OPINION: From the Editor: Icebreakers absolute necessity on many fronts

January 13th 1:57 am | Carey Restino    

Start digging into the reason the United States' polar icebreaker fleet has dwindled to one small ship and there is little one can do but shake one's head. Like so many issues that require the wheels of government to turn, this one has obviously been shoved to the back burner for years now. The same things that were being said five, even 10 years ago, are being said now, and the arguments are solid. The only thing needed is for the nation to listen.

As it currently stands, the nation's sole operating polar icebreaker, the Healy, is headed now to Nome on a mission that diverted it from its path to Seattle to be worked on for several months. The Healy is a medium-sized icebreaker and suited and equipped to help with science missions, not pull grounded tankers from sandbars or move quickly to rescue a stranded crew. Those jobs are suited for heavy tankers, and the United States used to have two. But one had a massive engine failure and the other will be more than a year before it is operational. So that leaves the nation with nothing, essentially, during a time of huge Arctic activity. By comparison, our Arctic neighbors have anywhere from seven to 25 icebreakers operating.

The push to study, explore and extract resources from the Arctic's waters has been happening for years, and those efforts are going to reach an even more rapid pace this year if things continue on their current trajectory. But drilling for oil in the Arctic is a lot different than drilling for oil anywhere else. Look at the spills and disasters other Arctic nations, such as Russia, have seen in the past decade. The list is long.

It's not just ice, though ice certainly is a hazard. We all know how unpredictable the weather can be in the north, and when you get in trouble up there, it's a whole different ballgame. How many mariners driving ships in this region are going to have any experience with such conditions? Who is going to teach them?

Even the U.S. Navy, when asked to consider more activity in the north, said it would need substantial time and energy to devote to retraining and retrofitting vessels for those specific conditions. It's pretty likely that at some point in time, someone is going to wind up in the wrong place at the wrong time. Then what?

Given the current state of affairs, 'then what' will essentially look like everyone throwing their hands up in the air, running in circles and accomplishing nothing. Why? Because the resources needed to help fix a problem, rescue a ship or save a life, simply do not exist in our nation right now.

When the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill occurred, it was the U.S. Coast Guard who ran the show, serving as the incident command for the entire cleanup effort, a monumental task at best. In the event of a disaster of any proportion in the Arctic, this would also be their job. Unfortunately, the chances of having the resources needed for this valuable organization to do its job are minimal at this point and years behind the curve at best. Estimates are that it will take years to build the ships needed to navigate these waters with any degree of certainty.

It's true that polar icebreakers are not cheap. During a time when money is tight and programs are being cut, it is hard, I'm sure, for the nation's officials to open up the wallet to the tune of $900 million. But this is probably one of those situations where you pay now or you pay later. The Coast Guard doesn't just respond to emergencies, it also tries to prevent them. Anyone who has had a boat in Alaska knows what that means - follow the rules or run the risk of getting caught out of line. A few polar icebreakers wandering around up in the Arctic waters making sure supply vessels, tourist boats and drilling operations are following the laws of the sea, not to mention common sense, is about the smartest investment the United States could make right now.

The problem is, we really are on the edge of something completely new here. We've never had this little ice or this much traffic in our Arctic waters. We don't know what the implications are and we haven't learned the mistakes the hard way yet. And Alaska, after all, is a long way from Washington, D.C. It isn't home to a large block of voters, and it isn't likely to have a large degree of political pull. That is, however, as long as everything goes OK.

If it doesn't, politicians from across the nation are going to have some pretty big questions to answer, like, "Why did you knowingly let the nation's only line of defense against an Arctic catastrophe age out of commission," and "Why didn't you heed the warnings of Alaska's elected officials, communities and even developers, who all called for more Coast Guard presence in the Arctic for years?"

Alaskans would be wise to pay attention to the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act Bill, which comes out of subcommittee this winter. It may take some convincing for elected officials far from Alaska and out of touch with the implications of Arctic development to understand the importance of this issue. It's up to us to explain.