Healy Basin Gas Exploration

Signatures 77 total

Page: 1, 2

1. 1
   Name: Carine McCandless on Nov 12, 2010

   Zip Code: 23452

   Comments: A representative of the people, should listen to the people. Don't forget who you are supposed to be working for.

   Flag
2. 2
   Name: Alan Seegert on Nov 12, 2010

   Zip Code: 99755

   Comments:

   Flag
3. 3
   Name: Astrid Loree Nancarrow on Nov 12, 2010

   Zip Code: 99755

   Comments: Community members made reasonable, do-able requests which would allow development in this area, rather than blanket "not in my back yard" rants. This kind of careful, thoughtful input should be considered.

   Flag
4. 4
   Name: Stewart Cubley on Nov 12, 2010

   Zip Code: 94978

   Comments: I am a landowner in the Wolf Townships. This undeveloped sensitive area abutting Denali National Park needs to be protected. I am very disappointed that DNR will not consider modifying the Healy Basin report to take these reasonable requests into consideration despite overwhelming local consensus.

   Flag
5. 5
   Name: Jeff Lebegue on Nov 12, 2010

   Zip Code: 99676

   Comments:

   Flag
6. 6
   Name: Sonja Schmidt on Nov 12, 2010

   Zip Code: 99743

   Comments:

   Flag
7. 7
   Name: Craig Schmidt on Nov 12, 2010

   Zip Code: 99743

   Comments:

   Flag
8. 8
   Name: Jon Paynter on Nov 12, 2010

   Zip Code: 99755

   Comments:

   Flag
9. 9
   Name: Marybeth Holleman on Nov 12, 2010

   Zip Code: 99507

   Comments:

   Flag
10. 10
    Name: Michael Speaks on Nov 12, 2010

    Zip Code: 99755

    Comments: Its enough to make me want to leave the area. Hows that for the publics best interest!

    Flag
11. 11
    Name: Christine Byl on Nov 12, 2010

    Zip Code: 99743

    Comments: Please reconsider this finding--it offers NO protection for the hundreds of people who call Healy home, and is short-sighted in its assumption that no-strings-attached resource extraction should trump the human and natural quality of life issues in an area. Healy is a very special place that deserves better than to be an island in the middle of gas development.

    Flag
12. 12
    Name: Anonymous on Nov 12, 2010

    Zip Code: 99743

    Comments:

    Flag
13. 13
    Name: Frank Keim on Nov 12, 2010

    Zip Code: 99709

    Comments: I find your determination reckless and completely not in the best interests of the people of Alaska or the residents of landowners in the Healy area. It is evident you do not believe in the rational findings of science and you do not have the love of the natural world that a sensitive human being must have to maintain a healthy Earth and assure that future generations continue to enjoy it as we have. Perhaps you are just plain Stupid!

    Flag
14. 14
    Name: Gary Borenstein on Nov 12, 2010

    Zip Code: 99755

    Comments:

    Flag
15. 15
    Name: Cass Ray on Nov 12, 2010

    Zip Code: 99755

    Comments:

    Flag
16. 16
    Name: Bob Shavelson on Nov 12, 2010

    Zip Code: 99603

    Comments: The state's licensing and leasing programs continue to favor extraction and big business over local Alaskan values. We cannot drill our way to energy security with finite resources. Tap the wind, hydro and geothermal resources for long term sustainable jobs and clean energy.

    Flag
17. 17
    Name: Mark Motsko on Nov 12, 2010

    Zip Code: 99755

    Comments: Gas exploration has serious impacts to the natural resources. As a former resident in areas that had gas well, I have seen first hand the damage from well site developement to rusting of metals. Please to not develope gas wells in this area!

    Flag
18. 18
    Name: Sheila Craig on Nov 12, 2010

    Zip Code: 99743

    Comments:

    Flag
19. 19
    Name: Marisa S. James on Nov 12, 2010

    Zip Code: 99755

    Comments:

    Flag
20. 20
    Name: Jerri Roberts on Nov 12, 2010

    Zip Code: 99755

    Comments: It is irresponsible to ignore citizen requests from people who will be directly affected by this decision. Big business appears determined to ignore the will of the people and the long term effects of development on them and the environment.

    Flag
21. 21
    Name: Jean Balay on Nov 13, 2010

    Zip Code: 99743

    Comments: I am disappointed that the state is obviously impervious to the concerns of the local citizens, particularly those that live in the Panguingue Creek subdivision.

    Flag
22. 22
    Name: Jan St. Peters on Nov 13, 2010

    Zip Code: 99743

    Comments: I feel disenfranchised from the public process when people's concerns are ignored. Mr. Irwin, I think if you put yourself in our shoes, and pictured this happening to the land you have made your home, you might be able to show a little more empathy to our concerns.

    Flag
23. 23
    Name: Mona Lidgard Bale on Nov 13, 2010

    Zip Code: 99743

    Comments: As a landowner and resident of the Panguingue Creek Subdivision, I am extremely disappointed by this decision.

    Flag
24. 24
    Name: Mike Giannechini on Nov 14, 2010

    Zip Code: 99743

    Comments: I have been a local citizen here since 1982. Your process removes local input and moves forward due to the monetary actions of the Usibelli family. Add to the facts that Tom Irwin is retiring and that means this is not timely consideration or action done in the present!

    Flag
25. 25
    Name: Jared Zimmerman on Nov 15, 2010

    Zip Code: 99743

    Comments:

    Flag
26. 26
    Name: Tina M. Brown on Nov 15, 2010

    Zip Code: 99801

    Comments:

    Flag
27. 27
    Name: Anonymous on Nov 15, 2010

    Zip Code: 99755

    Comments:

    Flag
28. 28
    Name: Robert Watson on Nov 16, 2010

    Zip Code: 46554

    Comments: You must think more long term and less short term. We have future generations to think about.

    Flag
29. 29
    Name: Nancy Bale on Nov 16, 2010

    Zip Code: 99503

    Comments: After five years of close involvement in this process, I find the State of Alaska's stolid indifference to reasonable compromise on this issue to be patronizing and indifferent. The whole "process" would appear rigged in favor of maximum exploration and development.

    Flag
30. 30
    Name: Amanda Austin on Nov 20, 2010

    Zip Code: 99743

    Comments:

    Flag
31. 31
    Name: David McCargo on Nov 21, 2010

    Zip Code: 99510

    Comments: The State's Finding reflects it's cozy relationship with the Development interests and its almost total disregard for just any environmental protections. When it comes to the Environment, we can expect the Parnell Administration to be even more callous and ignorant than his predecessor.

    Flag
32. 32
    Name: Eric Oberg on Nov 22, 2010

    Zip Code: 43107

    Comments: I as a 4th generation Alaskan and landowner within the lease area am deeply disappointed in the State's findings. In a State where individual liberties and independence used to be the norm it amazes me that a State agency has no problem allowing private land to be so easily violated. Comments and recommendations to remedy the issues which were brought about throughout the process either fell on deaf ears, or were consciously ignored. Neither circumstance is excusable. As the great grandson of an Alaskan coal miner, and grandson of an Alaskan dairy farmer I can only imagine what my family would have said about this 50 years ago! Why are we allowing it now, well that is the question we have been asking for years!!!

    Flag
33. 33
    Name: Molly McKinley on Nov 26, 2010

    Zip Code: 99743

    Comments:

    Flag
34. 34
    Name: Jon Nierenberg/EarthSong Lodge on Nov 26, 2010

    Zip Code: 99743

    Comments: There is a disconnect between state officials and the impacted locals living in the area slated for development. As a long-time local and business owner that depends upon the natural nature of the area, I am appalled that the State is putting the revenue they will get from high-impact resource development ahead of a sustainable economy such as tourism. Considering there are only a few areas out of the large area the state plans on opening that we are asking to be removed, it reinforces that limited vision certain areas of the State of Alaska government has. Why go through this process if you are unwilling to consider valid points? Or is the State of Alaska just going through the motions due to regulations?

    Flag
35. 35
    Name: Jamison Milliken on Nov 26, 2010

    Zip Code: 99743

    Comments:

    Flag
36. 36
    Name: Jennifer Raffaeli on Nov 27, 2010

    Zip Code: 99755

    Comments:

    Flag
37. 37
    Name: Michael Raffaeli on Nov 27, 2010

    Zip Code: 99755

    Comments:

    Flag
38. 38
    Name: Ddcfunakh on Nov 27, 2010

    Zip Code: XZNVdEfqidfX

    Comments: yi5Lrv <a href="http://wxrlusceqjud.com/">wxrlusceqjud</a>, [url=http://vbqxeigbaeli.com/]vbqxeigbaeli[/url], [link=http://wyoevzsuspls.com/]wyoevzsuspls[/link], http://jkkehvnnnosq.com/

    Flag
39. 39
    Name: BernadetteKane Cole on Nov 27, 2010

    Zip Code: 99755

    Comments: I think it's startling that such an apparent conflict of uses could be approved. It's obvious that the outcome was decided prior to the fact gathering done in good faith by conscientious citizens. It just doesn't make sense to have residential areas within gas exploration zones.

    Flag
40. 40
    Name: Anne Beaulaurier on Dec 18, 2010

    Zip Code: 99755

    Comments:

    Flag
41. 41
    Name: Frank Keim on Dec 19, 2010

    Zip Code: 99709

    Comments: This is egregious bullying by the State in addition to a total lack of consideration of the present and future residents of the Healy area (and, by extension, all the residents of Alaska).

    Flag
42. 42
    Name: Steve Carwile on Dec 23, 2010

    Zip Code: 99508

    Comments: The appearance is that DNR is unwilling to work with local residents on the issues involved under the assumption that they know what's best for the interests of those locals. The gas resources in the Panguingue area are marginal compared to the North Slope supplies that the State should be more focused on for getting to the Railbelt market. Turning the Panguingue-Stampede housing area into an industrial area makes no sense when the gas supplies east of the Nenana River in the coal mine area have not been proven yet to be at least economically viable if not important.

    Flag
43. 43
    Name: Stewart Cubley on Dec 27, 2010

    Zip Code: 94978

    Comments: I am a landowner in the Wolf Townships.

    Flag
44. 44
    Name: Barbara Brease on Jan 8, 2011

    Zip Code: 99743

    Comments: All Denali Borough residents should have the right to comment on an issue of this significance to our community. Because subsurface mineral rights supersede surface use rights, property owners will have no control in the development of gas facilities on their own land or the fracking process beneath it. There is no benefit to  Denali Borough residents. Any benefit from taxes imposed would be over-ridden  by the damage done to our land and health. The state has acknowledged the impact this industry has on property values. All Denali Borough Residents should have a say on the issue, not just the ones that were here five years ago.

    Flag
45. 45
    Name: Karen Deatherage on Jan 8, 2011

    Zip Code: 99708

    Comments:

    Flag
46. 46
    Name: Anastasia Brease on Jan 8, 2011

    Zip Code: 99743

    Comments:

    Flag
47. 47
    Name: Cora Braun on Jan 9, 2011

    Zip Code: 99743

    Comments: I believe that the interests of families in Healy (such as my own) are more important than the benefits some would get from gas exploration.

    Flag
48. 48
    Name: Marybeth Holleman on Jan 26, 2011

    Zip Code: 99507

    Comments:

    Flag
49. 49
    Name: Hannah Ragland on Jan 31, 2011

    Zip Code: 99755

    Comments: The best interests of local residents, both current and future, were not considered in this decision.

    Flag
50. 50
    Name: Kesslyn Tench on Feb 24, 2011

    Zip Code: 99743

    Comments: Please reconsider the decision to allow gas development to occur within residential areas and sensitive lands, including lands west of the Nenana River and the areas east of the Nenana River that encompass the town of Ferry.

    Flag

Page: 1, 2