After reading the Anchorage Daily News on Sunday and the multi-page political obituary on Sarah Palin, I felt a little giddy but also a little sad. Not really knowing anyhting much about Sean Parnell and his views on Alaskan issues, especially Alaskan Rural Affairs, it was hard to feel like Madam Governor's resignation will be a benefit to Alaska, unless Mr. Parnell is planning on running for Governor next year, we are still under lame-duck status.

After re-reading the 2005 BBAP Lawsuit, I felt rather insulted that a government agency is still operating like this in Alaska. I have tried to summarize the suit in as non-partisan a way as possible by stating what is written in the suit. Most of the information in the filing was culled straight out of State documents, so I really can’t see why this 2005 BBAP even exists.

1. The State of Alaska’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR) hired mining industry experts to re-write the 1984 BBAP. This re-write resulted in the reclassification of nearly 12 Million Acres of Wildlife Habitat Land to less than 1 Million Acres.
2. This re-write process was conducted secretly by DNR without reason and legal authority.
3. Tom Irwin created the Office of Project Management and Permitting (OPMP) to expedite mining permits and re-write the BBAP. The OPMP was staffed with persons directly associated with the mining industry that substantially funded the operations of the OPMP that resulted in favorable reclassification of wildlife lands to suit the mining industry’s goal of avoiding stringent regulations pertaining to areas surrounding mega-industrial mines. This office was also created to assist mining interests in expediting the permitting process and avoiding environmental concerns further down the road.
4. The 2005 BBAP was created for the sole purpose to protect the mining industry from potential and eventual liability from mining upstream of Bristol Bay.

Why did the State of Alaska and DNR decide to re-write the 1984 BBAP anyways? The intent of the state land management plans is to protect ALL resources in ALASKA from undue harvest and harm.

Can Governor Palin and Tom Irwin explain why this illegal re-write of the BBAP even exists? State representation and collusion of the interests of foreign privateers’ intent on harvesting ALASKAN resources with blatant disregard to the long-term effects is not only shameful, but illegal and IMMORAL . . . Dominion over the earth does not mean destroy at will!

I urge ALL ALASKANS & people that love ALASKA and all it has to offer to fully support the lawsuit that calls for Appropriate Relief from the illegal actions of Tom Irwin and the staff of the OPMP.

Madam Governor,
It seems rather flip-floppy to turn down FEDERAL money to aid in addressing ALASKA'S Energy Crisis and then just a few days later ask for FEDDERAL Help to address a less long-term crisis that the State of Alaska should be well prepared to address on it's own.

Western Alaska is starting to feel a little abandoned here. You know whaere I am talking about, Bristol Bay, home of the Sockeye Salmon and loads of other fish and wildlife and scenery. You know, where you used to Set Net fish. First the ANTI-Clean Water statement , OOOPS, I forgot, you took your Governor's Hat off for that one. Now we have another issue that is not within our capabilities to address and the State, I mean you, see fit not to accept funding that could help ALASKA achieve the 50% goal that YOU set forth. . .

I believe that these actions, and the continued NON-ALASKA related "face-time" that is occuring so frequently that it is almost like watching a celebrity ride-along show are detrimental to the State of ALASKA, now and in the future. Why not promote the clean energy that you promised the State in 2006? Why not promote the community values that you are so oft to recite in the Lower 48, by working to ensure ALASKAN economic growth and sustainability? A better economic environment built around a cause such as making ALL ALASKA Clean and Green would do wonders for the moral of Bush AlASKA, Metro Alaska and Rural Alaska.

Sincerely,

Jon Corbett

Someone told me today that I was called an Idiot by someone “in the know” for my lashing out in articles about the lack of a true energy policy for long range sustainability for ALASKA. Then another person told me that I had finally made it, have my name on the lips of someone connected to public policy in Alaska. Wow, I am honored, but not really. . .

Anyways, following up on the conversation with Mr. Shively . . .

Alaskan State subsidies aimed at developing ALASKAN resources for foreign privateers is in my mind something that doesn’t lend itself well to the long-term fiscal well being of local communities and the State of Alaska as a whole. However . . . check this out, the In-State gas line approach may truly be a feasible approach that would present somewhat timely relief for a large portion of Alaska. But, what about those regions that cannot be accessed with a pipeline?

Bristol Bay is slipping further and rapidly into this energy-nomic crisis, and still no timely solutions are being pursued. Why are we in this predicament? Local power utilities long ignored the coming changes over the horizon and now face near un-surmountable odds to even begin a true solution seeking process. With development of a mega-industrial project looming in the Bay, it makes me wonder if promoting/not-opposing Pebble Mine was not in fact part of a larger plan that is meant to ensure foreign financial domination in our region.

The construction process and sustained operations of a power facility such as what will be needed at Pebble Mine (now approaching 800MW) would be a economic boom for the Bay, but at what cost? Building docks, pipelines, transmission lines, roads, associated buildings will cause permanent and sustained damage to a fragile eco-system that is the heart of the fishery. No one can say that building several hundred miles of roads and such around the headwaters of the bay will positively or adversely affect Bristol Bay fishing. There is just too much risk still involved in the development of Pebble, not enough assurances that the LONG-LONG term condition of the Bristol Bay will remain as pristine as it is now and will remain safe and clean for fishing for generations to come.

If the State is so damn sure about natural gas as the new fuel for Alaska’s economy and infrastructure, then why not build a network of receiving and distribution all around the coast that will provide power and jobs to ALASKA? The development of a Natural Gas based energy infrastructure all over ALASKA will be as big and sustained economically for ALASKA as Pebble Mine that would directly affect ALASKA. The side benefit of switching ALASKA over to its own fuels is lower costs, more jobs and long-term self-reliance. Does Pebble Mine or Trans-Canada or the Denali Project offer that? If ALASKA doesn’t need the power excess from Pebble Mine, then the need to use ALASKAN resources and money in the form of subsidies and endorsements should diminish.

We ALL as ALASKANS must now take up the flag and stand firm in demanding that some solutions are developed sooner, rather than later. Slowly the economic outreach of high energy costs are going to dwindle municipalities and local financial networks until Western Alaska is choked out and then over-run by profiteers’ hell bent of harvesting everything in reach and beyond and leaving nothing but a mess behind. ALASKA doesn’t need Pebble Mine and all the risks associated with it. We need something to help our survival.

Like the last shot of the Spring Moose season fired all the way from the NRA Convention or somewhere close by . . .

The Anchorage Daily News ran Editorial Contributions today (5/18/09) that both dealt with ENERGY issues in Alaska. One was a broad but shallow endorsement of a project or series of projects that abandons a good portion of BUSH ALASKA and doesn’t even address the May 25th deadline for Federal Stimulus Funds targeted at ENERGY. Those plans do however promote the financial growth of foreign interests and affordable natural gas for those who can acquire it.

The other contribution was a pretty precise and practical approach that has worked in other areas of the world. . . Promotion of commercial and residential power production, something that I began promoting over a year ago for the State in various blogs, letters and phone calls. This idea is one that addresses the needs of ALL of ALASKA and is aimed at producing clean ENERGY, not reliance on greenhouse emitting fuels.

Madam Governor, you were elected by ALASKA & I think I’m safe in asking this . . .

What about those ALASKAN communities that cannot access a gas pipeline of accommodate mass storage, such as in Western Alaska? The money process for developing the necessary infrastructure and generation capabilities needed to ensure long-term (20+ Years) viability is going to be a lot slower than parceling out ALASKAN NATURAL RESOURCES to the highest bidder and waiting for PEBBLE MINE to take over. In my conversation this evening with John Shively, he reiterated that 600MW is a lot of power and they are aiming at getting the State of Alaska to subsidize the construction of a grid in Western Alaska, thus ensuring that the mine will be built. Is that the States intention for Western Alaska?