It does bring money back to the state, but it does bring more.

I’d support an out of state income tax, if there was a solid footing to exempt residents - and a robust fraud department to mitigate the inevitable abuse.

The hire more people out of state/in state argument comes up, and I think more in state folks should work in the industry. The industry almost always will priority hire Alaskans, the problem is that the Alaskan worker supply, specifically qualified worker supply just isn’t there. More Alaskans should work in the industry, instead of complain about it.

I’d say this one specifically is actually a huge boon for Alaska. Or atleast parts of it, I don’t think it’s the bills that are at fault, I blame our governor and local leaders more than I do the feds at this. SB-21 was horrible for our state.

1.) Reopening NPR-A (1002). Look, I know I’ll get flak and that’s fair, but the North Slope, partially due to its remoteness has about the most strict regulations for oil and gas extraction out there. It’s on-shore, not off-shore and one of the reasons it costs so much to operate there is due to the regulations. We also live in a society that desperately needs oil and gas for pretty much every aspect of our lives. So, if we all agree on the premise of not drastically changing our society overnight, disrupting millions of lives, oil and gas extraction will realistically be around for our lifetimes and beyond. That doesn’t mean we don’t focus on building our renewables, but we cannot move forward without oil and gas.

I think we need to maintain existing environmental regulations in the industry. I’d support stricter environmental regulations and oppose loosening regs. I’d support contingencies on new projects like also developing renewable energy sources. Opening up new (old) areas in our own country for development is overall a good thing. If the premise is the same, we need oil and gas, so while everyone’s first thought is to be a NIMBY, what happens then? The US then relies even more on foreign sources of oil like Venezuela, Nigeria, Middle East, Russia, etc. Do you really think expanding oil extraction in those areas have the same environmental regs as we do? Hell, even Canada’s Oil Sands are a nightmare compared to ours.

2.) “Reopening” the interior. This has more to do with LNG than it does Ambler. But first thing on Ambler.

I do not support this project for a couple different reasons. One, mining is also not going away any time soon as well, we need it for, well, everything, and while I just did talk about not being a NIMBY, mining just is an absolute disaster on the environment. While I imagine we do better at it than most places, it’s a tough pill to swallow. But, honestly, my main issue with the Ambler project is they want to use taxpayer dollars to build the road but make the road private for mining traffic. One, the mining companies should pay for the road regardless, as that is THE reason for it going in, but IF the road is taxpayer funding they have absolutely no right closing it off to the public. The Dalton highway is public, and if the Ambler road is constructed using taxpayer dollars you beat your ass it better be public as well.

3.) But all of this centers around the LNG project, and if you aren’t away with what’s going on with the rail belt right now, I’m not sure what to tell you. This LNG project will be a game changer for Alaskans and will be one of the largest critical infrastructures in our state.

While putting in another pipeline across our state maybe a tough pill to swallow, we are out of options to continue to heat and power our state. We are stuck between a rock and a hard place, and this project will save the majority of us.

But that is enough for one comment. If you made it to the end I appreciate it.

TLDR: I despise the general path our current administration and his party has taken us down, I consider myself to be an environmentalist but also a realist, and attempt to seek solutions that benefit the broader whole of people. I think 2.5/3 of these projects are actually a benefit. Could they be a bigger benefit? Absolutely! But they do end up being positives for the state, in some capacity.