Day: April 20, 2026

A U.S. Senate vote overturning a mining ban on U.S. Forest Service land near Minnesota’s Boundary Waters has local tribal leaders worrying it sets a precedent for similar actions in the Tongass National Forest.

The 50-49 vote on Thursday puts the validity of all U.S. Forest Service management plans enacted over several decades into question, according to critics. President Donald Trump is expected to sign the legislation, which had already passed the U.S. House.

House Joint Resolution 140 reverses a 20-year mining moratorium enacted in 2023 by the Biden administration for about 350 square miles of Minnesota’s Superior National Forest. The resolution applies a first-ever use of a provision known as the Congressional Review Act (CRA) — which can overturn federal agency rules and regulations on a majority vote of Congress and the president’s approval — to a management decision on Forest Service land.

Concerns about the resolution’s impact on tribal sovereignty were expressed by White Earth Nation located within Minnesota, which stated the legislation “ignores both science and treaty obligations.” Similar worries about the policy implications in Alaska — and transboundary mining issues involving Canadian and First Nations governments — were expressed during a Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska’s executive council on Friday.

“I do think this sets a precedent that is quite concerning,” said Ku.seen Jacqueline Pata, the tribe’s first vice president.

Among the concerns, said Will Micklin, the council’s fourth vice president, is “it was pushed by Sen. (Dan) Sullivan as the champion of this legislation in the Congress.” Sen. Lisa Murkowski and U.S. Rep. Nick Begich III, the other members of Alaska’s all-Republican congressional delegation, also voted for the resolution.

“It’s a test case for what could be applied in other areas, like Alaska in particular, and what this involved was the ceded lands of White Earth, so this is just the example of the extent that the Congress is now willing to withdraw protections that affect tribal interests,” Micklin said.

An 1854 land cession treaty opened an area along the shore of Lake Superior to mining while creating several reservations where tribal citizens retained exclusive land-use rights. Micklin said Tlingit and Haida’s efforts to seek environmental safeguards for waterways affected by transboundary mining activity and full scrutiny of large-scale proposed mining projects “could be fruitless if, in fact, the CRA theory of the Congress is that they can use that act to strip away environmental protections.”

Amanda Coyne, a spokesperson for Sullivan, stated in an email Friday that “it’s important to note that H.J. Res. 140 did not authorize any particular mine, and any proposed project would go through state and federal environmental permitting processes.” A Chilean mining company, Antofagasta, which has long sought the mine near the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, still needs extensive permits to proceed with the project.

“Senator Sullivan sided with building trades, local leaders, and people who live in the area in support of Rep. Stauber’s legislation to overturn the Biden administration’s preemptive unilateral lock up of 225,504 acres in the Superior National Forest in Minnesota for any mineral production,” Coyne wrote. “Alaska is all too familiar with these kinds of sweeping, preemptive actions. The Biden Administration actions — over 70 in Alaska alone — stopped responsible resource development and negatively impacted Alaska’s economy over the objections of those who live closest to those projects.”

Concerns expressed by tribal and other officials about mining impacts and cleanup — notably of the long-abandoned Tulsequah Chief Mine where decades of efforts have lingered — also have been a focus of Sullivan’s, Coyne stated.

“He has raised this issue with successive Canadian prime ministers and continues to push British Columbia to take concrete steps to clean-up the Tulsequah Chief mine site,” she wrote. “He continues to (work) closely with tribal organizations, including Tlingit & Haida, nonprofits and the State of Alaska to pressure both the Canadian government and Canadian mining companies to clean up their toxic mess at Tulsequah Chief and prevent any new pollution.”

This story was first published by the Juneau Independent.

The post Overturning of mining ban in Minnesota has Southeast Alaska tribal leaders worried about similar actions appeared first on Chilkat Valley News.

Sponsors for the proposed 807-mile Alaska gas pipeline and liquefied natural gas processing and export facilities are seeking additional massive public subsidies to make the project viable. Even fallout from the largest “oil disruption in history” isn’t enough to overcome the need.

Although President Trump initially boasted that the Alaska LNG export project would be a signature accomplishment of his administration, the project appears vastly over budget and shrouded in secrecy. 

The project is being advanced by a partnership of the private firm Glenfarne Group, which has a 75% share, and 8 Star Alaska LLC, a private subsidiary of the state-owned Alaska Gasline Development Corporation, with a 25% share. AGDC gave 75% of 8 Star Alaska’s assets, including permits, rights of way, research and data, to Glenfarne in exchange for a commitment to pursue the project to a “final investment decision” on whether to build it. The final investment decision, due at the end of 2025, is still pending and months behind schedule.

Legislation introduced by Republican Gov. Mike Dunleavy would institute a massive tax break for the project and forgo billions in future revenues for the State of Alaska and local municipalities.

The Alaska Department of Revenue estimated Dunleavy’s proposal would equate to a roughly 90% reduction in property tax revenue, once the pipeline is at full capacity. Dan Stickel, an economist with the Department of Revenue, told the House Resources Committee on March 25 that AGDC and Glenfarne have said the project will not move forward without property tax relief. 

The often cited $44 billion cost estimate for the 807-mile pipeline from the North Slope to Cook Inlet is 10 years out-of-date. Efforts to build it have been unsuccessful for decades due to high costs and competition from sources of gas closer to tidewater. The Alaska Department of Revenue recently updated its cost estimate to $46 billion, a number still far below what observers expect the true cost to be. Project sponsors have updated cost estimates but refuse to release them. 

Recent surges in inflation mean the already expensive project is now much more costly; sales prices for the gas are also likely much higher, as high as $20 per thousand cubic feet or about ​​​double today’s import prices and even more uneconomic compared to alternatives. Despite the recent cease fire, the war in Iran is further driving up prices of everything. 

Letters of Intent from potential purchasers of Alaska LNG continue to be signed but are not binding commitments. A Letter of Intent by TotalEnergies to purchase 2 million tons per year of Alaska LNG for 20 years is subject to the final investment decision. Although Glenfarne still maintains that construction will begin this year, it doesn’t have a single binding contract with buyers. Thus, imminent construction appears unlikely except possibly as a photo op. 

Legislators are concerned, Alaskans should be too

The Alaska Senate Resources Committee recently introduced Senate Bill 275 that makes significant revisions to the statutes governing AGDC. The bill would enact a surcharge on exported LNG and put new conditions on any direct state investment in projects.

Sen. Resources Chair Cathy Giessel, the author of the bill, said in a newsletter to constituents: 

“Glenfarne was unknown until 18 months ago. They have not completed N. America projects. But they want a 92% reduction in our local property taxes. They are holding all financial information about the project confidential. This is not a good business position for our state to be in. We get to find out the cost of the gas for Alaskans after the project sets the price in secret.”

Even AK LNG proponent, Alaska House Majority Leader Chuck Kopp, R-Anchorage, who recently urged Alaskans to speak with a unified voice in support of the project, noted growing ambivalence.  “What [investors] cannot model is political incoherence. From the perspective of Washington and Wall Street, confusing or contradictory signals from Alaska’s elected leadership are more destabilizing than permitting hurdles. No financier commits billions into a jurisdiction that sounds ambivalent. No federal partner prioritizes a state that publicly undercuts itself,” Kopp wrote in a recent op-ed in the Anchorage Daily News.

More than four decades of effort to build a North Slope gas line for export have produced only failure, exorbitant costs and public subsidies of almost a billion dollars. This deal is bad for the climate and bad for Alaska. Alaska’s leaders should call it what it is, an uneconomic pipe dream, and walk away. 

SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX