Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Proposed Chuitna coal strip mine shrinks the pie for everyone

  1. #1
    New member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1

    Default Proposed Chuitna coal strip mine shrinks the pie for everyone

    New reports out today on the impact that the Chuitna coal strip mine in Cook Inlet would have on tributaries, the river and the Inlet. Basically if the mine goes through they will eliminate 11 miles of salmon streams and impact everything down stream. The pie is already too small - if we want to keep fishing we need to stop these lame brained ideas that destroy our fishing and hunting habitat just so a bunch of rich Texans can get richer. Enough is enough! Read the reports here


  2. #2
    Member klickman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    196

    Default

    its definatley not a good situation any way you look at it. Destroy a great river and very few alaskans will benefit let alone very few americans. Its a Delaware company shipping the coal to Asia. Makes no sense. Why destroy our land for them. Too bad there isn't more of a public outcry like there is for Pebble. If more people knew it could affect the kenai there would be a huge outcry. THere needs to be more publicity about it.

    KLICKMAN

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default where are the sport fishing groups.

    Kenai Area Fisherman's Coalition came out against this mine and published the reasons in the paper recently. In contrast, I see nothing from Kenai River Sport Fishing Organization except for the Pebble logo on some of their stuff and having Pebble fund some of their activities. Where is KRSA on the coal mine in Cook Inlet? Other habitat groups have come out against it in a public forum.

  4. #4

    Default

    So if Natural Gas bills double in the next three years for Anchorage, and electric bills quadruples in the same period. If in the next five years the Cook Inlet oil wells are slowly shut down, the kenai refinery is shut down. In six years Anchorage might have a BIG problem. No heat, no electric, no fuel.

    However fuel could be trucked in at say $11.75 per gal. natural gas could come from all the Mat-Su valley shallow well, NO scratch that, ain't happening. Just burn firewood or coal.

    Might be a good time to sell any Anchorage/Mat-su Valley Real Estate before it is a ghost town.

    Just saying that there might be other things to consider.....just food for thought. I like the ban coal idea, as I never much like Anchorage anyway.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default 20 more years of natural gas

    A recent proposal I saw from ConocoPhillips projected 20 more years remaining for the Buluga gas field. We have have to stop exporting gas to Japan however.

    Pioneer still has the COSMO project to do and there are other players in the search for more Cook Inlet gas.

    I have to ask who will profit from and who will suffer from the project before I make a decision.


    Quote Originally Posted by AGL4now View Post
    So if Natural Gas bills double in the next three years for Anchorage, and electric bills quadruples in the same period. If in the next five years the Cook Inlet oil wells are slowly shut down, the kenai refinery is shut down. In six years Anchorage might have a BIG problem. No heat, no electric, no fuel.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default wow what hype

    Quote Originally Posted by AGL4now View Post
    So if Natural Gas bills double in the next three years for Anchorage, and electric bills quadruples in the same period. If in the next five years the Cook Inlet oil wells are slowly shut down, the kenai refinery is shut down. In six years Anchorage might have a BIG problem. No heat, no electric, no fuel.

    However fuel could be trucked in at say $11.75 per gal. natural gas could come from all the Mat-Su valley shallow well, NO scratch that, ain't happening. Just burn firewood or coal.

    Might be a good time to sell any Anchorage/Mat-su Valley Real Estate before it is a ghost town.

    Just saying that there might be other things to consider.....just food for thought. I like the ban coal idea, as I never much like Anchorage anyway.
    Since the coal is going to Asia unless you want to move there you are out of luck in Alaska. Also, this is just the attitude that caused the decline of wild salmon stocks in the Pacific Northwest. It would be the first time a salmon stream was totally destroyed for jobs. I thought we did it different in Alaska - guess not.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Since the coal is going to Asia unless you want to move there you are out of luck in Alaska. Also, this is just the attitude that caused the decline of wild salmon stocks in the Pacific Northwest. It would be the first time a salmon stream was totally destroyed for jobs. I thought we did it different in Alaska - guess not.

    SO....You don't pay your debts....? We Owe Asia. Stop buying stuff from Asia. Stop buying Cars, trucks, TV, VCR's, Cell Phones, Computers, and 9 million other products. What else do you have to trade to them for their cheap labor. See this is not as simple/easy as kill a coal mine and save a fish. One option is eliminate sport fishing in Alaska, and use the commercial caught fish to pay Your debt. You have to give something, you took something.

  8. #8
    Member rugersbro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    AK AND NV
    Posts
    50

    Default

    Read the situation caused by Cap and Trade, the paying
    for carbon use!

    http://www.heritage.org/research/ene.../wm2585-AK.cfm

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default wow - off base or what

    Quote Originally Posted by AGL4now View Post
    SO....You don't pay your debts....? We Owe Asia. Stop buying stuff from Asia. Stop buying Cars, trucks, TV, VCR's, Cell Phones, Computers, and 9 million other products. What else do you have to trade to them for their cheap labor. See this is not as simple/easy as kill a coal mine and save a fish. One option is eliminate sport fishing in Alaska, and use the commercial caught fish to pay Your debt. You have to give something, you took something.
    I do not have to pay with our renewable resources and your comments appear to show a total lack of global economic issues but that discussion should go on the general forum.

    The issue here is whether the State will allow a salmon stream to be totally destroyed - I believe the constitution of the state prohibits this as well as federal law relative to essesential fish habitat. So it is a simple matter - do we want to save salmon streams or not -

    Why do you say my debt - are you not a United States citizen?

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Lack of data

    The Keeper's web site mentions the lack of data on fish runs, stream borne nutrients, etc.

    I'm finding more and more that we lack data on a lot of things about the Kenai and Russian Rivers - the two most important rivers to a most Cook Inlet residents and well as many tourists. Many fish biologists and scientists are concerned about the potential damage we are doing to the Kenai and Russian River but we hear little about their concerns. Perhaps this mine issue will make more people aware of the other dangers to our fisheries that do not receive wide publication here in Alaska.

    Concerns I find include long term effects resulting from the removal of the nutrients carried up the rivers and streams by the massive fish runs of the past, the many potential negative effects of hatchery born fish on the native wild runs, and the massive amounts of pollution and wastes dumped into the water by the fish processors. Fish farming is an issue elsewhere but we don't have to worry too much about it in Alaska.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default TV you are so off base that it is funny

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    The Keeper's web site mentions the lack of data on fish runs, stream borne nutrients, etc.

    I'm finding more and more that we lack data on a lot of things about the Kenai and Russian Rivers - the two most important rivers to a most Cook Inlet residents and well as many tourists. Many fish biologists and scientists are concerned about the potential damage we are doing to the Kenai and Russian River but we hear little about their concerns. Perhaps this mine issue will make more people aware of the other dangers to our fisheries that do not receive wide publication here in Alaska.

    Concerns I find include long term effects resulting from the removal of the nutrients carried up the rivers and streams by the massive fish runs of the past, the many potential negative effects of hatchery born fish on the native wild runs, and the massive amounts of pollution and wastes dumped into the water by the fish processors. Fish farming is an issue elsewhere but we don't have to worry too much about it in Alaska.
    TV another thread on nutrients and hatchery fish and pollution by fish processors all in one sentence. Well played for pushing buttons.

    Since you obviously have little knowledge of these subjects I would suggest you read about them - for example data from sediment cores do not support your massive fish run hypothesis - and then come back to us with knowledge instead of button pushing. I am not going to take these on again and I hope everyone else puts a stop to this nonsense you create.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Only one side to the story?

    One has only to mention anything negative about commerical fishing industy in Alaska to "push a button"! It is unfortuate that it creates that reaction with some. In many instances words like "stupid" and "ignorant" are the response or some sort of character assissination when any question concerning commerical fishing managment is raised.

    I am doing a lot of research and reading. What I'm learning is that there are two sides to the commerical fishing story in Alaska- and a lot of questions are being raised about the potential long term effects of our current commercial fishing management practices and management. These questions are being raised by experienced fish bilogists and scientists like yourself and our own F&G guys. While the comericial guys and supporters would like to laugh it off the issues are hardly funny. I have over 40 years of experience in science and engineering - including research and testing - myself. I feel well qualified to read many of the avaliable papers and make some judgment of their validity and the qualifications of the authors. Yes - there is political and financial influence on research - but that fact applies to both sides of the argument.

    There is still a lot of data we don't have - as well as some data to support both sides of the picture. The situation is hardly black and white and the potential for long term damage is not negliable. The public that is concerned with the enviornment and fishing needs to be aware of the issues surrounding commerical fishing and hear both sides of the story.

    I suspect the fish supporters of years past also thought it funny when objections were intially raised about the government support of the mass killing of bald eagles to support the salmon fishing industry. How many people are even aware of this dirty part of the commerical fishing story?


    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    TV another thread on nutrients and hatchery fish and pollution by fish processors all in one sentence. Well played for pushing buttons.

    Since you obviously have little knowledge of these subjects I would suggest you read about them - for example data from sediment cores do not support your massive fish run hypothesis - and then come back to us with knowledge instead of button pushing. I am not going to take these on again and I hope everyone else puts a stop to this nonsense you create.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  13. #13

    Default When I see phrases like

    " it will contaminate the Chuit River, which supports all five species of Alaska’s salmon and has been recognized as one of America’s most endangered rivers." (from the referenced "forms") talking about a river that is in the middle of nowhere (the biggest threat I can imagine right now is to many salmon returning) written by people who are looking at someone else's report - I can't put much credence in the rest of their "data".
    Mike
    Mike
    www.alaskaatvclub.org
    There is a faster way off the mountain, might hurt a little though.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    One has only to mention anything negative about commerical fishing industy in Alaska to "push a button"! It is unfortuate that it creates that reaction with some. In many instances words like "stupid" and "ignorant" are the response or some sort of character assissination when any question concerning commerical fishing managment is raised.

    I am doing a lot of research and reading. What I'm learning is that there are two sides to the commerical fishing story in Alaska- and a lot of questions are being raised about the potential long term effects of our current commercial fishing management practices and management. These questions are being raised by experienced fish bilogists and scientists like yourself and our own F&G guys. While the comericial guys and supporters would like to laugh it off the issues are hardly funny. I have over 40 years of experience in science and engineering - including research and testing - myself. I feel well qualified to read many of the avaliable papers and make some judgment of their validity and the qualifications of the authors. Yes - there is political and financial influence on research - but that fact applies to both sides of the argument.

    There is still a lot of data we don't have - as well as some data to support both sides of the picture. The situation is hardly black and white and the potential for long term damage is not negliable. The public that is concerned with the enviornment and fishing needs to be aware of the issues surrounding commerical fishing and hear both sides of the story.

    I suspect the fish supporters of years past also thought it funny when objections were intially raised about the government support of the mass killing of bald eagles to support the salmon fishing industry. How many people are even aware of this dirty part of the commerical fishing story?
    No TV - you push buttons on every thread to hijack it. Thsi thread has nothing to do with what you posted above and yet you continue to do so.

    We are tried of it. Start a new thread and let this one rest on the topic.

    Also, you tend to say commercial fishing when in fact some of the concerns expressed by myself and others relate to sport fishing impacts - early run Kenai River chinook - failure to recognize that shows a personal bias.

    Mike - the reason it is on the most endangered rivers is because of the proposed coal mine. So there is no conflict there. Remember this coal mine has been on the drawing board for two decades or more. Also, data is data. It should stand on its own so please point out where it is flawed as opposed to making a judgement without supporting facts. Not trying to push your button just trying to understand why you would jump to the data is no good from one sentence in a report that has a factual history on why the river is endangered.

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Why do you say my debt - are you not a United States citizen?
    Yes, WAY longer than you, wipper'snapper. You got any more cheap shots......?

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default nice

    Quote Originally Posted by AGL4now View Post
    Yes, WAY longer than you, wipper'snapper. You got any more cheap shots......?
    thanks that is the best comment I have heard in a long time.

    It was not a cheap shot - just curious why you used I had to pay the debt and did not include it as a we have to pay the debt.

    I also do not know if you live in Alaska. If you do then you know our constitution says resources are to be managed for sustained yields. I do not see how that can happen when you take a river out of production for years.

    Also, I do not see how that can happen when one starts down this path. That is the exact same path that the Pacific Northwest went and we know what happened to salmon in those streams. So at this point for me it is as simple as fish vs coal.

    The easy question is - are we going to remove a natural renewable resource forever for a short term unknown economic gain. The idea we can redo these streams is just silly biology in my and other opinions.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    Also there is a lot of coal in Alaska. In places not as sensitive as this. So it's not as simple as using carbon fuels or not. Pretty much resource extraction isn't the issue here. I'm all for responsible use of Alaska's resources. The Key word is responsible.
    This proposed Mine is a horrible idea. Short term rewards with almost a definite long term cost. Nerka said it correctly coal vs. fish. I'm for fish and habitat in this case.


    Just cause Nerka is a whipper'snapper doesn't mean he doesn't have informed opinions.
    Last edited by Akbrownsfan; 08-29-2009 at 10:57. Reason: snappin a youngun.

  18. #18

    Default

    I never said I was NOT for save the fish. In fact I like fish better than huge skools of Humans. I guess I would be happy to see Anchorage be a semi-ghost town. I think 275,000 to 350,000 humans is the correct herd size for Alaska. If The human herd is over consuming the sustainable resourses, maybe we need to reduce the human herd, by eleminating the human BAITING program, the Permenent Fund. So yes if you want to reduce it to fish or humans. Save the fish, and what was that bumpersticker: "Let the humans FREEZE in the DARK".

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Eliminate the baiting

    I agree with eliminating the permanent fund - or pay it out every other year or two to eliminate the short timers that depend on it from year to year. There could also be a several year waiting period with back payments or such for new comers.

    Of course if we eliminate the fund we have to make certain our politicans won't blow it off on some other social welfare scheme or another fish processing plant or such One good use could be enlarge out road system - perhaps a bridge across the big Sue down south and open up the other side of the inlet so other can fish the resources over there. If people can't see or use the resources they tend to care a lot less about them - there is a lot less interest by many in maintaining a playground for the rich.

    Buying a lot of non-productive people a one-way ticket out of the state may be another good use of the fund. That would help to thin the herd.

    There is also a lot of research on our fisheries that still remains to be done.

    Quote Originally Posted by AGL4now View Post
    I never said I was NOT for save the fish. In fact I like fish better than huge skools of Humans. I guess I would be happy to see Anchorage be a semi-ghost town. I think 275,000 to 350,000 humans is the correct herd size for Alaska. If The human herd is over consuming the sustainable resourses, maybe we need to reduce the human herd, by eleminating the human BAITING program, the Permenent Fund. So yes if you want to reduce it to fish or humans. Save the fish, and what was that bumpersticker: "Let the humans FREEZE in the DARK".
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default This is crazy talk- no offense

    Quote Originally Posted by AGL4now View Post
    I never said I was NOT for save the fish. In fact I like fish better than huge skools of Humans. I guess I would be happy to see Anchorage be a semi-ghost town. I think 275,000 to 350,000 humans is the correct herd size for Alaska. If The human herd is over consuming the sustainable resourses, maybe we need to reduce the human herd, by eleminating the human BAITING program, the Permenent Fund. So yes if you want to reduce it to fish or humans. Save the fish, and what was that bumpersticker: "Let the humans FREEZE in the DARK".
    AGL4now - this is just crazy talk - freeze in the dark. We have more gas and coal reserves than you can imagine. The issue is not about Alaska as I pointed out - the coal from this mine is going to Asia and coming back to us as air borne polution. Did you not read the article on ocean acidification? So lets talk realistic outcomes.

    The gas line is being prohibited by costs to run to the lower 48. There is nothing that says a smaller line option or bringing in LNG are not an option. Also, coal is very abundant if we want to go that way and of course there is wind, nuclear, and solar. No one really wants to talk nuclear but that is an option for some areas.

    So while there may be some short term issues I believe the discussions will be productive and eventually sucessful.

    Saying Alaska populaiton will decrease to less than 300,000 makes no sense to me. The oil and gas fields are one source of income but there are others - we have seen tourism increase over the last 20 years, we have fishing if we take care of the resource - which is what this topic is about, and we have small global industries to promote that do not use or require resource extinction. We also still have the non-rewable resources to extract if we do it right.

    You have yet to say how a coal mine that destroys 12 miles of spawning salmon habitat is a positive for Alaska - jobs and life of the project do not stop your assessment of the population going to 300,000. This thread is not about not developing resources. It is about a specific project in a specific area. As others have pointed out there are much better areas for development that truely helps Alaskans.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •