Connect with us

Alaska

Alaska watches, nervously, as Ukraine war pushes more Russian oil through Bering Strait

Published

on

Alaska watches, nervously, as Ukraine war pushes more Russian oil through Bering Strait


The war in Ukraine appears to be driving a sharp increase in shipments of Russian oil to China through the Bering Strait, prompting new warnings that the traffic threatens the isolated villages and residents’ fish and wildlife harvests on the American side of the border.

“I feel pretty confident that it’s the start of a trend,” said Andrew Hartsig, the Anchorage-based senior director of the Ocean Conservancy’s Arctic program. He added: “Alaska’s communities and coastlines are at risk in the event of an accident.”

So far this summer, at least five tankers have set out carrying Russian crude across the Northern Sea Route to China, according to Bloomberg — a voyage that, for oil tankers, had been attempted just twice before.

Advertisement

An Arctic-focused publication, High North News, said that the traffic is going both ways: The second-ever large container ship to transit the sea route left China in early August bound for St. Petersburg.

Experts warn that an Arctic oil spill could be catastrophic. With high shipping costs typically translating into steep prices for groceries, foods harvested from the ocean — fish, whales, seals, walrus — are essential for subsistence.

“That’s our main source of food security, from the Bering Sea,” Ben Pungowiyi, the president of the tribal government in the 800-person village of Savoonga, said in an interview.

Policymakers and advocates have long predicted that global warming-driven sea ice melt will make the Northern Sea Route — from Northern Europe to Asia through the Bering Strait — increasingly attractive to the global shipping industry.

If summer ice conditions allow, passage across the Arctic can cut shipping times by two weeks over the traditional Russia-to-Asia route through the Mediterranean Sea and the Suez Canal.

Advertisement

And the Ukraine conflict appears to be accelerating that trend, as Western sanctions cut off European markets and leave China and India as Russia’s two largest customers for oil.

While the ships are free to pass through the Bering Strait, its 55-mile width means that any spills would be likely to drift toward Alaska communities. Advocacy groups, residents and the government officials who represent them say that the increased traffic underscores the need for the U.S. government to enhance its programs and infrastructure to respond to accidents.

“We’re concerned about it and we’re pushing, hoping to get some funding,” Pungowiyi said. “We’re right smack in the middle of the Bering Strait, and you want to be able to respond.”

Savoonga, 150 miles south of the strait on St. Lawrence Island, is one of several villages near the Northern Sea Route that could be harmed by an oil spill or other shipping-related accidents.

Other communities include Wales, population 160, at the edge of the American side of the strait; Gambell, also on St. Lawrence Island, with 600 residents; and Diomede, a tiny island community in the middle of the strait with just 80 people.

Advertisement

None of those villages currently has substantial spill response infrastructure, or a major harbor where ships could be docked. Diomede lacked functional phone service Friday, with residents unable to place outgoing calls and incoming calls cutting off after a few seconds.

Pungowiyi, in Savoonga, said his tribe is advancing a project to further develop its small harbor to accommodate larger vessels.

In Nome, the regional hub town to the southeast, the nation’s first deepwater Arctic port is in development, which could support U.S. Coast Guard operations in the area. It won’t be ready to use for several years, though a nonprofit response organization currently maintains an inflatable skiff in Nome and booms used to contain spills, according to an online inventory.

Alaska leaders are tackling the challenges posed by increased activity in the Arctic “on multiple fronts,” said Republican U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan.

“But I think we’re still behind,” he said.

Advertisement

Sullivan, in an interview, pointed to a parallel increase in Russian and Chinese military vessels operating in and around the Bering Sea.

“What we’ve been doing is trying to awaken the rest of the federal government to the fact that the Arctic is not just some parochial interest of Alaska, but a national strategic interest of our country,” he said.

The U.S. dispatched several warships and aircraft a few weeks ago to shadow a joint China-Russia patrol near the Aleutian Islands. But Sullivan said that the nearest port that could dock a Navy destroyer or icebreaker is in Anchorage or Dutch Harbor, more than 800 miles from the Bering Strait.

In addition to last year’s announcement of $250 million in federal money for the Nome port, Alaska’s Congressional delegation has helped pass additional Arctic-focused legislation. One recent measure established a committee to recommend new policies around Arctic maritime transportation, with three Alaska Native tribal members, several Biden administration employees and nominees from the Washington and Alaska governors.

Another bill, with a push from Sullivan, created a civilian position at the Coast Guard to oversee Alaska oil spill planning guidelines. And a proposal still pending in Congress would require a study of Bering Sea traffic projections and emergency response capabilities.

Advertisement

Experts say that while the Arctic environment around the Bering Sea would make cleaning up an oil spill a nightmare, Russia has maintained good standards for its tanker fleet and crews — though Hartsig, with the Ocean Conservancy, said one concern is if traffic increases to the point where those standards are reduced for vessels on the Northern Sea Route.

He and others point to reports earlier this year that Russian state-owned and private energy companies were discussing the use of icebreaker-accompanied conventional tankers, not just ice-reinforced vessels, on the route.

One other major challenge in managing the risk of the new oil shipments is that the Ukraine war has diminished previous levels of cooperation between the U.S. and Russia.

Maritime experts have proposed ideas like government pre-authorization for icebreakers from either country to cross the strait to respond to oil spills, said Paul Fuhs, a former mayor of the Aleutian town of Unalaska who’s worked on international maritime issues.

Fuhs said he’s continued working with the Alaska Marine Exchange, a Juneau-based nonprofit that collects and monitors navigational information, to continue pushing for cooperation on safe Arctic shipping practices. But the war has thwarted work in the Arctic Coast Guard Forum, an international organization that once brought Russian and American authorities together, Fuhs said.

Advertisement

“That was a real disappointment to me,” Fuhs said.

The U.S. Coast Guard has also seen direct collaboration with the Russians fall through. The agency was scheduled to hold a joint oil spill response exercise with Russia off Nome earlier this year, but the Russians pulled out.

“I can confirm Russia was originally scheduled to participate, but cannot speculate as to why they weren’t able to follow through with that participation,” Melissa McKenzie, an Anchorage-based Coast Guard spokeswoman, said in an emailed statement.

“We are aware of the presence of Russian vessels in the region, but their presence has not impacted Coast Guard operations,” McKenzie added. “We will continue to patrol our nation’s maritime border in the Bering Sea, Bering Strait, and Chukchi Sea, with our largest and most capable cutters and aircraft, to protect U.S. sovereign interests, U.S. fish stocks, and to promote international maritime norms.

Originally published at Northern Journal. Anchorage-based independent journalist Nathaniel Herz has been a reporter in Alaska for nearly a decade, with stints at the Anchorage Daily News and Alaska Public Media. Read his newsletter, Northern Journal, at natherz.substack.com.

Advertisement





Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Alaska

Skiers Likely Dead After Avalanche In Alaska – Videos from The Weather Channel

Published

on

Skiers Likely Dead After Avalanche In Alaska – Videos from The Weather Channel




Source link

Continue Reading

Alaska

Alaska political leaders excited by President Trump’s backing of gas pipeline in address to Congress

Published

on

Alaska political leaders excited by President Trump’s backing of gas pipeline in address to Congress


President Donald Trump addresses a joint session of Congress at the Capitol in Washington, Tuesday, March 4, 2025. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Alaska political leaders on Wednesday broadly welcomed President Donald Trump’s remarks to Congress talking up the prospects of the state’s long-sought but faltering natural gas pipeline.

In his speech to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday night, the president said, “It will be truly spectacular. It’s all set to go.”

Trump said South Korea and Japan want to partner and invest “trillions of dollars each” into the “gigantic” pipeline, which has been estimated to cost $44 billion. Japanese news outlets reported Tuesday that no final investment decisions had been made by either nation.

Gov. Mike Dunleavy — who earlier in his political career was skeptical of the pipeline — said that the president’s support “will ensure this massive LNG project is completed, and clean Alaska gas supplies our Asian allies and our Alaskan residents for decades to come.”

Advertisement

U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, said on social media that “the stars are aligned like never before” for the project, which he called “a decades-long energy dream for Alaska.”

In a later post, Sullivan said that he and Dunleavy had urged Trump to give Alaska LNG a “shout out” in his congressional address.

U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who in recent days has been critical of Trump’s moves to fire federal employees en masse, freeze federal funding and publicly criticize Ukraine’s president, thanked Trump for promoting the pipeline on the national stage.

“This project can provide Alaska and the world with clean and affordable energy for decades to come, while creating thousands of new jobs and generating billions of dollars in new revenues,” Murkowski said.

U.S. Rep. Nick Begich said, “Alaska is poised to play a central role in America’s energy resurgence.”

Advertisement

The decades-long plan to construct an 800-mile pipeline to deliver natural gas from the North Slope for export has stalled in recent years.

In his speech to Congress, Trump said, “My administration is also working on a gigantic natural gas pipeline in Alaska, among the largest in the world, where Japan, South Korea and other nations want to be our partner with investments of trillions of dollars each. It has never been anything like that one. It will be truly spectacular. It’s all set to go. The permitting has gotten.”

The Alaska Gasline Development Corp. — the state agency leading the project — has state and federal permits, but it has not secured financing.

A corporation spokesperson thanked Trump on Wednesday for his “vocal advocacy” for the pipeline.

“There is tremendous momentum behind Alaska LNG from potential offtakers, financiers, and other partners eager to participate in this national energy infrastructure priority,” said Tim Fitzpatrick, an AGDC spokesperson, by email.

Advertisement

Conservative Republican state legislators have been more supportive and optimistic about the project in recent months. The Republican House minority caucus thanked Trump for prioritizing Alaska LNG.

“The proposed LNG project will not only be a huge boost to the economy of Alaska but provide the nation with long term energy security and provide our allies in the global marketplace with needed resources,” said Anchorage GOP Rep. Mia Costello, the House minority leader.

But Alaska state lawmakers have remained broadly skeptical.

The Legislature last year planned to shutter AGDC because it had failed to deliver a pipeline.

”There’s still a lot we need to learn,” said Anchorage Democratic Rep. Donna Mears, chair of the House Energy Committee.

Advertisement

Legislators have questioned who will finance the project, who will buy the gas, whether a connection would be built to deliver gas to Fairbanks, and if the state would need to invest some of its resources to see the pipeline built.

Members of the Senate majority recently estimated that the state had already spent well over $1 billion to advance the pipeline and related projects.

AGDC recently announced that Glenfarne, a New York-based company, in January signed an exclusive agreement with the state agency to lead development of the project.

Palmer Republican Sen. Shelley Hughes said at the time that the outlook for Alaska LNG was “more positive than it’s ever been.”

One factor that has revived interest: Trump’s tariff threats against Japan and South Korea, The New York Times reported.

Advertisement

Japanese news outlets reported on Tuesday that while South Korea and Japan’s governments are continuing to study the project, no final investment decisions have been made.

Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba told Japan’s parliament on Tuesday that “we will carefully examine its technical possibilities and profitability,” The Japan Times reported.

Larry Persily, an oil and gas analyst and former Alaska deputy commissioner of revenue, said it would be significant if Japan and South Korea signed binding agreements to buy Alaska gas. Pledging to examine the project would be familiar to Alaskans, he said.

“We’ve had decades of that,” he said.

Nick Fulford, an analyst with the Legislature’s oil and gas consultant GaffneyCline, presented to legislative committees on Wednesday about the global gas market and Alaska LNG.

Advertisement

Fulford said Alaska LNG would be a “very expensive project” due to capital costs, but its operating costs would be relatively low. The Alaska project’s vulnerabilities — compared to gas developments in the Middle East — are based on “capital cost inflation,” he said.

GaffneyCline’s forecasts for natural gas demand in coming decades range widely, so do cost estimates for construction of the Alaska pipeline.

Persily said at lower demand levels, Alaska LNG does not seem to be needed in the global market. Wide-ranging cost estimates to complete the project are a cause for concern, he said.

“We’re far away from having a reasonable, confident estimate,” Persily said. “Is it a $44 billion project? Is it $50 billion? Is it $60 billion? We don’t know.”





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Alaska

Multiple heli-skiers trapped in Alaska’s remote backcountry after avalanche

Published

on

Multiple heli-skiers trapped in Alaska’s remote backcountry after avalanche


Multiple skiers were reported trapped in the Alaska backcountry after being swept up in an avalanche, Alaska State Troopers said Wednesday.

The number of skiers and their conditions were not immediately available.

The slide happened late Tuesday afternoon near the skiing community of Girdwood, located about 40 miles south of Anchorage, Austin McDaniel, a spokesperson for the Alaska State Troopers, said in a text to The Associated Press.

Multiple skiers were reported trapped in the Alaska backcountry after being swept up in an avalanche, Alaska State Troopers said Wednesday. Getty Images

“Troopers received a report of an avalanche that caught multiple individuals who were heliskiing yesterday afternoon near the west fork of 20 Mile River,” McDaniel said. “The company that they were skiing with attempted to recover the skiers but were unable to due to the depth of the snow.”

Advertisement

The size of the avalanche and the depth of the snow was not immediately known.

He said troopers will attempt to reach the site on Wednesday, and may need an aircraft to get to the remote spot well off the Seward Highway.

Girdwood is the skiing capital of Alaska, and home to the Hotel Alyeska, at the base of Mount Alyeska, where people ski or snowboard.

At the top of the mountain is the Seven Glaciers Restaurant, named for its view.

Each winter, 25 to 30 people die in avalanches in the U.S., according to the National Avalanche Center.

Advertisement

One person was killed in an avalanche in central Colorado on Feb. 22. Authorities in Grand County responded to what they described as a skier-triggered avalanche in a steep area known as “The Fingers” above Berthoud Pass.

It was the second reported avalanche in the county that day.


A group of people relaxing along a creek below the Byron Glacier near Portage Lake in Girdwood, Alaska during a record-breaking heatwave
The number of skiers and their conditions is still unknown, according to reports. Getty Images

That avalanche death was the third in Colorado this winter and the second fatality in less than a week in that state, according to the Colorado Avalanche Information Center.

A Crested Butte snowboarder was killed Feb. 20 in a slide west of Silverton.

Elsewhere, three people died in avalanches Feb. 17 — one person near Lake Tahoe and two backcountry skiers in Oregon’s Cascade Mountains.

On Feb. 8, a well-known outdoor guide was caught in an avalanche in Utah and was killed.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending