaskan-wilderness (Accessed 26 July 2018)

12. CNN, 2018. Mining project in Alaska gets new life under Trump, CNN wire available at http://www.actionnewsnow.com/content/national/489183061 (Accessed 25 July 2018)

13. Cushing, D.A., Roby, D.D., Irons, D.B., 2017. Patterns of distribution, abundance, and change over time in a subarctic marine bird community. Deep Sea Research II.

14. Day, R.H., Murphy, S.M., Wiens, J.A., Hayward, G.D., Harner, E.J., Smith, L.N., 1997. Effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on habitat use by birds in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Ecological Applications 7 (2), 593–613.

15. Dementieff B., Hawke A., 2018. Groups Rally to Oppose Oil and Gas Drilling in the Arctic Refuge, available at https://www.nrdc.org/media/2018/180615-0

16. Defenders of wildlife 2017. Arctic refuge factsheet; available at https://defenders.org/publications/Americas-Wild-Arctic-Worth-Protecting-Factsheet.pdf?_ga=2.57835178.1297853536.1532877638-703826345.1532877638 (Accessed 24 July 2018)

17. Dye L., 2018. Oil Drilling: the View From Alaska, ABC News available at https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98766&page (Accessed 26 July 2018)

18. Esler, D., Bowman, T.D., Trust, K., Ballachey, B.E., Dean, T.A., Jewett, S.C., O’Clair, C.E., 2002. Harlequin duck population recovery following the Exxon Valdez oil spill: progress, process and constraints. Marine Ecology Progress Series 241, 271–286.

19. Esler D., Ballachey B.E., Matkin C., Cushing D., Kaler R., Bodkin J., Monsona D., Esslinger G., Kloecker K. (2018) Timelines and mechanisms of wildlife population recovery following the Exxon Valdez oil spill. 42 Amsterdam, Elsevier: Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 147, 36- 42

20. Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, 2014. Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Plan. 2014 Update, Injured Resources and Services. Anchorage, AK: Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, 44p

15

21. Fang A., 2015. Oil Exploration In The Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, The University of British Columbia available at https://environment.geog.ubc.ca/oil-exploration-in-the-alaska-national-wildlife-refuge/ (Accessed 26 July 2018)

22. Frankfurt School FS-UNEP Collaborating Centre for Climate & Sustainable Energy Finance. (2015). Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment

23. Garrott, R.A., Eberhardt, L.L., Burn, D.M., 1993. Mortality of sea otters in Prince William sound following the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Marine Mammal Science 9 (4), 343–359.

24. Golet, G.H., Seiser, P.E., McGuire, A.D., Roby, D.D., Fischer, J.B., Kuletz, K.J., Irons, D.B., Dean, T.A., Jewett, S.C., Newman, S.H., 2002. Long-term direct and indirect effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on pigeon guillemots in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Marine Ecology Progress Series 241, 287–304.

25. Haskett G., 2018. Trump administration is gutting the bedrock of US environmental law, The Hill available at http://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/398390-trump-administration-is-gutting-the-bedrock-of-us-environmental (Accessed 26 July 2018)

26. Hulson, P.-J.F., Miller, S.E., Quinn II, T.J., Marty, G.D., Moffitt, S.D., Funk, F., 2008. Data conflicts in fisheries models: incorporating hydroacoustic data into the Prince William Sound Pacific herring assessment model. ICES J. Marine Science 65, 25–43

27. Irons, D.B., Kendall, S.J., Erickson, W.P., McDonald, L.L., Lance, B.K., 2000. Nine years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill: effects on marine bird populations in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Condor 102 (4), 723–737.

28. James E. L., NGM STAFF. Sources: USFWS; NOAA; Alaska Department of Fish and Game;, (2018), Two Kinds of Wealth, Available at: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/06/arctic-national-wildlife-refuge-america-oil-risk/ (Accessed 24 July 2018).

29. Jones B., 2018. Trump officials may allow 'shaker machines' to search arctic refuge for oil, The Guardian available at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/24/alaska-national-wildlife-refuge-seismic-testing-trump-plan (Accessed 27 July 2018)

30. Juliette H., 2012. 10 reasons why Arctic drilling is a really stupid idea, Greenpeace available at https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/6893/10-reasons-why-arctic-drilling-is-a-really-stupid-idea/ (Accessed 26 July 2018)

31. Kuletz, K.J., 2005. Foraging behavior and productivity of a non-colonial seabird, the marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus), relative to prey and habitat (Doctoral Dissertation). University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada, pp. 195.

32. Macalister T., 2015. Shell abandons Alaska Arctic drilling, The Guardian available at https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/28/shell-ceases-alaska-arctic-drilling-exploratory-well-oil-gas-disappoints (Accessed 27 July 2018)

33. Matkin, C.O., Saulifis, E.L., Ellis, G.M., Olesiuk, P., Rice, S.D., 2008. Ongoing population level impacts on killer whales Orcinus orca following the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska . Marine Ecology Program Series 356, 269–281.

34. McDowell Group, Inc., 2017. The Role of the Oil and Gas Industry in Alaska’s Economy, available at https://www.aoga.org/sites/default/files/final_mcdowell_group_aoga_report_7.5.17.pdf (Accessed 26 July 2018)

35. Meyer R., 2017. The GOP Tax Bill Could Forever Alter Alaska’s Indigenous Tribes, The Atlantic, available at https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/12/senate-tax-bill-indigenous-communities/547352/ (Accessed 25 July 2018)

36. National Research Council, Oil in the Sea III: Inputs, Fates, and Effects (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2002).

37. NRDC, (2008), Arctic Refuge Land Grab. Available at: http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/14898/ANWR_real_drill_sm.jpg (Accessed 25 July 2018).

38. Palsha R.,2018. Alaskan leaders react to movement on ANWR drilling plan, available at http://www.ktuu.com/content/news/Trump-admin-starts-plan-to-drill-in-Arctic-wildlife-refuge-480265883 (Accessed 25 July 2018)

39. Peterson H. C., Rice S. D., Short J. W., Esler D., Bodkin J. L., Ballachey B. E., Irons D. B., 2003. Long-Term Ecosystem Response to the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. New York: Science 302, 2082 – 2086.

40. Peterson, C.H., Holland-Bartels, L., 2002. Chronic impacts of oil pollution in the sea: risks to vertebrate predators. Marine Ecology Program Series 241, 235–236.

41. Peterson H. C., 2001. The Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska: Acute, indirect and chronic effects on the ecosystem. New York: Advances in marine biology 39, 1 – 103.

16

42. Piatt, J.F., Lensink, C.J., Butler, W., Kendziorek, M., Nysewander, D.R., 1990. Immediate impact of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on marine birds. Kuwait: Auk 107 (2), 387–39

43. Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century. (2015). Renewables 2015 Global Status Report. Paris, France: Author

44. Rexford J., 2017. Alaskans say ‘yes’ to ANWR drilling, available at http://juneauempire.com/opinion/2017-10-01/alaskans-say-yes-anwr-drilling (Accessed 24 July 2018)

45. The Wilderness Society, 2017. Seven ways oil and gas drilling is bad news for the environment,

available at https://wilderness.org/seven-ways-oil-and-gas-drilling-bad-news-environment

(Accessed 25 July 2018)

46. U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2014). Petroleum Statistics. Retrieved from

http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=oil_home#tab3

47. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service ,2012. Time Line: Establishment and management of Arctic Refuge,

available at https://www.fws.gov/refuge/arctic/timeline (Accessed 26 July 2018)

48. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2013. Wildlife & Habitat, available at https://www.fws.gov/refuge/arctic/wildlife_habitat.html (Accessed 25 July 2018)

49. U.S. Geological Survey USGS, 2017. Assessment of undiscovered oil and gas resources in the Cretaceous Nanushuk and Torok Formations, Alaska North Slope, and summary of resource potential of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, available at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/fs20173088 (Accessed 26 July 2018)

50. Wolfe, D.A., 1994. The Fate of the Oil Spilled from the Exxon Valdez. Washington: Environmental Science & Technology. 28 (13), A560–A568.

17

17