FROM THE EDITOR.

• Author: Anderson, Tasha

In February federal authorities delivered two decisions on projects long under development: no for Pebble, yes to Willow.

When determinations like these are made, my inbox is flooded with emails from interested parties and key stakeholders lauding or lamenting the announcement.

In the case of ConocoPhillips Alaska's Willow project, a North Slope development estimated to produce approximately 180.000 barrels of oil per day at its peak, most of the press releases that jammed my inbox commended the US Bureau of Land Management's Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), which indicated there is a federally permitted path to production. A joint release from the Inupiat Community of the North Slope, North Slope Borough, and Arctic Slope Regional Corporation stated: "The elected regional Inupiat leadership of the North Slope encourages the Biden administration to move forward with final approval for Alaska's Willow Project... As the final SEIS signals, advancing Willow is critical for domestic energy independence, job security for Alaskans, and the right of Alaska Natives to choose their own path... We know our lands and our communities better than anyone, and we know that resource development and our subsistence way of life are not mutually exclusive. The new economic activity initiated by Willow will strengthen our region's economic foundation and make possible the continuation of our Inupiaq culture and way of life."

In contrast, the reaction to Pebble was mixed. I received an equal number of press releases condemning and praising the US Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) decision. It's not surprising: the Pebble mine has been a highly controversial project for years, and for good reason. Most look at development at Pebble as choosing between copper and gold or fish-and they're all good things to have. The question is, of course, does the risk make...