Fast food chains often keep their sourcing under wraps, but the big brand behind Taco Bell’s lettuce was exposed due to a parasitic outbreak.
Food Republic – Restaurants, Reviews, Recipes, Cooking Tips
Big Dipper Homemade Ice Cream has expanded in the Mat-Su Valley with a new Wasilla location. Owners say the shop will continue offering Alaska-inspired flavors made with local ingredients.
Big Dipper Homemade Ice Cream has expanded in the Mat-Su Valley with a new Wasilla location. Owners say the shop will continue offering Alaska-inspired flavors made with local ingredients.
Joe Nichols had about five minutes to get from sweats to stage — and he still managed to blow it in front of Hank Williams Jr. Continue reading…Country Music News – Taste of Country
Joe Nichols had about five minutes to get from sweats to stage — and he still managed to blow it in front of Hank Williams Jr. Continue reading…The Boot – Country Music News, Music Videos and Songs
A cooler-than-usual summer has affected Alaska’s peony season, but growers say the crop is still doing well. Peony farmers in Wasilla and Eagle River say Alaska’s climate helps produce a high-quality flower that remains in demand around the world.
Cooler weather impacts Alaska’s peony season, but growers say demand remains strong.
Alaska’s economic development agency wants to fund oil exploration on the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge — one of the most hotly debated areas of federal land in the country. (Photo by Max Graham)
After decades of fierce debate over oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, oil companies largely appear leery of the idea.
The contested swath of federal land, on Alaska’s Beaufort Sea coast, is politically fraught and far from existing roads and pipelines. And given the limited data on its geology, oil executives still aren’t sure how much petroleum is trapped underground.
In spite of three federal lease sales of refuge land in the past decade — with the most recent sale just last month — not a single major oil company has bid.
Instead, the industry is flooding into a different federal area far to the west, the National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska, where there are proven oil deposits and fewer political obstacles to development.
But the decades-long quest to find oil in the Arctic Refuge isn’t over. The largest oil and gas exploration program in the area’s history could soon begin — funded not by companies like ConocoPhillips or ExxonMobil but by an arm of the state of Alaska.
Alaska’s economic development corporation, the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority, known as AIDEA, is launching its own, up-to-$175-million plan to search for fossil fuels beneath the refuge’s coastal plain, a sliver of tundra along the Arctic Ocean.
The state agency is the largest leaseholder in the refuge, having bought up more than 600 square miles since U.S. Congress opened the area to leasing in 2017. If AIDEA can acquire key permits, large trucks could roll across the frozen tundra as soon as next winter, shooting shockwaves deep underground to scan for oil reservoirs.
But the plan faces stiff blowback, and it’s stirring up debate about the future of the Arctic Refuge and spending decisions by AIDEA — a state-owned corporation that’s already under attack by opponents of its pro-resource extraction agenda.
AIDEA and its allies argue that its work will help prove the refuge contains vast amounts of oil, and could unleash a flood of corporate investment that would translate into jobs and state revenue for Alaska.
Critics, meanwhile, say that a state entity shouldn’t take on the role, and risk, of an oil company — spending big in an area where industry has refused to invest.
“They’re lone wolves out on the tundra, so to speak,” said Pat Pourchot, a former U.S. Department of Interior official who also once served as commissioner of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources.
AIDEA was one of only two participants in the latest federal lease sale, along with a small Alaska gas producer, HEX.
The two entities bid on just one-tenth of the acreage offered by the Trump administration.
The exploration work that AIDEA now intends to fund is known as “3-D” seismic because it generates a three-dimensional image of rocks deep underground. That information would give analysts a much clearer and more detailed idea of what’s beneath the ground than older, 2-D data that was collected in the refuge in the 1980s.
The effort could yield crucial insight into the area’s oil potential, said Mark Myers, a former director of the U.S. Geological Survey who’s also worked as a top land manager for Alaska state government.
“You would need 3-D out there, quite clearly, to understand what’s under the ground,” Myers said. “Modern data will inform a lot.”
Promising results could attract oil companies — but there’s no guarantee the data will be positive, he added.
“Whether or not the oil is there is independent of what we want to believe,” Myers said.
Oil prospecting is speculative work, typically the domain of private investors and companies with technical expertise — and a willingness to sustain big expenses that don’t always pay off. Merely searching for oil in the Arctic can cost hundreds of millions of dollars, and ramping up to production can cost billions.
While AIDEA has loaned money to other oil and gas companies before, it has never overseen its own Arctic exploration program. Its staff is not made up of petroleum geologists nor other technical experts typically employed by oil firms.
But in May, AIDEA’s governor-appointed board approved spending up to $175 million on the 3-D seismic testing, including “permitting and regulatory work.” It did not include money for drilling, which would typically come after seismic data has been collected.
Industry experts say that budget is higher than usual for a season of seismic work on the North Slope. But the resolution does not specify how long the project will last, and AIDEA is not obligated to spend all the money approved by the board.
In 2013, then-Gov. Sean Parnell’s administration proposed spending $50 million on oil exploration in the refuge, equivalent to some $70 million today when adjusted for inflation. But the Obama administration blocked that effort.
AIDEA has not released details about its effort to gather seismic data, and officials with the agency declined to answer questions or release basic information about it, including an expected timeline. The agency has not yet applied for key permits from the federal Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, according to spokespersons for those agencies.
“We’re advancing seismic. We’re advancing a drilling plan. We’re fighting the opponents of the project in the federal district court,” AIDEA Executive Director Randy Ruaro said at a board meeting last month.
Ruaro did not respond to questions seeking clarification about his comments, though in a previous email to Northern Journal, he expressed “very serious concerns about reporting on ANWR and bias.”
Some positive impacts of development of the refuge’s coastal plain “seem to get omitted from every story,” Ruaro added, pointing to potential revenue to state and local governments, royalties that oil producers would pay to the state and the resulting higher Alaska Permanent Fund dividend checks for state residents.
Ruaro also said media coverage tends to ignore “the unfair treatment of Kaktovik,” an Iñupiaq community inside the refuge whose leaders support development, as well as “intentional discrimination against Alaska and North Slope oil and gas development by banks and insurers instigated by the Gwich’in.”
Leaders of the Gwich’in, an Indigenous group in Alaska’s Interior and northwestern Canada, have long opposed drilling on the coastal plain. The area encompasses the calving grounds of a major caribou herd that migrates south into Gwich’in lands, where the animals are harvested for food.
“Advocating for our way of life does not discriminate against anyone, but it most certainly doesn’t discriminate against massive corporations with huge stores of wealth that are making decisions based on financial return and risks,” Kristen Moreland, executive director of the Gwich’in Steering Committee, wrote in an email to Northern Journal.
To lay the groundwork for its seismic program, AIDEA is spending $1 million on a contract with a subsidiary of the North Slope’s Indigenous-owned corporation, Arctic Slope Regional Corp. — a longtime supporter of drilling in the refuge.
The subsidiary, ASRC Consulting and Environmental Services, is working on community outreach, environmental studies and permitting related to the seismic program, according to documents that Northern Journal obtained through a records request.
ASRC is also subcontracting with a Houston-based firm, SAExploration, that has been working on proposals for seismic testing in the refuge since 2018.
A spokesperson for the ASRC subsidiary referred Northern Journal to AIDEA for comment.
Under a separate, $70,000 contract with AIDEA, the ASRC subsidiary last year issued a glowing report on the coastal plain’s oil and gas potential.
The report described the refuge as the most promising unexplored area in North America — excluding offshore deposits — citing historical data and large new discoveries on state land nearby. Decades ago, the U.S. Geological Survey estimatedthat as many as 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil lie beneath the coastal plain.
While the Legislature oversees AIDEA’s annual operating budget, the agency’s finances are separate from other government funds — and only certain kinds of spending, like issuing bonds over a certain amount, require specific legislative approval.
Still, some lawmakers aren’t convinced that seismic testing in the refuge is the best use of AIDEA’s money
“I do think that the scale of some of these projects — the type of development that they pursue, and the lack of oversight on that development — does really raise questions about: What are our priorities as a state?” said Rep. Ashley Carrick, a Democrat from Fairbanks who chairs the House State Affairs Committee.
Carrick introduced a bill last year that would require legislative approval of AIDEA spending proposals over $100 million. It failed to advance.
Most of Alaska’s elected officials — as well as many Iñupiaq leaders in Kaktovik and across the North Slope — have pushed hard to open the Arctic Refuge to development, citing potential economic benefits.
One longtime proponent, Republican U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, said the recent lease sale results “were not surprising, given the acreage already leased and the continued partisan push against responsible development.”
Murkowski described the refuge as “basically unexplored,” suggesting that it could be similar to an oil-rich geologic formation, the Nanushuk, that was discovered only about a decade ago. That formation has since led to the industry’s revival in the petroleum reserve, to the west of the refuge.
The coastal plain’s “true prospectivity can only emerge as leaseholders move forward under a federal administration willing to work with them,” Murkowski said in a statement to Northern Journal.
The other petroleum company with leases in the refuge, HEX, has not announced plans for the area it acquired in the recent sale.
“I’m here as an Alaskan trying to be a responsible developer for Alaska, so we have opportunities in the future for our kids and my grandkids,” said John Hendrix, HEX’s chief executive.
HEX mostly produces natural gas in a different petroleum basin, Cook Inlet, near Anchorage. Hendrix declined to comment on the potential for partnering with AIDEA on development in the Arctic, but the two entities have worked together before. Two years ago, AIDEA opened a $50 million line of credit to HEX to fund the company’s drilling in Cook Inlet.
Hendrix described HEX’s foray into the Arctic as a way to diversify his business. He would not say if the company is already planning work on its leases — and if so, when it might happen.
“We’re a private company, and we keep that stuff tight to ourselves,” Hendrix said. “We’re not going to do anything radical. But we will do what we have to do to bring production forward.”
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX.
On the same day that U.S. Soccer CEO JT Batson told me and a handful of other national reporters that the federation remains in “active discussions” to bring Mauricio Pochettino back as the U.S. men’s national team coach, Pochettino said Thursday his decision on whether he’ll stay coaching the Americans or move on is just a few days away. Speaking to a Spanish radio station on Thursday, the 54-year-old manager — who was offered a contract extension through the 2030 World Cup, despite the USA’s shocking 4-1 loss to Belgium in the round of 16 in the ongoing 2026 World Cup tournament — confirmed that he still isn’t sure he wants to return. His current contract expires after Sunday’s World Cup final between Spain and Pochettino’s native Argentina. “They made me an offer to continue, and we’ll see,” said Pochettino, who is, far and away, the highest-paid coach in U.S. Soccer history with a salary north of $6 million. “We’re evaluating it. Next week, we’ll [make] a decision.” Hired to replace Gregg Berhalter in 2024, the former Chelsea and Paris Saint-Germain manager had a rocky first 18-months in charge, losing to Germany, Canada, Panama, Switzerland, South Korea, Türkiye, Portugal and twice to Mexico. But he helped the World Cup co-hosts win their World Cup group by beating Paraguay and Australia before a round of 32 victory over Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, he was badly out-coached by Belgium’s Rudi Garcia in the USA’s most important match, the only one the Americans played against a FIFA top-10 opponent. The 4-1 defeat was the most lopsided loss for the U.S. in a World Cup knockout game since a 7-1 loss to Italy in 1934. That failure against Belgium was seen live by more than 50 million Americans, the most ever to watch a soccer game in U.S. history.Latest Sports News from FOX Sports
It’s time for every England fan to sadly move from one Oasis all-timer to another. But before we skip from “Wonderwall” to “Don’t Look Back in Anger” — which, interestingly enough, follow each other on the “(What’s The Story) Morning Glory?” album — let me begin with a thought I’m almost certain is shared by the majority. I want it to be categorically known that I completely understand why teams might be opposed to playing in the World Cup’s third-place match. Days after dealing with the emotions and the sadness and all the psychological walls you have to overcome in your own head — you are being told to play for third. It is the definition of kicking someone when they’re down or the image of continuous rain on an already wet Saturday. This match, Saturday’s fixture between France and England, is the football equivalent of an incredibly annoying classmate who would ask for more homework back when you were in school. It’s the match version of Martin Prince from “The Simpsons.” And the fact that both of these sides have to play it in the humidity of Miami makes it even more challenging. “Nobody of these [England] players, nobody of the French players wants to play this match,” said England manager Thomas Tuchel at Friday’s press conference. “They want to play in the final, they gave everything to be in the final. Everyone plays to win the World Cup. But it is what it is, so we have a day less to recover. But we will do it professionally, of course.” “It is less important than the final,” echoed France manager Didier Deschamps. “England does not want to play this game, and neither do we. But here we are.” I prefer France defender Ibrahima Konate’s description of it, calling it a “chocolate medal,” which is a perfect way to describe it. It’s covered in bronze, much like a chocolate coin that breaks apart the moment you eat it. Or rather, since the match is being played in South Florida, the chocolate medal will obviously melt. Both teams wanted the real thing. Both came oh-so-close to tasting it. However, there are still some narratives in this third-place consolation prize. I guess I can’t argue against the fact that this is Deschamps’s final match with Les Bleus. It will be a very emotional afternoon for the French side, as its 57-year-old coach will close the curtain on one of the most illustrious managerial tenures in the history of football. This man led France to a World Cup title in 2018 (two if you include his playing career in 1998), a runner-up medal in 2022, a Euros final runner-up medal in 2016 and a Nations League victory in 2021. To be impressed by his tenure is an understatement. Next to lead France will be its ultimate legend and Deschamps’ former midfield partner and World Cup winner in Zinedine Zidane. But that’s for another day as Saturday will belong to Didi. Then there’s Kylian Mbappé, who is still playing for the Golden Boot award, currently even with Lionel Messi on eight goals. Mbappé had another magnificent tournament where, sadly, the mighty defensive unit of Spain became his ultimate obstacle. I am sure returning to Madrid next month will be fun for him — I say, sarcastically. But then again, he has José Mourinho to look forward to. But back to Tuchel and England, who will see Saturday’s fixture as an obligation as opposed to a desired objective. After losing 2-1 in Wednesday’s semifinal against Argentina, the Three Lions are emotionally and physically drained as this tournament has made a colossal effort, which ultimately became the most catastrophic disappointment. From the altitude of México City to the heat and humidity of Miami against Norway and Erling Haaland, England’s campaign has been demanding, and players have suffered as a result, including multiple injuries to Jordan Henderson, Reece James, Declan Rice, Ezri Konsa and a Bukayo Saka, who never seemed quite at 100 percent. Against Argentina, however, that loss on Wednesday — falling to goals from Enzo Fernández and Lautaro Martinez, enabled by a masterclass of assist-creation from Lionel Messi — will forever be imprinted in the minds of every English player and supporter. And it’s not necessarily the loss that will live in their memories, but rather the manner in which it happened. After the 55th minute, England led 1-0 and from that moment, Tuchel had two options. Two doors were opened for him. The question was which one would he choose? At one door, Tuchel could have continued to slay the dragon and pressed for a second goal. Or the other one, where instead of fighting fire with fire, he could choose to succumb to the pressures of the moment and just play a defensive game. And this, unfortunately, was the one thing that you can’t do against Argentina. You just don’t. Argentina is a hungry, relentless pit bull — especially when it is losing — and England teased it with a piece of wagyu steak. The Three Lions are, mentally and physically, battered and bruised with more questions than answers as they’re forced to play in a consolation game. But I guess the symbolic angle is still there. England, after all, has never finished higher than fourth aside from winning it all back in 1966. So there is a slight attempt and hope of recovering some kind of catharsis. From an individual perspective, it could also offer an opportunity to players such as Kobbie Mainoo, the wonderful midfielder from Manchester United who has not seen a single minute of this World Cup. Marcus Rashford, who continues to deal with a precarious situation from a contractual standpoint with the same club, could also start. Then there are key stars: Harry Kane and Jude Bellingham, England’s most important and dangerous players during this competition, have six goals each. They may also see this fixture as an objective to catch up in the Golden Boot race. For Kane, we will also be asking if this will indeed be his last World Cup. The answer, quite honestly, for me, is no. The Bayern Munich striker turns 33 in a few weeks and likely sees Messi’s inspiring journey of continually delivering magic for his nation. So instinctively, I don’t see a reason for Kane to quit now. He will go down as England’s greatest striker, but the chance of immortality in 2030 still appeals to him. As for Tuchel, reports suggest that he will stay as England manager after the World Cup, despite the massive frustrations from pundits and fans alike. The criticism is more than justified because he did something we all hoped he wouldn’t — a reversal in mentality against Argentina. He opened the door, and La Albiceleste broke in. But alas, a strong performance against France could perhaps change the mindset of certain critics, myself included. However, this is all conjecture and wishful thinking, as I don’t think a third-place victory will do much to sway opinion. In fact, it could do the opposite and only enforce a pre-existing opinion, because if we see a strong, physical and intense England for 90 minutes against France, the question might now transform itself into, “Where was this on Wednesday?” Whether anyone likes it or not, the third-place match will indeed happen, and England’s time at this World Cup will end. I’ll take the advice that Sally gave Noel Gallagher to not look back in anger — at least not today.Latest Sports News from FOX Sports
