 A good morning, I feel like this is not good morning America, it's good morning CSIS, so we are delighted that you could be with us today to talk a little Arctic economics and to be with us as we unveil a new report literally at this moment, which I hope you have a copy if you didn't get one, Arctic economics in the 21st century, the benefits and costs of cold and we are so delighted and privileged to have Lieutenant Governor Mead Treadwell of Alaska to help us talk about Arctic economics in the American Arctic and I will briefly introduce a man who needs no introduction to this room, you know this is a lot of fans here so me welcome and thank you so much. What I'm going to do is very very briefly tell you a few things about this report and then I'm going to turn this over to Lieutenant Governor Treadwell to share his thoughts about Arctic economics, but this report it represents the very last in a series of four reports that CSIS has published as part of an ongoing research effort the geopolitics of the High North Project, a project that was generously funded by the Norwegian Research Council. We have written four reports. The first report was an attempt to lay out what are US strategic interests in the Arctic looking at the the security, the economics, the policies. Our second report looked at the future security architecture of the Arctic. What did we need to have in place to ensure the safety and the security of the Arctic wither a role for NATO in the Arctic and it posed some interesting questions. Our third report that was released about six months ago looked at the new policy, the new foreign policy frontier and that was an attempt to look at US policy towards the Arctic and its organization. We suggested an updating of the National Security Presidential Directive 66 that was issued in 2009. A few months later the administration came out with that so we thought that was a great idea and we'll talk about that in a few moments but we also looked at how we could reorganize ourselves to implement a more insightful, more leadership driven US Arctic policy. And now we come to our fourth report, Arctic Economics and in some way we should have started with this report first because the economics quite frankly of the Arctic will shape the politics, the security environment. And so we attempted, and you can tell us how we did, to lay out what are the economics of the American Arctic. We borrowed a concept from a colleague of mine at the Brookings Institute, Dr. Fiona Hill with her colleague Cliff Gaddy, had written a book in 2008 called the Siberian Curse and it looked at the cost of cold, literally the sort of cost, the GDP per capita cost of then Soviet Siberian development. We didn't quite go into that analogy but we wanted to use that, that the weighing of scales of the benefits, the economic benefits of Arctic economic development and try to weigh the costs. By costs we mean infrastructure costs, you can never quite quantify environmental costs but we attempted to show that balance if you will, the benefits of economic development in the Arctic and the potential costs. So we looked at multiple sectors, we looked at the oil and gas sector, mineral resources, shipping, fisheries, ecotourism and all the infrastructure that is required to support a robust economic development package. I have to pause and specifically thank our energy and national security program here at CSIS, David Palmfrey who is extremely helpful and helping to shape the oil and gas section of this. I think at the end of the report it will surprise you to know that the figures are astonishing for the potential for economic development in the American Arctic and specifically obviously we looked at Alaska and some of those trends. But the question is, are we going to develop those? What is America's national economic strategy for the Arctic? Perfect segue into the perfect person to talk about Arctic and Alaskan economic development. With us we have Lieutenant Governor Mead Treadwell who was elected Alaska's Lieutenant Governor in November of 2010. But many of us in the Arctic community had the privilege of working and knowing Mead in his role as chair of the United States Arctic Research Commission. He was appointed chair in 2006. He was appointed to the commission by President George W. Bush in 2001. He has been a real intellectual and thought leader on U. S. Arctic policy. But he has on the ground knowledge and skills and his own work as the city of Cordova's director of oil spill response during the Exxon Valdez oil spill. He understands the costs of cold and the costs of development firsthand and has been instrumental in developing Alaska's oil spill regulations and has certainly I think shaped the landscape of thinking on how we think through Arctic shipping and I hope he'll touch upon that as well. Once Lieutenant Governor Treadwell is concluded his remarks then we're going to ask him some questions and I hope you have as many as I do because I have a very long list. But before we begin please join me in welcoming Lieutenant Governor Mead Treadwell. Well good morning. It's a little warm around here. But thank you for your warm welcome and that a Washington think tank and that CSIS is actually addressing the issue of economics in the Arctic is a major victory for us who live there. So thank you. Thank you very much. Congratulations on this report. I'm glad to see it released. There's an old saying in business that to be successful you have to keep the main the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing and natural resource development is certainly what drives the economy in the Arctic. To achieve that and the purpose of my visit here today and the purpose of our office in Washington for the state of Alaska is to somehow some way see if we can get the federal government and the state government to pull in the same direction because ladies and gentlemen back home it feels like we're rolling as hard as we can and here in Washington people are throwing out sea anchors and the federal government is a landowner with responsibilities when you include the 200 mile limit the potential land that we could acquire off offshore in the extended continental shelf the federal government owns at least two thirds of the land even more and think of it that way is two thirds of the means of production now I'm not one who really likes to come and argue for government economic planning doesn't really work very well but when you own two thirds of the means of production it's important that you have an economic strategy and that economics be very much a part of your strategy. I never thought I would say this but in 1980 during the big battle over Alaska lands the Alaska national interest lands conservation act most Alaskans opposed an Elka at the time if I remember the polls correctly but the document which emerged was one that attempted to protect Alaskans traditional interests to do some of the major set asides that the national environmental community had asked for and the argument was made again and again that zoning Alaska as it was zoned on the floor of the US Senate was going to provide certainty to investors and certainty to developers going ahead. Ladies and gentlemen we got the zoning but we didn't get the certainty and we see this we'll get into an Elka later but Heather posed a couple of questions to begin with and let me let me start with addressing some of those and we'll sit down. The first question was how will the US balance significant economic benefits against the challenging cost of working in such a sensitive and demanding physical environment. Well I can tell you Alaskans have been doing that for generations and as Governor Parnell has said again and again we will not trade one resource for another. Now that's usually said in a reference to mining and fisheries but it holds true for all our resources. Those include oil and gas, clean air, cold climates, pristine tundra, clean water and Alaskans know better than anyone what's at stake. Jimmy Stotz who's president of the Interim Circumpolar Conference of Alaska said that food security is the most important issue in Arctic security and then this new age of the Arctic with more trans-Arctic energy traffic going through the Bering Strait and more trans-Pacific traffic through the Aleutians we have to remember that this ocean is Alaska's breadbasket and food security in the Arctic is food security for the nation. If you go to Western Alaska and I think we all have to remember this much of the basic diet of the people who live there is something they've speared, something they've shot, something they've collected, something they've netted and as new development comes to this ocean we have to remember that food security is paramount. I hosted the National Association of Secretaries of State in Alaska the weekend before last and at a luncheon there Coast Guard District Commander Tom Ostebo, Admiral Ostebo gave a great talk. He reminded elected leaders from around the U.S. that when you have concerns about development in the Arctic the answer is not necessarily lawsuit after lawsuit because it's already happening. Other nations are beginning to drill and develop in the north whether we do or not and the answer is not to shelve projects but to do them right to be leaders and set the bar high and we need to undo or we need to do unto the Arctic what we would have other nations do unto it as well. I was also asked about tension between Alaska's and Washington's visions for national economic strategy in the Arctic and the question was will President Obama's recently released national strategy for the Arctic region resolve this tension? The short answer is no or not yet. It's not all bad the three lines of inquiry identified in the report are good to advance U.S. security interests to pursue responsible Arctic region stewardship and to strengthen international cooperation. I think all of us can salute those goals but stop and look at what Canada has identified as its priorities for the Arctic Council chairmanship. Responsible resource development, responsible and safe shipping and sustainable communities. Now all of these relate to economics and none of the White House priorities do directly. Development was nowhere to be found in the federal strategy and I was very happy that the White House brought the state in for consultation on this and our prime recommendation was of these three lines of inquiry add one about the economy. It didn't appear. It's a terrible omission because we're looking at a region that's ripe for over a hundred billion dollars in investment right now with potential for returns many times that. We're talking about investments that will strengthen the national economy add to the national payroll improve national energy independence and the federal government just doesn't seem to be interested. Smart business requires reliable and clear decision-making and instead Alaska is forced to work with unworkable mandates of an absentee landowner who doesn't want to talk about the economy. And those mandates include everything from endangered species made by appearing into a crystal ball. Which is not a clear crystal ball air quality regulations that change with the wind and are very inconsistent with other parts of the United States. And permitting decisions that keep you in more suspense than a Hitchcock movie. The state of Alaska is doing its part to focus on the economy. We have clear goals clear budgets and timelines. Governor Parnell early in his this current term set a goal for a million barrels a day of oil to flow through the trans Alaska pipeline system. Now for those of you who haven't looked at the trans Alaska pipeline lately. You know that pipeline began flowing in 1977. At its height it was shipping 2.2 million barrels a day or about 25% of America's production. Today it's less than 600,000 barrels a day. Around 10% of America's production. And there's tremendous opportunity. We've worked very hard over the last three years to reform Alaska's tax system to incentivize more production. There's a pending referendum against the legislations and since I administered state elections I have to remain mutual neutral on the topic. But I will say this. I ran for office as the governor did on trying to make Alaska be more competitive. And the tax system that was in place had put us on the far right side of the bell curve when it came to government take. And as such we were losing out in the global investment hunt. And when you have so many big projects so many large accumulations of money that are necessary to make things happen. Whether it's the shell development offshore. Whether it's the goals that we hope we see in the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska. Whether it's doing the infill drilling at Prudhoe Bay and getting the viscous oil going. The heavy oil going. Whether it's the new fields to the south of Prudhoe Bay and the foothills and as we approach the boundaries of Anwar. Or whether it's drilling in Anwar which we have not given up upon. In fact we're turning up the heat on. We had to be better competitive. Show up as more competitive in the boardrooms around the world. But we're not going to get the investment. I want to note our efforts on two particular economic opportunities mentioned in the report. Anwar and shipping and then we'll sit down and we'll have some questions. I believe Alaska is on the ball there too. Let's talk about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. A lot of people don't know about a requirement in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 that requires the Secretary of Interior to take formal action on an exploration plan in Anwar. And in fact I believe the secretary, the new secretary is in the dark when Secretary Jewell said she couldn't take action because it's against the law. Well no. It's a requirement of the law. And Alaska stepped up to bat. Last month or earlier last month Governor Parnell announced that the state is submitting a plan for seismic exploration in the 1002 area. And just last week the U.S. House moved through committee a piece of legislation that would require the federal government to provide 50 million dollars towards studies of oil and gas potential on federal lands. Representative Don Young worked on this so Alaska would receive its due attention. Now the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has rejected the state's plan but we're not stopping. The state will ask the National Director to reconsider and to follow its own federal laws where Anwar is concerned. Now think about this proposal for a second. This is not your father's Anwar. The technologies have changed significantly. You can go to parts of Alaska, parts of the lower 48 and see the seismic lines where people used to be, used to have to cut a long line of trees even to do seismic research. And the seismic data that came back was 2D data. Now you can do 3D seismic data that gives you a much better picture of what's beneath the surface. And you can do it with radio receivers. I've got one sitting on a shelf in my office Heather because it's not a federal case to get those collectors out there and to get this information. And the state has proposed doing it with winter ice roads, doing it in the winter, doing it at a time when we believe the environmental impact on any impact on the wildlife would be minimal or nil. The law had no expiration date in this requirement that an expiration plan be considered if someone puts it forward. And so we'll press forward there. And I can say from my experience on the Arctic Research Commission that there's another provision in Enelka on a mineral, calling for a mineral assessment program on all public lands in the state, even those that were set aside. And that program was discontinued during the Clinton administration. And that's one requirement that we pay attention to the economy. The federal government hasn't kept up. It's part of the promise in Enelka. Let me talk about shipping safety. Last year, Alaska's legislature urged voluntary compliance with oil spill laws, especially for ships going through the Aleutian Islands and for the Bering Sea. The state and the Coast Guard have offered to review the plans of if itinerant shippers are willing, and as yet no plans are come. Now, Admiral Ostebo told me just recently that this year already, we've had a crude oil carrier come from Norway, headed toward Asian markets. We've had gas, we've had fuel product carriers come through the Bering Strait. Now, we know they're coming because we have an AIS network the state has helped pay for. But I said this to a group of maritime interests so we're meeting in Seattle recently. If we don't take care of this ocean, we don't believe we don't really deserve to be there. It's the right thing to do. If you take a look at how we regulate American shipping interests in this ocean, and global interests moving through have no responsibilities, trying to come up with some regime to require that they at least participate in an oil spill response regime is the fair thing to do. And frankly, because you look at what the what the costs of this doing and so forth, it'll provide jobs for Americans, it may be the profitable thing to do. But consider the alternative and you do in this report. If you have an oil spill in the Arctic from any source, a mistake in drilling in any one of the five or six countries, working on offshore drilling, or a mistake in shipping, consider the effect that it's going to have on the huge dollars at risk, not to speak of the environment, because it will have a political effect in every capital in the Arctic world. It's very important to us that we look for safe shipping. And I could talk much more about this and we will when I sit down. Let me close out by saying two things. Alaska continuously has to fight for access in the Arctic. We have to fight for legal access. I chaired the US Arctic Research Commission, and I'm proud of the work we do in this country to provide intellectual access, knowledge of what's going on in the Arctic knowledge of what's there. And it's very, very important that we continue strong research effort, physical access, whether it's ice roads or airships, airstrips, railroads, ports, we have to be thinking about the kind of investment that will give us safe access to the resources there. Those are usually federal or federal state responsibilities, legal, intellectual, and physical access. But that's not the last word. It's the first word. Because after you get that after you get that commitment, after you get that certainty, then we still have to go out and attract capital, labor, and access to markets. So in the if you think Arctic, think access and think of that as the major battle to get the economy going. I'm going to just finish by saying Heather, I think your report is very important. And there are a number of meetings coming up this fall where I hope economics are much more part of the discussion at the table. Under Canada's chairmanship, there will be a meeting of an Arctic Council business roundtable information in August. And I've suggested to our people working on that issue. Mark Robbins, who works with us for the senior Arctic officials is here in the room from the state of Alaska, that we focus on what does it take? What kind of policies can these governments work together to foster investment in the Arctic? There'll be a meeting of the Russian American Pacific Partnership in September. And to give you a little bit of history on that, that was something that started at the end of the Cold War. And it's one of the most enduring discussions on economic opportunities between us and Russia. And I attended the last one held in Seattle. And there was a discussion on economics, and we need to have more of that. There is much better regional cooperation in the Barrens region than there is in the Bering region. And we need to see that grow. Vladimir Putin hosted us at the Russian Geographical Society and Archangels two years ago, last year's meeting was postponed. They are planning a meeting in September, where they're going to talk about legal structures for the Arctic for certainty for investment. Good thing. The senior Arctic officials will have their first meeting under the Canadian chairmanship in Whitehorse in October. And then there's a group that I think aims to be an Arctic Davos, the Arctic Circle, which will be meeting also in Iceland in October, after an Arctic Energy Summit that is being convened in Ocario, Iceland a few days before that. The Davos group itself has got a global agenda council meeting on the Arctic in November. And as a member of that group, I can tell you that we're working on recommendations for policies to foster investment. And then we also have the International Maritime Organization coming together in November. My hopes that your report is listened to and that are pleased for economic certainty or listened to have a chance with two reports coming up here in Washington. One is the White House implementation effort on the strategy document that came along. And we were delighted to host the White House officials who came to Alaska. They met with the Arctic Policy Commission in Alaska. They had a very large public meeting. And I think we made the point again and again that we need to be much more proactive on economics. And second, there is still a draft report out on the Committee on Marine Transportation Services that was to look at a shipping regime that made sense. And I have good hope there. So let me end with something Wally Hickle, the former governor of Alaska and US Secretary of Interior used to say all the time. And this is something to remember and this is why your report is so important. There is no wealth without production. Without production, there is no wealth to tax. Without production, there's no wealth to reinvest in our schools and our business and our economies. There's no wealth to create new jobs and sustain old ones. And it's a concept that's so simple and shot. It's shocking. It's so often ignored. Thank you for helping us bring the issue to the forefront. What a tour de force. Thank you so much for both your clarity and I think you've provoked some great thinking. So I know and and I will warn you a CSIS audience is a tough audience. So I know they're they're planning some tough questions. What we'll do is I'm going to do a little moderated Q&A here for the first couple of minutes. And then we'll turn this over to you. If you could raise your hand and identify yourself and your affiliation, we'll have microphones. We'd like to keep our our comments short and our questions hard hitting so so we can get as many in as possible. But thank you so much. I want to pull a little bit more and we talked about this before before we started our discussion about shipping. You you gave a speech in Norway in January. I commended it was entitled safe secure and reliable at sea. And I in some of our own thinking as we look towards the US taking on the chairmanship of the Arctic Council in 2015, I think shipping is the it that is the thing that we must bring forward. And you laid out a vision that we must create a quote a strategic and international plan on Arctic shipping. Your concern about the slowness of the IMO process to get to a mandatory polar code. Could you shape out what if if you would be in charge of the American chairmanship for the Arctic Council, what an American agenda would look like on that shipping question? And specifically, how we can enhance safety in the Bering Strait? Well, let me put the Bering Straits and the illusions together. Because when you talk about traffic in the North Pacific and and in the Arctic and legally, the Arctic does include the illusions. We've got four or 5,000 vessels now that are transiting the illusion islands. And we've had a couple of major incidents is there. They're selling day IU is is is one the fact that Shell had a tug nearby saved us with it was at the Golden Seas a few years ago, demonstrating very clearly why we need to have that kind of response capability. Now, one way to look at this is that with you know, when has Mother Nature or whatever you want to say is the source given you a new ocean. And all of us graduated the third grade and we had to remember the names of the explorers looking at the Arctic and the the glint and people like John Barrow's eye as they said, let's go up there because someday there might be sea routes. That's happening now in our lifetime. And for a nation to see that it's not ancient thinking to think a little bit like Teddy Roosevelt to say, you know, this can be major for global commerce. And the United States needs to think that way strategically, because already what that ocean has done, what the accessibility of the Arctic Ocean has done. It's not just tourism. It's not just what it will mean and will mean significant things for resource exploration in the Arctic. But what it means for a country like Norway or a country like Russia with most of its oil and gas development right now in the Western Russia is that investments that were made to serve Atlantic markets can now serve Pacific markets. And that's giant. Also take a look at our policies around the world. And I see John here, John, when you were general counsel of the State Department, a huge amount of time was spent making sure that if you were going to have major energy shipments in the world from new areas like the Caspian that no one nation and I don't need to name the nation could turn off the tap. Now here we're in an area in the Arctic where 25% of the world's energy by one estimation. You look at the USGS study done a couple of years ago. 13% of the world's oil, 30% of the world's gas may be coming from this region. Is it in America's national security interest to leave that control of that shipping because shipping will need infrastructure. There will be some tolling one way or the other to pay for that infrastructure. Do you want to leave that to one nation and not us? I think it's an imperative for the United States that we look at Arctic shipping as the global opportunity it is and be part of making it happen. So the words safe secure and reliable were in the presidents in the 2009 policy and in implementing that what what safe clearly has to mean is do the right things for prevention of oil spills. Secure means look at this as as vital to our interest as your geopolitical report pointed out. And reliable means reliable enough to attract investment because you're not going to get the other two things without investment. And so I've urged us to think about a concept like the St. Lawrence Seaway is just one example and I did in the Trump's speech where the United States and Canada come came together on that Seaway. A master of a vessel going from Europe to say Duluth to pick up iron ore crosses the US Canada border 23 different times but there's one number to call. And there's a safety regime and also a joint economic promotion regime where the heads of the Seaway have told me out they've just been to Brazil talking about shipping to the heartland of North America through their Seaway. And the Arctic should come together to have that safety regime. But it's it's a geopolitical imperative that we do. We have to engage more closely with the Russians. We're starting out with things like a vessel traffic system in the Bering Strait. We'd like to see US domestic regulations have reciprocity with the regulations of the Port State regulations of other nations of the world so that we require contingency planning and requiring contingency planning when I say this is not you know huge new regulation is saying will you subscribe to an oil spill response organization so we're prepared. Now I'll just finish with this. During Exxon Valdez it's a famous story now that the head of the Fishermen's Union in Cordova called the head of response at Exxon and said how can I help you and the person at Exxon said who are you. And she said well I represent the hundreds of fishing boats that just were put out of business this summer. And the fact is is that Exxon did ultimately respond and we do now have with the help of people like former senator president Drew Pierce a regime that that basically has fishing boats training with the oil industry right now for a response any any time. Now we have that when you know Shell and Statoil and Conoco Phillips and others who are working on our shore development are doing that with our communities but the ships going by aren't. And I just keep saying we don't want to have that meeting and that kind of phone call it to in the morning any time. Absolutely. Thank you so much. I'd like to talk a little bit about Russian cooperation because I think in some ways I we have sort of a saying goes the farther away you are from capital sometimes that's where the best cooperation occurs and I think it's not a well-known story how closely US Coast Guard and the the FSB the Russian federal service border service work together on that border. But sometimes it's been a challenging relationship and sometimes in the science area. I'd let just your reflections from Alaska on the state of more regional cooperation between Alaska and the Russian Federation. Well thank you. Alaska and Russia are three miles apart at their closest point. I'm looking forward to a trip to the Diomedes. I have actually been to the Russian side so I've seen Alaska from Russia many times. But have yet to go to Little Diomedes on our side so I'm looking forward to that visit coming up late this month. The the fact is is that we have regional cooperation. The search and rescue agreement that was put together on a bilateral basis has been one of the best military to military agreements over the last 20 years. The agreement between the Coast Guard and FSB where we do cooperate on shipping and force on fishing enforcement rather is has been very important for the protection of the North Pacific fisheries, the Bering fisheries. And I'll say there's still a much stronger agenda that needs to come forward. The United States Coast Guard has done the legwork, has done the homework with a port access routing study to justify having a vessel traffic system in the Bering Strait. And even though, you know, the amount of traffic right now is not very large, you still have this highly disparate situation where if you go to Kotsubu today people may be out sealing in small boats, may not have the beacons, may not be easily seen by radar. And it's important that itinerant ships coming through be aware of that situation. There's a if you take a look at the requirements that we have on the oil industry to be very watchful for marine mammals. That's an ever changing situation. Shipping needs to be aware of that. So if there's a vessel traffic system that says approach us and talk to us as you're coming through, that's the first step. And so I hope that that which which the state department has put that on Russia's radar screen. There's an opportunity I think with the president going to Russia in September to to try to move that agenda forward. Fantastic. Well, just a unsolicited advertisement. Our next research project is on the Russian Arctic and how US and Russia bilaterally can can engage across the board. So coming attractions. Take a look at the Bering Strait. Absolutely. That's that's our focus. I'd like to talk a little bit diving a little bit into the oil and gas conversation. And you touched on it in your remarks. We obviously all watched very closely last summer's offshore drilling by Shell in the Chucky and Boatford. I love your reflections on that. The what you thought was positive, what you thought was negative about that. And what the postponement for not just Shell but Conoco Phillips, the other companies that have expressed a little caution and moving a little more slowly. Is that because of the changing landscape of US unconventional oil and gas that's sort of shifting the desire for that exploration? It's very costly. It's obviously under an enormous amount of scrutiny because of the environment. Or is it just really too difficult right now for those companies to to operate offshore? They've certainly been operating offshore. I don't mean to suggest that. But in this post-McCondo environment. I would hope that the fracking boom in the US and the Laura 48 is not been what has dragged back Shell's efforts in the Arctic and the efforts of the others in the Arctic. The fact is that all of us want it done right. And we had a situation if you take a look at Shell's permitting. I mean this company laid down a huge amount of money on the table for what appears to be a giant geological prospect, a giant prospect. It's one where some of the economic numbers for Alaska alone, the potential payroll from this prospect is, you know, over 50 billion dollars. It's quite significant. For the goal of filling up the trans-Alaska pipeline, there's potential production that's very, very large. But you're not going to ever get to that development plan until you have an exploration plan that actually is allowed to be executed. I think we had a situation in this administration, very honestly, where they said we're going to delay this for several reasons with deliberate action. And if you take a look at that versus the concept of having environmental regulation meet the risks, I'll talk a lot about oil spills. I think one of the best things to do for a country is to pay attention to oil spills. And I'd say that Shell worked that issue very, very hard, very hard to the Coast Guard satisfaction. But when it wasn't that issue, but it was the EPA's air quality permit that became the long pole in the tent on something that they regulate by general permit or by a different permitting system in the Gulf, that to me was and still is from discussions I've had with the interior department that's still trying to figure out exactly that process, kind of putting the eggs in the wrong basket. Air quality is important but it didn't need to take as long as it did. And so when Shell was kind of constantly told, well not until, not until, not until when it finally came to yes there were a huge number of big pieces of hardware to put together that we ourselves with our own regulatory regime had kind of forced to come together at the last minute. And that may have led to some of the problems that happened later. It may not have but the fact is that it's very important to remember that regulatory certainty was missing from this process very early on and still missing. And if you take a look at Conoco-Philip's view when they've got a different kind of equipment there, they're saying the regulatory certainty is missing. So that's all come out of Washington and it was maybe an administration here that didn't want to do it in the first place. I'm not sure. But the fact is is that if you want to keep the Trans-Alaska pipeline full, if you look around the Arctic, Russia's doing offshore drilling, Norway's doing offshore drilling, Canada's doing offshore drilling, Iceland's doing offshore drilling, and Greenland's been told it could be an independent country with its success in offshore drilling if they get there. Alaska's not, you know, shouldn't be left behind, we should be leading in doing it right. And I have one last question. I promise you we're going to turn this over to you. What struck me over a year and a half ago was the emergency fuel shipments to know Alaska. And by absolute luck, good fortune, Providence, the Healy was in the theater to help with ice-breaking capabilities for a Russian fuel tanker to arrive. It was still a fairly perilous attempt and we're grateful that it all turned out. What lessons did you take from that event and U.S. indigenous capabilities to support the state of Alaska in a time of emergency? Well, I take a number of lessons from that situation. For those of you who aren't familiar, we had a situation where storms and weather brought the ice back to the Bering Strait much more quickly than was expected by shippers in the fall of 2011. Right, December 2011, yeah. And as such, GNOME didn't have the fuel that it needed to run power and heat facilities for the rest of the year. I got a phone call and in fact, it was just after congressional testimony here on the need for ice-breakers from the oil company that had been hired to make this delivery. And they said we're thinking about using a Russian ice breaker. And I said, well, is the Healy around? Because, you know, John Farrell and others at the Arctic Research Commission and I have worked very hard to make sure that we had that capability in the Arctic. And I had some idea that they were still doing work, work on Law of the Sea, as a matter of fact, up there and that they were around and we talked to the Coast Guard. And in the end, so many things that had a very low probability of happening came together. One, the crew of the Healy and the Coast Guard did keep the Healy in the theater. The crew missed being home for Christmas. But that was available. The Russians had a tanker that was available and they could go get the fuel. The tanker was able to meet muster for US oil spill regulations, which was not a given to begin with. There was a need to pick up some fuel at an American port to take to Nome. And over Christmas, I have to say the Secretary of Homeland Security made a tough decision on a Jones Act waiver, which is again not a given. And so all those things came together and then came and as I say before, that was all that legal stuff was not the last word. It is the first word. And then we actually had to get these two ships and their pilots to work well together to bring the fuel to Nome. And the operation worked very, very well. But what that tells me is a couple things. One, we need icebreaker capability. Two, the prospect of US-Russian cooperation and the bearing is important to consider because frankly, they are supplying remote coastal communities with fuel and so are we. Some of these communities pay 40 to 60 cents per kilowatt hour for power. And anything we can do to help reduce the cost of living there is going to help living in the Arctic better because it is a cold, dark place. Three, having good cooperation with the Russians was important and the Coast Guard can tell you of several kind of incidences along that event which maybe decreased the probability of success but we were able to overcome. So I would say those things. America has to have the capability and in fact the law requires it and we made sure that law was changed with the Coast Guard Authorization Act in 2010. Fantastic. I can keep going but I can't. So let's turn it over to you. Please raise your hand with some questions and Mr. Ballinger, you would be the first of microphones coming your way. Thank you. John Ballinger from Arnold Reporter. Me, great to have you here. I'm so glad you're doing this and Heather, skimming through the report looks like a great report. I'm not going to ask an international question actually. I spent all my time doing international. I want to ask a domestic question and go back to the very first thing you said which is that the you're paddling as hard as you can in Alaska and the federal government seems to be throwing out sea anchors. Can you talk a little bit more about at least from your perspective in Alaska sort of why that is, you know, why the gap? I mean a lot of it is just distance and what Alaska and Alaskan officials are trying to do about that and obviously part of your being here is part of the campaign but how do you convince the rest of the country that it will benefit not just Alaska but the rest of the country if they can be more understanding here. I assume you go state by state and, you know, try to go to Alabama or Mississippi and say, look, you know, you all are trying to improve your economy. Help us do what we want to do in Alaska. What's why are these anchors being thrown out and what can Alaska do about that and why haven't you been more successful so far? Thank you. I think the first question really has to do with who has the keys to the car, OK? There was a big battle at the time of Alaska statehood over the amount of land Alaska would get. The original statehood bill that was recommitted by one vote in the US Senate, I believe in 1952, gave Alaska 23 million acres and the ultimate statehood vote in 1959 gave Alaska 103 million acres. Now, if you take a look at what we've done with that 103 million acres versus what the federal government has done with the two-thirds left and I'll add to that 103 the 44 million acres that the Alaska natives received with the ANCSA in 1971 is that we have developed that land sustainably for Alaska. Prudhoe Bay has done amazing things for environmental protection, for education, for public safety, for health all over the state and that's off state land. The federal government which has very hot prospects to the east and west of Prudhoe Bay whether it's ANWAR or NPR-A whether it's the offshore development has somehow you know, let's just call this a 60-year review of their success in development. They fail. Now, take a look at what else is happening around the Arctic. We had that as our devolution of power 103 million acres and we were able to select Prudhoe Bay. Just recently we had a Penwar meeting a Pacific Northwest Economic Region meeting in Anchorage and I was sitting on a panel like this with the head of the Northwest Territories. He's negotiating right now with the Canadian National Government to get all of the crown lands and the offshore lands the OCS where the territory the less than 100,000 people the less than 50,000 people who live in that territory have the keys to the car. It's already happened in the Yukon. It happened five years ago in the Yukon and the Yukon territory in Canada is leading Canada in economic growth this year. Greenland you know, I never think of the Danish Parliament as a paragon of conservative thinking. The Danish Parliament just said to the 60,000 inhabitants of Greenland this land is your land. You have the keys to the car. You have the keys to development decisions. Now I will tell you that the Northwest Territories don't want to ruin their environment. The Yukon doesn't want to ruin their environment. The Canadian provinces across Canada who received all their crown land in 1938 don't want to ruin their environment. Instead what they offer investors is a kind of regulatory certainty that we certainly haven't offered shell or anybody else in this process because there seems to be no incentive or accountability or consequences here if you don't succeed in the development plan. There certainly isn't Alaska if you don't succeed in promoting development you don't get reelected. Here there's absolutely no accountability of that kind. So the campaign is one where we have to educate. We brought a group of secretaries of state. I'm bringing a group of lieutenant governors up. We had all the state budget officers up last week. We've got a number of folks where we're trying to do this. We are opening up and we've increased the funding for Arctic Power and we're pushing the ANWAR discussion because at the end of Tom Barrett's presentation of the Secretaries of State last week in Alaska two or three people raised their hands and said, tell me again why you can't go into these other lands. And the Washington mentality that says Alaska is a park and what wasn't made a park in 1980 will make a park by stealth and regulation doesn't play with the rest of the country. So we have to bring that up. I'll just finish by saying 150 years ago Seward had this problem of whether or not buying Alaska made sense. It was called Seward's Folly Wall Russia an ice box. A sucked orange by a New York paper. We have that battle today. 150 years later as we celebrate that anniversary in 2017 of telling the rest of the country Alaska is worth it and give us the freedom, give us the keys to the car one way or the other. And we'll make this place something you're proud of. It's funny I wrote an article on the Russian Arctic and I opened with the greatest American purchase for the least amount of money and the benefits that. So the other way of looking at Seward's Folly for sure. Yes, sir. Oh, we have microphone coming. Ken Yellow, it's formerly of the State Department and Dartmouth and you've got to see the State Department contingent on this. Right, right. I wanted to ask you two questions. When you talked about Shell, you know, you talked about it strictly in an American context, but the fracking and the tight oil are worldwide, you know, phenomenon. And we're seeing in Russia already the Stuckman gas project was delayed and there are debates going on about where to invest, you know, in oil, whether to go, you know, further in Siberia or go to the north. It's not a given. So I wanted simply to ask you if you could expand on your comments about fracking and tight oil in terms of where Alaska stands worldwide, you know, in terms of, you know, investment possibilities. The second thing is you didn't mention the Arctic Council, the agreement on the oil spill agreement that was just concluded. And I wanted to know if you would just talk about, you know, the role of the Arctic Council, you know, in terms of what you've been talking about. Thanks. First on tight oil, let me put it this way. If the presence of fracking oil and gas other places in the world is the justification for the way that the federal government has treated Shell, that's totally unfair. These guys came in on the face of it, invested in this, have followed a set of requirements, a set of changing requirements, and I hope we'll be able to drill next summer meeting those requirements and show us that in a conventional oil and gas supply that we have a significant way to keep a major piece. I mean, you remember the Transalaska Pipeline was the largest private investment ever made on earth. And if you take a look at the total set of infrastructure that's there, it's very much in our interest as a country to keep that producing. Now, what is happening around the world with tight oil and so forth has maybe changed the debate a little bit, but it may be harder to stand up here in Washington and say you need to develop Alaska for energy security, but I'll do it. And I think we still have to do it. I think the presence of conventional oil and gas with kind of long term predictable production numbers is something that we haven't yet seen with the fracking boom. And so while there's more maybe to be found and we're glad there's more to be found, it's important that we be there. Now, I will say in this segues into shipping and oil spills because of the Keystone Pipeline debate in this town where the question of whether or not we want to have the safest possible way to bring in oil from Canada because that's still a debate. Canada is looking at alternatives, one of which is shipping out of its Pacific Coast ports to Asia. Well, guess what the most expeditious route is? It's through the Aleutian Islands. And we have at this point nothing to say to the Canadians about oil spill prevention if their ships begin plying this route. Now, we do have because of the Arctic Council an agreement on response. So if we fail, we've got agreements on how to work together. But we have pushed the Arctic Council and we will continue to push in this chairmanship for some sort of regime, starting with the Polar Code at IMO, starting with the possibility of reciprocal port state agreements and some other mechanisms. There's a long list in the Trump's will speech it on the table to make sure we've got the prevention capability. Thank you. John, yes. We'll go to the side of the room. Gregory Wright, right in the front. Thank you. Thank you. John Farrell from the Arctic Research Commission. Very nice talk and thank you, Heather, for the report. My question to Mr. Treadwell is along the lines of economics because that's what we're talking about here. Safe shipping and oil prevention and response to those ends. And you've also talked about Congress, some work that's happened in Congress recently. Well, on the Senate side, there's been a bill introduced by Senator Begich to improve Arctic research, observation and monitoring. Trying to set politics aside in this town, which is always difficult. Given the merits of that bill, what are your views on that one that would increase funding using the originally a proposed using the Dickum Sand Settlement, which funds the North Pacific Research Board. But this would be a mechanism by which to provide additional funding for those three things, research, monitoring and observing. Great. Well, John, you and I have worked together for many years promoting appropriate funding for Arctic research. And whether it's the source and dinkum sands, for those of you who don't know this, there was a dispute between the federal government and the state government over ownership of some lands that were leased offshore in Alaska. The federal government won and Senator Stevens, Senator Murkowski, Congressman Young, put that revenue into a trust. A large portion of that trust has been used to fund the North Pacific Research Board, which is one of the major suppliers of funding for Arctic research in the nation. Seeing more of that trust used for the Arctic, in my mind, makes sense. But it's not the only approach we need to take. I think we still, and we've been trying as a state to work better with the federal government on the sustained Arctic Observing Network. And that's important. When you talk about and when you do your report on U.S.-Russia relations in the Arctic, I hope you'll note the number of times that U.S. ships have been denied access to the Russian EEZ for Arctic research. And it's not just U.S. ships. It's ships of many other nations. It's one of the challenges that we've got with Law of the Sea because as more land is acquired in the extended continental shelf, we want to make sure that access is maintained for the kind of research that's needed. And I think it's very important that one of the agenda items that the Russians will be co-leading in this chairmanship the Arctic Council is looking at better research cooperation. So it's not just money. It's just it comes right back to what else we were saying about access. We need to do that. And I think legislation that looks at improving Arctic research is always germane in this discussion. Well, I'm wondering too, just to follow on that, to your question, John, whether we should not be encouraging more public private partnerships, meaning I think it was NOAA and I believe Shell, I'm sure, had a cooperative arrangement where they're sharing information, where, as you said, and I think this is again, we need to talk about this more that in some ways Arctic economic development is a private sector activity. Government is, it pales in comparison to what the private sector is investing. We need to form those cooperative patterns, whether it's in search and rescue because the closest vessel, the closest instrument may be a private sector asset that we need to borrow in times of emergency. Do we have the MOUs, the legal frameworks for that? Do we have the training and the capacity to do that? Can we share scientific data and support that project? How can we be more creative in thinking through public-private partnerships, particularly in research and investment? I think it's a space that we need to explore a little bit more and then be creative. I think Winston Churchill always had, or at least it was attributed to this funny statement, gentlemen, the money has run out. Now is the time to think. I feel like that's where we are. We need to start thinking and being a little bit more creative because the money's starting to run out. Thank you so much. OK, we have a question right behind John over there. Thank you. Marjorie Mandelstam Balls or Georgetown University. I have a question about the Arctic Circle Group. You mentioned it as a possible new Davos and also about the role of Indigenous communities in that group and in other issues of economic development. Thank you. Thank you. Well, first off, the role of Indigenous communities in economic development in the Arctic is very strong and getting stronger, in my opinion. The Alaska Native Land Claim Settlement Act that was passed in 1971 created 13 regional corporations that many of whom play a powerhouse role in Arctic economics today. And one of the fascinating things that I'm seeing is that more and more Alaska companies with their Arctic expertise are finding markets or opportunities to invest in other places in the Arctic. So that in itself is very important. The publisher of the Alaska Dispatch, Alice Rogoff, has hosted a series of meetings in Alaska called the Arctic Imperative. And many people in this room have been at those meetings. And the difference between maybe that set of meetings and some of the others I've seen in the think tank world or in the track two discussions have been that significant global equity investors have also been there at the table. And that in itself, when you take a look at the kind of sponge the Arctic needs to be for investment. And just if you look at the near term prospects in Alaska, the $100 billion number is not a wild number. The Arctic may be, as Scott Minard and Scott Borgeson said in a Wall Street Journal piece a while ago, one of the last and best emerging markets. So the idea here of the Arctic Circle group is to be very inclusive. In fact, I know invitations are out and anybody who's interested in going is very welcome to go. Indigenous groups, indigenous companies are certainly invited to be at the table. Some of the deal making that may happen or introductions that may happen in that room that I've seen in the previous Arctic Imperatives are the kinds of things that we try to foster with the state of Alaska. And I commend Alice and I commend the President Grimson of Iceland for kind of saying that this is a niche that they want to explore and develop further. Certainly when President Grimson was here, he gave us a tough love message about getting off the dime. I think we're still stinging from that. Sarah, right there. Thank you, Kevin Mass, with Statoil, formally with Brookings and where I was fortunate enough to work with the governor on a joint research project with Stanford University on the Arctic. Governor, you mentioned regulatory certainty and the lack of that commodity from Washington. The Interior Department has signaled that it is working on new rules to regulate offshore oil and gas development in Alaska by the end of this year. I wanted to see the extents of which you and the state of Alaska have been involved in those discussions. And if so, what have you said that you would like to see in this new regulatory regime? Well, thank you. I think the one thing that we've said is that one size does not fit all. And, you know, basically it comes down to there are two different kinds of rigs. And with the two different kinds of rigs, there are two different kinds of oil spill response. And in the floating rigs, you can move one off and move one on. And a jack-up rig, it's not as easy. But if you apply the requirements of the floating rigs to the jack-up rigs, it doesn't work very well. So that issue was one, you know, that in your own forum, where I sat next to David Hayes, you know, we said that at the Interior Department, we said that's something that needed to be worked out. He said it was clear as a bell. I can tell you from the discussions we've had with industry in our own market, it's not clear as a bell. So we're hopeful that the kind of conditions and requirements that come in, you know, take a look at the diversity of ways that people may explore. The state will be involved as much as it's allowed to be involved. What we found with some of these interagency exercises that happen here in Washington is sometimes we're in the room. Sometimes we're not. Sometimes when the decisions are made, we're not seeing that. I can tell you that on international decisions, we participate very closely. We've respected, you know, you don't see us running with leaks if we disagree with something to the press. We follow that. We haven't been allowed in the room as much as we'd like to be at the interior department, but I am glad that Ed Fogels does represent the state on the energy group that Mr. Hayes began. Great. Dan, you had a question over here. Thank you. Mead Richard Ranger from API. I'm going to stand up so I can see you. Yes, sorry, I run the podium. My pleasure to see you, Richard. One of the challenges with shipping is that the shipping is happening and the infrastructure is not in place. The AIDS navigation aren't in place. Available Arctic ports don't exist. You know, the logistics to support shipping, support emergency response up there. So how do we, is that something where if the federal government isn't acting that this could be a place for cooperation among polar entities? Because obviously any ship transit over one or another of the continents crosses several borders. Thank you for the question. Richard, of all the documents that I've helped write over the long term my career, one of them that I'm most proud of is the support we gave to the Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment at the Arctic Council from the Arctic Research Commission. And the United States can be very proud of the fact that in 1,000 years of Arctic exploration, it's the first time eight Arctic nations came together and said, what's the agenda for marine safety? Now go back and look at that report. And it mentioned some of the things that you've talked about. And there have been some follow-up reports on the progress made. Certainly the search and rescue agreement at the Arctic Council is significant. And I'll just say this. It's not just a piece of paper. When you have an agreement like that, drill under that agreement. Report what the drills told you. Report what your deficiencies are. Use that to learn more than somebody else's phone numbers. And use that agreement to make progress. The oil spill agreement was also something that was laid out in that agenda. The IMO Polar Code was something that was laid out in that agenda. Arctic ports and ports of refuge will do many things, including reducing insurance rates. Having, and so the state of Alaska is working with the Corps of Engineers. We've identified the Nome Port Clarence area is one area where we might have a port on our side. Frankly, we need better cooperation with the Russian side where they have some natural deep water ports. So there's opportunity there. Like many other things where you get one comprehensive shopping list, but no matching appropriation, we just have to stay on. And we are making progress on each of these things. When it comes to the Arctic port, we're in now stage two of the discussion trying to identify I was glad to hear informally that the federal budget process is at least considering the role that the Coast Guard might have in helping to pay rent on that Arctic port in the United States. I had a meeting recently with the promoters of a new graphite mine that possibly would help pay the bill for that Arctic port in that area. And recognizing that there's been a piece of legislation proposed that says, gee, you guys in Alaska come up with a couple of billion dollars and we'll give you a loan guarantee, I don't think that's the way to do it. I think the way to do it is to have the discussions on what's necessary there and try to get the business that's going to pay the bill. I'll just hang on the AMPSA, which I agree with you, as a historic assessment. I think part of the challenge for the Arctic Council is when they produce these incredible assessments, who then drives the policy boat or the car? There are 17 recommendations. How do we judge and keep implementation moving and who's in charge of that? And I think that, for the Arctic Council, as it continues to evolve, historically evolve, it's going to have to start answering how do we go from assessment to moving implementation and making sure that we're not falling off. And I think the AMPSA is a great example of how we keep pushing that implementation. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Drew Pierce, Krull and Maureen. So, Lieutenant Governor, you've talked a lot about the Russian-American cooperation, but let's talk about Canada for a moment. We don't even agree on what our offshore border is, but all the iron that's going to come into the Canadian Beaufort, I assume, is going to pass point barrel. What can we do and what should we be doing now to get ready for that, to harmonize cross-border for the regulations, but also to be ready for that? Can we do a Barron's 2020 in the Beaufort? Thank you for that question, Drew. What you were talking about with Barron's 2020 for the audience that's not familiar with this, the Barron's Euro Arctic region is the three nations of Northern Scandinavia. The Western provinces, the Northwestern provinces are regions of Russia. And a series of discussions that have now been going on 20 years at the municipal level, the national level, and the business-to-business level. And that discussion over the same 25-year period we celebrated opening the border with Russia this year has led to significant changes and a very interesting contrast. On the Barron's side, the Russians and the Norwegians settled a long-term boundary dispute. With the settlement of that boundary dispute, not only came certainty for people who might drill on one side or the other of the boundary, but it also was joined with certainty for people in the oil field service business so that ports in Norway might be able to support work in Russia and be aware that in the Chukchi, the Russians are eyeing the Chukchi as well as the Americans. Canadians are eyeing the Beaufort as well as the Americans. And there will be benefits from shared infrastructure costs there. So I said to the Panwar group, which is a group that essentially has begun with legislators and business interests and does have participation from the state governments that they should look at themselves as the model for economic cooperation in this region between us, Canada, and figure out some way to bring the Russians in. And if not this group or the Russian-American Pacific Partnership, something else. But with Canada, it's very important that we have these dialogues on settling the border in the Beaufort. Frankly, if an oil spill happened today on that border, both sides would be rushing to clean it up, because neither side would want to disclaim ownership of the area. But what's very important is that we are in these things out ultimately. And I believe Canadian activity will do this. Reciprocal port state agreements may be the best way to get there. And if you think about it this way, a ship that is entering the port of Long Beach is required to have oil spill contingency planning as part of the rules of Long Beach, whether or not it's an American ship. And if a ship leaves Prince Rupert, goes through the allusions to an Asian market, wouldn't it be nice if the Canadians said, we're going to require ships coming or going from our port to respect the oil spill laws in the United States and be party to an oil spill response agreement or a response organization? And if we can move toward that kind of reciprocity, and I'm advocating this to say that without, there's still a little bit more legal homework to be done. But it is an opportunity for us to help produce the kind of infrastructure that's necessary. The Bering Straits have been described as the Bering Gate. And the fact is, you can't reach the Canadian Arctic as conveniently without going through it, and we just want to make sure it's a safe street. Me, can I tag on a little bit? I'd like to talk about the growing interest and activity of Asia in the Arctic. Certainly, we had the historic decision at the ministerial in Karuna to allow permanent observers, China, Japan, Korea, Singapore on the Asian Pacific side. We're certainly seeing Chinese, Russian oil and gas investment. Canada has their Pacific Gateway project, which looks at exporting to Asia. What's the view from Alaska on this enhanced activity of Asian economies, specifically Chinese economies, and what does that mean, do you believe, for the Arctic in the future? Well, one of the things I've learned through kind of this Davos-style discussion where you've actually had investors at the table, if you take a look at the Red Dog Mine right now, a significant piece of its production is already dedicated and the Chinese have pre-purchased. If you take a look at the Kensington Mine, China has pre-purchased significant amounts. China is a partner with ConocoPhillips in its Arctic offshore efforts. Russia has taken an option with Exxon in the development of some of Exxon's properties in Alaska. And whatever the governments do, the fact is, is that investment capital is already moving in and out and somewhat without boundaries, though there is the CFIUS process here in Washington on that that will come into play if and when Russia picks up its option, for example, on Point Thompson. So anyway, the fact is, the Arctic is already attracting large amounts of international investment. Take a look at Repsol or ENI or Statoil or, I mean, I think of Shell as as much an American company as an Anglo-Dutch company, but, I mean, it's, you know, we are very much going for global investment. So that's that's happening there. When I was chair of the Arctic Research Commission in coordination with the State Department, we encouraged Japan to apply for chairmanship at the Arctic Council. We knew the Chinese had already suggested this. We see huge benefits from cooperation with our Asian partners. Japan has made over a hundred million dollar investment in the International Arctic Research Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. So they've been there already. I was delighted to hear last week that Singapore, which came in as an observer, is helping to co-fund the Arctic Energy Summit. And there they've been clear about their goals. It's not just the concern that we may replace them as a hub in Pacific Europe traffic, but it's more that they see themselves as manufacturing these kind of oil rigs and so see this as an opportunity. Whether it's protecting the environment in the Arctic and getting rid of soot and some of the short term climate change forces, whether it's getting the kind of investment that we need in safe shipping or whether it's the kind of investment we're trying to attract in mining and in the oil patch, it's very clear that Asian economies are partners in the Arctic, not just observers. And it's very good to have them at the table as observers. Fantastic. All right. One more, I think, will let you be the final answer. Yes, sir. Hi, thank you very much. Ian Tan from the Singapore Embassy. Oh, perfect. Very nice to see you. That's just an excellent segue. My statement. Yeah, exactly. On very much a related query, I mean, out of Alaska's top 10 trading partners, four of them are members of the TPP, a further four of them from the EU and will be involved in the TTIP. I was wondering how closely you're watching developments on these international negotiations and what sort of impact you see those having on the Arctic and Alaska. There's a lot of acronyms. Yeah. Trans-Pacific partnership for the TPP and TTIP, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, student translation for anyone who needs it. I'm going to not punt your question, but just say this. We have generally taken the position of the state of Alaska that free trade is good for all of us. And I've seen that in Commissioner Sullivan, who's our natural resources commissioner, had worked on these issues when he was here in Washington. And the idea that we have to allow, try to reduce barriers to trade is going to be helpful for us. And I'll just tell you, we come to this situation having had during the development of Proto Bay, a major trade barrier that imposed huge costs on the state of Alaska in terms of the freedom to access its markets. And if we're going to make LNG happen, if we're going to finally get the kind of gas infrastructure that we need out of the Arctic in order to produce more oil as well as gas, it's likely going to happen with market ties with Asia, with market connections with Asia, and an investment formation. So in our mind, reducing barriers right now without stating a specific policy on those issues that the governor hasn't enunciated, and I've got to leave that for him. Generally, we've been supportive of building trade and removing barriers whenever we could. Well, needless to say, I have many thank yous. First, and the largest thank you, Mead, thank you so much. We know your schedule has been crazy. This is the man who's sort of lapped Washington twice in the last two and a half weeks. So we could not be more grateful. And as I said in the beginning, you were the perfect person to talk about this report and the implications. And I have learned so much by our conversation this morning. So a very big thank you to you and your staff for making your appearance possible. I have to thank my three co-authors for this. This was not an easy piece to write. It took a lot of research. And so I again thank Dave Pumphrey from our energy program, Terry Toland, my research assistant, and Mihaila David who's here with us who is a stalwart intern to provide us with that information. Thank you. And then finally, these events are only as good as the questions that come from our audience and you never disappoint. You asked some really tough and great questions. Thank you for your participation. We'll continue to keep the Arctic on the agenda because it's too important. And thank you for being with us. And please join me in thanking Lieutenant Governor Mead Treadwell. Thank you. And take copies of that report. It's also going to be available online. So thank you all so much.