Comments by spruce
Page 1 of 1
Posted on August 21 at 6:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have personal experience with Mike Kelly making gross exagerations about an issue so that he could steer things to go his way in the legislature. His often untrue and biased statements encourage discord in our community. No thanks, I'll vote for the competition.
Posted on July 10 at 10:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Lets remember the basic choices here:
(1) send Alaskan gas to Asia for hopefully maximum profit at a higher economic risk and lower efficiency (All Alaska and LNG); or, (2) send it through Canada to American consumers. Either way, we will not be immune from the effects of global economics and foreign governmental policies. Given the anticipated huge future need of natural gas in the US, lets also acknowledge that in the past decades Alaska has gotten (and still gets) alot of economic help from the US treasury courtesy of earmarks funded by the American taxpayers. By providing our gas to ourselves and to the rest of the US we are strengthening our ties to our own country and not to Asian suitors (who in the future would never send us any funding, like earmarks, even if we desperately needed them).
In the end, I hope to see Denali, TransCanada, and the State of Alaska come together to form a strong partnership that will get this pipeline built. A $500 million investment gives the State of Alaska a part-owner stake in that partnership. We will have a stronger voice and greater control over aspects with huge long-term economic consequences like tariffs, accounting and taxation, in-state distribution, etc.
News Miner editors: To me, your blanket support of Denali, and opposition to AGIA, suggests that we should continue to trust Big Oil to look out for our interests. Why are you so skeptical about the State investing in our own future through AGIA? I say lets invest in State partnerships in BOTH the bullet line to South Central and the AGIA process to send our gas to profitable American and Alaskan markets. We are very fortunate that we now have the means to do so. Its time we start taking care of ourselves instead of putting our hand out to the Big Oil companies, Asian suitors, or the US treasury.
Posted on April 29 at 7 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Dermot, you're too defensive of the GVEA Board. Independent oil experts and academics predicted peak oil more than 20 years ago, just when GVEA was making decisions to shy away from Hydro and Coal in favor of oil. For example, in the mid- 1950's Dr. M.K Hubbert, a former Shell oil geologist, predicted that the US peak oil discovery/depletion curve would occur in the early 1970's, and it did. Shortly after, he went on to predict world peak oil to occur sometime about the turn of the century. A decade ago, others, such as Dr. K. Deffeyers, who spoke in Fairbanks last year, used the same techniques to refine the world peak oil estimate to about 2007-2010. What we are experiencing in energy costs is absolutely no surprise -- it was predicted not by gloom and doomers by respected academic economists and geologists.
Yes GVEA, like the government, may have been complacent in the 1980's and 1990's for GVEA to have decided, and been permitted to put most of it's energy eggs into one oil basket, but there WAS plenty expertise yelling loud and clear that diversification would be better. Decisions to build more oil-fired power plants were being made just when the peak oil predictions were deemed reliable by many observers, not just some fringe groups. That is why diversification on the GVEA Board is so critically important. Except for one member, their Board is very susceptible to groupthink.
The GVEA coooperative is to be lauded for its SNAP program, but unfortunately that is too little to late. We need a "Manhattan" like project to develop and implement alternatives like hydro, wind, solar, and of course our greatly sought-after North Slope natural gas. Hopefully we won't be so stupid as to put all our egss in that basket either. In the meantime, I'll keep writing letters to politicians and cutting more firewood and looking into solar electric and hot water.
On Oil price surge shows need to diversify fuel sources for local electric supply
Page 1 of 1
Posted on August 22 at 7:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Bonnie Williams says:
"I can state unequivocally that there is no problem within the current permitting system, no fatal flaw that would allow damage to water or fish...It’s amazing that any company ever gets through the process."
I was ready to give the mining industry the benefit of doubt on this one until I wondered...
Why is there still a relatively recent huge excavation and former cyanide heap leach pit on the south side of Ester dome in which no visible reclamation efforts were ever attempted?
Why does the defunct Illinois Creek mine built south of Galena in the late 1990's still have a huge a gaping hole in the ground with a cyanide heap leach pit still festering beside it?
Both are examples that I am personally familiar with, and both seem to be poised to release toxins into our streams at some unknown time in the future. Why should I believe the pro-mining development interests when I know the State cannot even manage impacts from mining projects that are considerably smaller than the proposed Pebble mine project?
The State has been asleep at the switch when it comes to monitoring hard rock mining. Clearly the State needs the public's direction on this issue. It appears to me that they are not taking much initiatve on their own, or if they try, they are rebuffed by pressure from special interests at high levels.
I'll vote yes for the Pebble initiative!
On Four nos