DOCSLIB.ORG

Mining Initiative Looms Over August Primary Election

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mining Initiative Looms Over August Primary Election RESOURCE akrdc.org A periodic publication of the Resourcereview Development Council for Alaska, Inc. August 2008 Mining initiative looms over August Primary Election Mining at Greens Creek has a significant positive impact on the Juneau economy. Photo by Judy Patrick Ballot Measure 4, billed the “Clean direction of mining in Alaska. The measure four other initiatives, one that was denied by Water Initiative” by its proponents and will go before Alaska voters in the primary the Lieutenant Governor’s office, one that viewed as a potential “mining shutdown” by election on Tuesday, August 26. was ruled unconstitutional by Alaska’s courts its opponents, could determine the future The Alaska Federation of Natives, RDC, because it would have shut down mining in local communities, Native corporations, Alaska and two of which are currently in the and scores of other organizations across process of gathering signatures. Alaska remain deeply concerned about the Proponents claim the initiative’s main In This Issue possible effects of Ballot Measure 4 and what target is the proposed Pebble copper and gold damage it could do to Alaskan jobs and the mine in Southwest Alaska. They believe the Ballot Measure 4 1, 4-5 economy. initiative is necessary to protect the salmon RDC views the initiative as just one part fishery of Bristol Bay from Pebble, given From the Executive Director 3 of an ongoing comprehensive campaign its location near the headwaters of several Global approach on climate 6-7 against economic development in Alaska. streams that feed into rivers draining into the The same people who sponsor and support bay. Yet, the initiative makes no mention of RDC News Digest 7, 11 Ballot Measure 4 are those who have been the Pebble project or the Bristol Bay region. Ninth Circuit Court decision 8 part of an anti-mining agenda that pushed Those opposing the initiative contend it is legislation to shut down mining and wrote unnecessary and they consider it an arbitrary Oil industry benefits Alaska 9 (Continued to page 4) Reintroducing the wood bison 9 From the President 10 This edition sponsored by: ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. & Tesoro Alaska Company Resource Development Council Executive Committee Officers The Resource Review is the official periodic 121 W. Fireweed, Suite 250 President Rick Rogers publication of the Resource Development Anchorage, AK 99503 Sr. Vice President Wendy Lindskoog Council (RDC), Alaska's largest privately Vice President Phil Cochrane (907) 276-0700 funded nonprofit economic development Secretary Stephanie Madsen e-mail: [email protected] organization working to develop Alaska's Treasurer Tom Maloney www.akrdc.org natural resources in a responsible manner Past President John Shively and to create a broad-based, diversified Material in this publication may be reprinted Staff economy. without permission provided appropriate credit Executive Director Jason Brune is given. For additional information, contact Past issues of the Resource Review Deputy Director Carl Portman newsletter writer and editor Carl Portman at Membership Director/ Deantha Crockett (1978-2008) are available at akrdc.org. [email protected]. Projects Coordinator Projects Coordinator/ Marleanna Soto AMEREF Development Director Page 2 August 2008 Resource Review akrdc.org From the Executive Director - Jason Brune Please vote NO on ballot measure 4 on August 26 On August 26, Alaskans will be voting Alaska as we know it. Please vote no on After these three recent examples, I on Ballot Measure 4, the so called “clean Ballot Measure 4 on August 26. firmly believe we must work during the water initiative.” We have covered this issue Three very scary initiatives have made next legislative session to make the initiative extensively in each of our last three editions their ways to our ballots in the past two process better for all Alaskans. Following, I of the Resource Review and I hope by now years. One was defeated—the gas reserves have put together a list of recommendations you have been convinced of the negative tax initiative. One passed—the cruise ship for the Legislature to consider: impact passage of this dangerous anti-mining initiative, and it continues to put unattainable (1) Signature gatherers should be required initiative would have on our state. Please vote and overly onerous requirements on the to register with the state. no on Ballot Measure 4 on August 26. industry that local municipalities cannot (2) Signature gatherers should be Alaskan It’s only the primary, and many of you achieve themselves. And of course, the one residents. may feel it’s not worth your time to go to we are facing this August—the clean water (3) If paid, signature gatherers should your local polling place or apply for an initiative. be required to file reports with the state absentee ballot to vote. Indeed, outlining their pay and per diem. with all of the talk of the If Ballot Measure 4 passes, it will require an (4) Employers should be required presidential election, many of override of Alaska’s existing mining laws which to pay signature gatherers as you may just assume the only are the strongest in the world in protecting the employees (rather than the election of consequence will be current $1/signature), subject in November, but, it’s not. The environment. It could prevent future mines, to appropriate withholdings, primary is on August 26 and as well as stop expansions of current mines. and workers compensation. there will not be another chance Ultimately, it could rob Alaskan communities, (5) Gatherers should only be to defeat this deceptive initiative. allowed to collect signatures Please vote no on Ballot Measure as well as Alaska Natives of a significant source for one initiative at a time. 4 on August 26. of jobs and revenue. (6) Signature gatherers should If Ballot Measure 4 passes, it { be required to accurately disclose will require an override of Alaska’s existing These recent experiences make me the intent and provisions of the initiative. mining laws which are the strongest in the question the initiative process. Each of the Signature gatherers and their employers world in protecting the environment. It aforementioned initiatives clearly show they should be subject to fines if found to be could prevent future mines, as well as stop do not have the best interest of the state, nor violating this requirement. expansions of current mines. Ultimately, its people, in mind. Tactics are often used in This list is by no means complete. I value it could rob Alaskan communities, as well the signature gathering process that mislead your recommendations and if you have other as Alaska Natives of a significant source of the public and misconstrue the issues and ideas, please send me an email to jbrune@ jobs and revenue. Please vote no on Ballot impacts at play. akrdc.org. I will share the best of these Measure 4 on August 26. Openness, transparency, and truth must ideas with our elected officials next January As signatures were being collected to be at the forefront of good government. This with the hope we can bring openness and get this item on the ballot, many gatherers standard should also apply when individuals transparency to the democratic right of informed the public its sole purpose was to are trying to gather signatures to put items on Alaskans to change state law through the stop Pebble. However, if Ballot Measure 4 our ballots. Unfortunately, I have witnessed initiative process. passes, depending on the legal interpretation the contrary on many occasions. To solve And remember, please vote no on Ballot du jour and the subsequent regulations this problem, standards must be put in place Measure 4 on August 26. created, it could shut down all mining in to ensure a candid process. Need an Please make sure to cast your vote in the Primary Election on absentee Tuesday, August 26 To vote BEFORE August 26 by absentee ballot, please go to: ballot? http://www.elections.alaska.gov/abinfo.php (907) 276-0700 August 2008 Resource Review Page 3 of the process,” Irwin said. Science-based permitting “Concerns about Pebble should not be addressed with an initiative that adversely impacts an entire industry,” said RDC process protects water and fish Executive Director Jason Brune. “The existing state and federal review process ensures no permitting decision is made until all environmental studies are completed and reviewed by government regulators and independent professionals.” Unfortunately, Ballot Measure 4 throws this process out the window, Brune said. “Major laws typically have hundreds of pages of testimony and days of hearings. This ballot initiative has had no scientific review or public hearings.” Brune emphasized the permitting process does not guarantee a mine will be given a Above, the Red Dog Mine operates air, land and green light to move forward. In fact, he noted water monitoring programs. At top right, the chart regulators routinely reject development shows mining is a major revenue generator for local and state governments. The industry is also plans and preliminary designs, sending them a major contributor to local economies. At right, back for revision; only allowing projects to Leonard Hansen monitors water quality move forward after agency concerns are fully downstream from the Ft. Knox Mine. addressed. “Regulators say ‘no’ routinely in the (Continued from page 1) permitting process,” Brune said. “Permits override of the stringent environmental are not obtained until the requirements of regulatory process already in place. That the regulatory agencies are met. There are process includes federal government laws permitting team that works with applicants some large projects in Alaska that never did which provide extensive permitting to and operators, federal resource managers, get permitted, despite spending hundreds of protect water, fish and the environment. local governments and the public to ensure millions of dollars and many years navigating Ed Fogels, Director of the Office of projects are designed, operated and reclaimed the process.” One of those projects was a Project Management and Permitting at the consistent with the public interest.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • This Will Be the Cover Page
    SSttaattee PPiippeelliinnee CCoooorrddiinnaattoorr’’ss OOffffiiccee Fiscal Year 2010 Annual Report Contact Information State Pipeline Coordinator‘s Office 411 West Fourth Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 (907) 269-6403 Cover Photograph Cover photograph of TAPS, by Benjamin Hagedorn, located just south of pipeline milepost 169 (Atigun Pass) on May 20, 2010. Table of Contents Table of Contents INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 1 Federal/State Joint Pipeline Office .................................................................................... 1 State Pipeline Coordinator’s Office .................................................................................. 2 Department of Natural Resources ..................................................................................... 3 State Pipeline Coordinator‘s Office .................................................................................. 3 State Pipeline Coordinator‘s Office Liaison/State Agency Representatives .................. 11 SPCO Jurisdictional Pipelines ........................................................................................ 15 STATEWIDE PIPELINES .................................................................................................. 17 Trans-Alaska Pipeline System ......................................................................................... 17 Right-of-Way Lease and Pipeline System Overview ....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Beaufort Sea Nearshore Fish Monitoring Study
    Beaufort Sea Nearshore Fish Monitoring Study: 2017 Annual Report Prepared for Hilcorp Alaska, LLC 3800 Centerpoint Drive, Ste. 1400 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 2017 Beaufort Sea Nearshore Fish Monitoring Beaufort Sea Nearshore Fish Monitoring Study: 2017 Annual Report By Justin T. Priest Duncan G. Green Bridget M. Fletcher Trent M. Sutton University of Alaska Fairbanks College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences Department of Fisheries 2150 Koyukuk Drive Fairbanks, Alaska 99775 University of Alaska Fairbanks – College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences ii 2017 Beaufort Sea Nearshore Fish Monitoring This report was prepared under contract to Hilcorp Alaska, LLC. Questions about this report may be addressed to: Hilcorp Alaska, LLC., Environmental Specialist, 3800 Centerpoint Drive, Anchorage, Alaska 99503. This study was conducted under Alaska Department of Fish and Game Permit No. CF-17-063. Report should be cited as: Priest, J. T., D. G. Green, B. M. Fletcher, and T. M. Sutton. 2018. Beaufort Sea Nearshore Fish Monitoring Study: 2017 Annual Report. Report for Hilcorp Alaska, LLC by the University of Alaska Fairbanks, College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, Department of Fisheries, Fairbanks, Alaska. University of Alaska Fairbanks – College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences iii 2017 Beaufort Sea Nearshore Fish Monitoring Executive Summary The Beaufort Sea Fish Monitoring Program is the most comprehensive and continuous sampling efforts to monitor the assemblage structure and health of anadromous and amphidromous fishes in nearshore waters of the central Beaufort Sea near Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. This program was initiated to monitor and, if necessary, direct mitigation of environmental impacts on nearshore fishes related to oil and gas development, with a particular emphasis on species of subsistence importance in the region.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 103/Tuesday, June 1, 2021
    29364 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041– potential and documented Industry 3803. effects on these species; natural history Fish and Wildlife Service • Electronic submission: Federal and conservation status information of eRulemaking Portal at: http:// these species; and data reported from 50 CFR Part 18 www.regulations.gov. Follow the Alaska Native subsistence hunters. We [Docket No. FWS–R7–ES–2021–0037; instructions for submitting comments to have prepared a draft environmental FXES111607MRG01–212–FF07CAMM00] Docket No. FWS–R7–ES–2021–0037. assessment in conjunction with this We will post all comments at http:// rulemaking, which is also available for RIN 1018–BF13 www.regulations.gov. You may request public review and comment. that we withhold personal identifying The proposed regulations include Marine Mammals; Incidental Take information from public review; permissible methods of nonlethal During Specified Activities; North however, we cannot guarantee that we taking; mitigation measures to ensure Slope, Alaska will be able to do so. See Request for that Industry activities will have the AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Public Comments for more information. least practicable adverse impact on the Interior. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: species or stock, their habitat, and their ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of Marine Mammals Management, U.S. availability for subsistence uses; and availability of draft environmental Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 East requirements for monitoring and assessment; and request for comments. Tudor Road, MS–341, Anchorage, AK reporting. Compliance with this rule, if 99503, Telephone 907–786–3844, or finalized, is not expected to result in SUMMARY: We, the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Accidental Oil Spills and Gas Releases;
    APPENDIX A Accidental Oil Spills and Gas Releases; Information, Models, and Estimates; and Supporting Figures, Tables, and Maps Posted at: https://www.boem.gov/Liberty/ This page intentionally left blank. Appendix A Liberty Development and Production Plan Final EIS Table of Contents Contents A-1 Accidental Large Oil Spills ...................................................................................... 1 A-1.1 Large Spill Size, Source, and Oil-Type Assumptions ............................................................ 1 A-1.1.1 OCS Large Oil Spill Sizes .......................................................................................... 1 A-1.1.2 Onshore Large Oil Pipeline Spill Size ........................................................................ 1 A-1.1.3 Source and Type of Large Oil Spills .......................................................................... 2 A-1.1.4 Historical Loss of Well-Control Incidents on the OCS and North Sea ....................... 2 A-1.2 Behavior and Fate of Crude Oils ............................................................................................ 3 A-1.2.1 Generalized Processes Affecting the Fate and Behavior of Oil................................. 3 A-1.2.2 Assumptions about Oil Spill Weathering .................................................................... 4 A-1.2.3 Modeling Simulations of Oil Weathering .................................................................... 4 A-1.3 Estimates of Where a Large Offshore Oil Spill May Go ........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2012 AEDC Resource Extraction Report
    AEDC 2012 RESOURCE Extraction 10-Year Project Projection Sponsored by: Research provided by Petroleum News and North of 60 Mining News Resource Extraction Project Projection TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Background Information Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 10 Oil & Gas Resource .................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Four oil sources, two drivers, could raise northern Alaska’s oil and natural gas output ............................................ 11 Cook Inlet ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 13 Proposed Projects – Oil & Gas ................................................................................................................................................ 15 Projects to be Watched – Oil & Gas .....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2011 AEDC Resource Extraction Report
    2011RESOU R CE EXT R ACTION PR OJECT PR OJECTION Research provided by Petroleum News and North of 60 Mining News RESOURCE EXTRACTION PROJECT PROJECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Background Information Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 13 Oil & Gas Resource ................................................................................................................................................................ 14 Four oil sources, two drivers, could raise northern Alaska’s oil output ................................................... 14 Despite declines, Cook Inlet still active ................................................................................................................... 16 Proposed Projects – Oil & Gas ............................................................................................................................................ 19 Projects to be Watched – Oil & Gas ................................................................................................................................. 23 Existing
    [Show full text]
  • OIL SPILL PREVENTION and RESPONSE in the U.S. ARCTIC
    OIL SPILL PREVENTION and RESPONSE IN THE U.S. ARCTIC OCEAN Unexamined Risks, Unacceptable Consequences (Photo credits for cover, clockwise from le!: Oil rig, Stockbyte/Getty Images; spectacled eider, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; children, Burgess Blevins/Getty Images; bearded seal, Brendan Kelly. Background ice photo: Nuka Research and Planning LLC.) OIL SPILL PREVENTION and RESPONSE IN THE U.S. ARCTIC OCEAN: Unexamined Risks, Unacceptable Consequences November 2010 Commissioned by: Report Prepared by: U.S. Arctic Program, Pew Environment Group Nuka Research and Planning Group, LLC Pearson Consulting, LLC Scientific peer review conducted by three experts in oil spill response, oceanography and Arctic marine ecology. OIL SPILL PREVENTION and RESPONSE IN THE U.S. ARCTIC: Unexamined Risks, Unacceptable Consequences Acknowledgments We wish to thank three individuals for reviewing this report in its !nal draft form: Nancy Bird, Prince William Sound Science Center; Rolf Gradinger, University of Alaska Fairbanks; and one anonymous reviewer. These individuals were asked to review the draft because of their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review was to provide candid and critical comments on the analysis and reasoning contained in the report to assist the Pew Environment Group in making it as sound as possible. Although these reviewers provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the !nal report before its release. We also wish to thank the many people who helped make this report possible: • Nuka Research and Planning Group LLC sta", especially lead authors Elise De Cola and Tim Robertson, and designer Kathleen George.
    [Show full text]
  • Petroleum News 082904
    page Aurora has permit issues at Hanna; 4 plans gas storage at Nicolai Creek Vol. 14, No. 18 • www.PetroleumNews.com A weekly oil & gas newspaper based in Anchorage, Alaska Week of May 3, 2009 • $2 Nikiski: Refinery with a view EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION Moving on Liberty COURTESY TESORO COURTESY SDI, river bridge upgrade and drilling rig construction near completion By ALAN BAILEY Petroleum News fter years of planning and design there are Anow tangible signs on the ground of progress towards first oil from BP’s 100 million-barrel Liberty field, offshore in the Beaufort Sea, about 15 miles east of Prudhoe Bay. On the North Slope workers are putting the fin- ALASKA FRONTIER CONSTRUCTORS ishing touches to the extension of the Endicott satellite drilling island, where Liberty’s drilling rig Setting the sheet-pile retaining wall for the Liberty will be located, and to the upgrades to the extension to the Endicott satellite drilling island. Sagavanirktok River road bridge, an essential Liberty drilling rig is nearly finished, Darryl component of the transportation support infra- Luoma, BP’s general manager for the Liberty proj- structure for the Liberty project; and in Vancouver, ect, told the Alaska Support Industry Alliance Wash., fabrication of Parker Drilling’s massive see LIBERTY page 18 NATURAL GAS Eresman: the future’s a gas EnCana CEO says North America ‘flush’ with resource costing less to produce Tesoro’s Alaska refinery on the Kenai Peninsula now uses crude oil By GARY PARK leading production and pipeline compa- from around the world, not just from Cook Inlet and the North Slope; For Petroleum News nies speaking at a Vancouver Board of see story on page 8.
    [Show full text]
  • Docket No. FWS‒R7‒ES‒2021‒0037; FXES111607MRG01–212–FF07CAMM00]
    This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 06/01/2021 and available online at Billing Code: 4333–15 federalregister.gov/d/2021-11496, and on govinfo.gov DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 18 [Docket No. FWS‒R7‒ES‒2021‒0037; FXES111607MRG01–212–FF07CAMM00] RIN 1018–BF13 Marine Mammals; Incidental Take During Specified Activities; North Slope, Alaska AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of availability of draft environmental assessment; and request for comments. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in response to a request from the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, propose to issue regulations authorizing the nonlethal, incidental, unintentional take by harassment of small numbers of polar bears and Pacific walruses during year-round oil and gas industry activities in the Beaufort Sea (Alaska and the Outer Continental Shelf) and adjacent northern coast of Alaska. Take may result from oil and gas exploration, development, production, and transportation activities occurring for a period of 5 years. These activities are similar to those covered by the previous 5- year Beaufort Sea incidental take regulations effective from August 5, 2016, through August 5, 2021. This proposed rule would authorize take by harassment only. No lethal take would be authorized. If this rule is finalized, we will issue Letters of Authorization, upon request, for specific proposed activities in accordance with this proposed regulation. Therefore, we request comments on these proposed regulations. DATES: Comments on these proposed incidental take regulations and the accompanying draft environmental assessment will be accepted on or before [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
    [Show full text]
  • New Developments in Upstream Oil and Gas Technologies Hearing
    S. HRG. 112–30 NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN UPSTREAM OIL AND GAS TECHNOLOGIES HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN UPSTREAM OIL AND GAS TECHNOLOGIES MAY 10, 2011 ( Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 67–090 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman RON WYDEN, Oregon LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota RICHARD BURR, North Carolina MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE LEE, Utah DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan RAND PAUL, Kentucky MARK UDALL, Colorado DANIEL COATS, Indiana JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire ROB PORTMAN, Ohio AL FRANKEN, Minnesota JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia BOB CORKER, Tennessee CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware ROBERT M. SIMON, Staff Director SAM E. FOWLER, Chief Counsel MCKIE CAMPBELL, Republican Staff Director KAREN K. BILLUPS, Republican Chief Counsel (II) C O N T E N T S STATEMENTS Page Banks, Kevin R., Director, Division of Oil and Gas, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage, AK .................................................................... 15 Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator From New Mexico ........................................ 1 Davis, Thomas, Director, Reservoir Characterization Project, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO ........................................................................................... 3 Epstein, Lois, P.E., Director, Arctic Program, The Wilderness Society, Anchor- age, AK .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • HOUSE RES COMMITTEE -1- January 21, 2011 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an Overview on the Responsibilities of the Division of Oil & Gas
    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE January 21, 2011 1:06 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Paul Seaton, Co-Chair Representative Peggy Wilson, Vice Chair Representative Alan Dick Representative Neal Foster Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz Representative Berta Gardner MEMBERS ABSENT Representative Eric Feige, Co-Chair Representative Bob Herron Representative Scott Kawasaki OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT Representative Dan Saddler COMMITTEE CALENDAR OVERVIEW(S): DIVISION OF OIL & GAS~ DIVISION OF GEOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS~ AND ALASKA OIL & GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION - HEARD OVERVIEW(S): DIVISION OF GEOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION No previous action to record WITNESS REGISTER KEVIN BANKS, Director Division of Oil & Gas Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Anchorage, Alaska HOUSE RES COMMITTEE -1- January 21, 2011 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview on the responsibilities of the Division of Oil & Gas. CATHY FOERSTER, Engineering Commissioner Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC) Department of Administration (DOA) Anchorage, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Gave a presentation on the Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC). ACTION NARRATIVE 1:06:06 PM CO-CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Resources Standing Committee meeting to order at 1:06 p.m. Representatives Seaton, Wilson, Munoz, Foster, Gardner, and Dick were present at the call to order. Representative Saddler was also present. OVERVIEW(S): Division of Oil & Gas, Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, and Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission 1:06:06 PM CO-CHAIR SEATON announced that the only order of business would be overviews from the Division of Oil & Gas, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and from the Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC).
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Annual North Slope Science Review
    2019 Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring – Scott Guyer Annual Bureau of Land Management – Stacey Fritz North Slope Bureau of Ocean Energy Management – Cathy Coon BPX Alaska – Chrissy Pohl Science Review ConocoPhillips Alaska – Robyn McGhee U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Wendy Loya Hilcorp – Beth Sharp National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – Robyn Angliss National Park Service – Lois Dalle-Molle OilSearch – Ryan French U.S. Geological Survey – Grant Hilderbrand & John Pearce General Study Information NSSI ANSSR May 16, 2019 Study Title: Assessment, Inventory and Monitoring (AIM) for GMT2 Lead Organization(s): Bureau of Land Management Other Organization(s): Alaska Center for Conservation Science (UAA) Lead Investigator(s): Jeanne Osnas (UAA), Scott Guyer (BLM) Other Investigator(s): Anjanette Steer (UAA), Timm Nawrocki (UAA) Investigator Contact(s): Scott Guyer BLM 907-223-6759 Duration of Study: Two-Year Data Collection and analysis. Description: On July 22, 2013, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. submitted an application with BLM for a proposed drill site location and majority of the infield roads and pipeline route on BLM-managed lands. The proposed GMT1 drilling and production pad is approximately 14 miles west of the Alpine Central Facility. Study / Resource Subject Categories NSSI ANSSR May 16, 2019 Subject of Study: Soils, Permafrost, Wetlands, terrestrial Monitoring, climate and impacts from development BLM AIM – Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring 25 m 25 General Study Information NSSI ANSSR May 16, 2019 Study Title: Purpose: Some of the original sample plots from the BLM 2012 AIM Pilot project are near the proposed GMT-1 development. However, a higher density of sampling prior to the construction and installation of GMT-1 is need to establish current habitat conditions to be able to assess any impacts to the local environment from this development and comply with the level of monitoring identified in the Record of Decision (ROD).
    [Show full text]