Alaska Soles • Entered by Loren Karro on January 3, 2021

Comment on seismic exploration in Arctic NWR

December 28, 2020 – December 30, 2020

Participants and Hours

Pre Planning hours
Post Admin hours
Activity Hours 8
Participants 1
Total Hours 8

Key Issue: Oil, Gas, or Mineral Development
Activity Type: Advocacy (rallies, lobbying, meeting decision makers, letters/calls/emails)

Measurable Outcomes

Outcome 1: Advocacy actions (1 comments)

Short Description of Activity

Review and comment on Marsh Creek E Seismic Exploration EA

Reflection/Evaluation

The exploration itself uses some efforts to mitigate any problems and while not without fault is based on faulty premises. First is that an EIS isn’t required as they can rely heavily on the leasing sale EIS; Second is that any such development should be happening in the Refuge at all; and third is that we should be putting any effort into any new oil and gas development in the Arctic instead of concentrating on researching and developing affordable renewable energy resources and providing training for maintenance and development of same. And KIC and the EA did very little to address the significant concerns of the nearby Gwich’in communities that regard that area as sacred and rely up on the Porcupine Caribou Herd that calves there and utilizes the area to escape insects and predation. Well, I learned a lot again but so wish effort wasn’t necessary and so look forward to working with congress to change the 2017 Jobs and Tax Act so that it doesn’t mandate or allow oil and gas development in the Refuge.

Photos/Uploads

Upload 1

Skip to content
This Website is committed to ensuring digital accessibility for people with disabilitiesWe are continually improving the user experience for everyone, and applying the relevant accessibility standards.
Conformance status