Kenetrek Boots

DT Jr. on Meateater

Status
Not open for further replies.
Good debate, thought provoking on both sides. I am still glad the mine is on hold, and wish it was shelved for good. Alas I fear it will be resurrected as soon as the political liabilities are no longer out weighed by the financial benefits to the politicians.
 
So devil’s advocate argument here: how much proposed benefit to the locals and State would this operation offer? Everyone knows of the huge potential impact to the fishery. What are the economical arguments tendered by the mining officials to counter this? I admit to not seeking their point of view out as I see no benefit to AK.
 
So devil’s advocate argument here: how much proposed benefit to the locals and State would this operation offer? Everyone knows of the huge potential impact to the fishery. What are the economical arguments tendered by the mining officials to counter this? I admit to not seeking their point of view out as I see no benefit to AK.
50MM state and 20MM local taxes a year.
750-1000 jobs, according to their website. (Assumes mine life span of 20 years)

Per 2019 -ADFG

32 MM revenue from Fish and Game Sales, 17MM of which is sport fishing.

Im not sure how the commercial side works.

(Totally irrelevant fact Colorado Fish and Game license generate 125MM)
 
Per 2019 -ADFG

32 MM revenue from Fish and Game Sales, 17MM of which is sport fishing.
I'm sure you realize this, but don't forget license sales are only a piece of the puzzle. It's been years ago, but I remember a study showing hunting and fishing contributed nearly a billion dollars to the Montana economy.
 
I'm sure you realize this, but don't forget license sales are only a piece of the puzzle. It's been years ago, but I remember a study showing hunting and fishing contributed nearly a billion dollars to the Montana economy.

It was more just showing scale of contribution. 50MM can seem like a little or a lot depending on the context. For instance that wouldn't drill 10 OG wells in most basins.

License sale dollars in the conversation about mine impact is a bit distracting and flawed.
1. You have to assume the mine would literally kill the fishery, which as bambi detailed, is a massive leap.
2. It would only be the portion of license that are for that specific fishery
3. Same with your point about greater impact, you'd have to figure out the contribution of that specific fishery.

The mine will have an impact, but putting an exact $ value to that impact via the fishery is going to require a lot of assumptions. Very doable, not something I would have the time and/ or data to put together, further it would be risk thresholds, so 10% chance it costs the state x dollars 30 % chance x-n dollars, etc etc.
 
What's mind boggling... and if we are being honest the reason Alaska is looking at both Pebble and ANWR is that fact that 90% of the states general fund comes from O&G taxes.

The state has no income tax, and no statewide sales tax.

The state is deeply reliant on extraction.

AFGD budget is 200MM, as stated above only 32MM comes from license sales. 50MM comes from the state general fund.

For comparison COs budget is 230MM and 12MM comes from the general fund.

My assumption is that most of the state works this way, pull the plug on resource development and the whole state is going to unravel.
 
How much collateral money would the mine front for a contingency plan? I’ve worked in compliance and I’m well aware of the mess when Mr. Corporation wrecks something and then dissolves and disappears.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top