The state’s North Slope communities need rocks, and they’re hard to come by.
Every year, millions of migratory birds flock to Arctic Alaska. Hundreds of thousands of caribou use the tundra, rich in plant life, as their calving grounds. Alaska’s North Slope is also rich in other natural resources: oil, gas, minerals. But one important thing is lacking: Rocks. “Yes, gravel is a precious commodity on the North Slope,” said Jeff Currey, an engineer with the state’s Department of Transportation and Public Facilities who works in the agency’s Northern Region Materials Section. For decades, Currey said, the state has been searching for gravel all over the North Slope, with limited success.
Gravel is essential for all kinds of long-term development: building projects, road construction, runways and other major infrastructure. “There’s a big need for gravel, and not a lot of it, is really what it comes down to,” said Trent Hubbard, a geologist with the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys.
Advertisement
An aerial view of Kaktovik, Alaska, in 2016. Gravel is essential for village building projects.
Sylvain Cordier/Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images
“We need roads. We need housing developments,” said Pearl Brower, president and CEO of Ukpeaġvik Iñupiat Corporation (UIC), based in Utqiaġvik, during a panel discussion at last year’s Arctic Encounter Symposium, the largest annual Arctic policy symposium in the United States. Brower was among a handful of leaders from across the Arctic speaking on the region’s future.
“I definitely think it’s kind of a paramount necessity,” said Brower. UIC runs a construction company that has completed more than $1 billion in construction projects throughout the United States. The company’s website boasts that it specializes in remote locations. Brower said its projects over the last three decades have exhausted two gravel pits, and the corporation is now developing another. “You look all around (Utqiaġvik) and we’re very gravel-based,” Brower said. “You know, we don’t have pavement for the most part, and you wonder, ‘Wow, you know, where did all this gravel come from?’”
Advertisement
Ross Wilhelm — the project superintendent at UIC Sand and Gravel, which opened a new pit last year — said that if all the projects that currently require gravel from UIC’s pit are completed, it could be in operation for up to nine years.
According to Wilhelm, climate change is increasing demand: Gravel is needed for stabilizing existing infrastructure as the frozen ground underneath it thaws, as well as for a seawall to protect Utqiaġvik from high rates of coastal erosion. “I think it’s a big factor,” he said. A five-mile-long sea wall was priced at nearly $330 million, according to a 2019 feasibility study by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers.
Gravel may also be a means to a richer economic future for Alaska’s North Slope. “To keep the economy growing, it’s so vital,” said Wilhelm. Many of the region’s residents dream of connecting at least some of its eight main communities by road, but doing so would require lots of gravel. The state and the North Slope Borough are partnering on a project, the Arctic Strategic Transportation and Resources, or ASTAR, that could do exactly that. It’s been under evaluation by state geologists since 2018.
The issue isn’t just locating enough gravel for projects like ASTAR; the cost can also be exorbitant. Currey said he’s heard of other North Slope projects where the bids are as high as $800 a cubic yard for gravel, enough to cover about 50 square feet. In Anchorage, a cubic yard of aggregate gravel — the kind used for building projects — goes for about $15. “The DOT has paid on the order of a couple hundred dollars a cubic yard for material being barged in, because that’s the only way to do it,” Currey said. Some of those barges come all the way from Nome, traveling more than 700 sea miles north and east through the Bering Strait and up and into the Beaufort Sea to deliver gravel.
“The DOT has paid on the order of a couple hundred dollars a cubic yard for material being barged in, because that’s the only way to do it.”
Gravel is also a prized commodity for the oil and gas industry. Last year, the Biden administration approved ConocoPhillips’ Willow Project, a decades-long oil-drilling project in the National Petroleum Reserve. The controversial endeavor will require 4.2 million cubic yards of gravel — more than 12,800 Olympic-size swimming pools’ worth of rocks — for its three oil drilling pads, as well as enough for more than 25 miles of new road. Much of that gravel will come from a 144-acre mine ConocoPhillips will dig itself.
Advertisement
When it comes to gravel, the Willow Project may fare well, mainly due to its geography; it will be located just west of the village of Nuiqsut, where there’s actually plenty of gravel. Nuiqsit lies on the eastern side of Alaska’s North Slope, where the Brooks Range is closer to the coast. Streams that run northward down the mountains carry gravel with them, according to Hubbard.
The West Dock Causeway is part of the oil and gas infrastructure on Alaska’s North Slope. Gravel is a prized commodity for the oil and gas industry. [
Orbital Horizon/Copernicus Sentinel Data 2020/Gallo Images via Getty Images
But the North Slope is vast, spanning nearly 95,000 square miles, and further west, gravel resources dwindle: The mountains are farther from the coast, and gravel gets caught in the Colville River. “Much of the material north of the Colville River is largely silt and sand left over from historic sea-level rise and fall,” said Hubbard. It’s the kind of material that doesn’t work for projects like Willow or the roads and critical infrastructure that communities rely on. “Gravel,” said Hubbard, “is just a really hard resource to find.”
A new home under construction in Potter Valley in Anchorage. (Loren Holmes / ADN)
This June, two very different offers reach Alaska families, and both amount to the same thing: $10,000. The difference is everything.
Bill Walker, running for governor, would hand every eligible Alaskan a one-time $10,000 check and then end the Permanent Fund dividend for good. Ask one question: Where does his $10,000 come from?
It comes from the Permanent Fund, the people’s own money and the savings Alaskans built for their children. Walker would spend that endowment once to pay Alaskans to give up the yearly dividend forever.
Think about what that does. It cancels the annual check that gives a family a reason to keep an Alaska address and replaces it with a single payout. You hand people their own savings, call it a gift and cut the tie that held them here in the same motion. It is the oldest mistake in governing money: raid what you have saved to buy a moment’s applause and call the spending generosity.
Advertisement
A plan that spends the people’s savings to send the people away is not bold. It is foolish.
Now consider the other $10,000. Through Alaska Housing Finance Corp., the state offers families up to $10,000 to build a new, energy-efficient home. AHFC raids nothing. It earns its own way. Over the years, it has returned more than $2 billion to the state treasury, and it spends some of that income the way any good business does: to win a customer.
Here, the customer is an Alaskan who wants to own a home, put down roots and stay.
That is the oldest sound move in business: Invest a little of what you earn to bring in someone who stays. The homeowner remains, the community gains a family and the corporation keeps earning. The money spent comes back. A plan that puts earnings to work to bring people home is not charity. It is clever.
Same amount. Opposite source. Opposite wisdom. One spends savings; the other spends earnings. One pays Alaskans to leave; the other pays them to stay. One empties the state; the other fills it.
Advertisement
This Homeownership Month, the choice is the size of a single check, and the whole question is where the check comes from and what it asks of you. Ten thousand dollars of your own fund, to wave you goodbye. Or $10,000, earned and reinvested, to help you stay and build.
Evan Swensen is the publisher of Publication Consultants in Anchorage and the author of “What’s the Money For: A Permanent Fund Mortgage Proposal.”
• • •
The Anchorage Daily News welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.
A man with the same name and party affiliation as Alaska Republican U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan is eligible to challenge the senator in the August primary, a judge ruled Friday.
Superior Court Judge Thomas Matthews’ ruling overturns a June 15 decision by Division of Elections Director Carol Beecher to disqualify the challenger and keep him off the primary ballot. Matthews’ ruling can be appealed to the state Supreme Court.
Attorneys for the state have said Tuesday is the deadline for a final ruling so that ballots for the Aug. 18 primary can be printed.
The judge ruled that the division’s decision to exclude Dan J. Sullivan because his candidacy was not “in good faith” was not based on the Constitution, Alaska law or the division’s own regulations. The retired teacher from the small fishing community of Petersburg filed to challenge the incumbent.
Advertisement
Dan Sullivan, who has filed to run for U.S. Senate in Alaska, poses for a photo Friday, June 26, 2026, in Petersburg, Alaska.
Katie Holmlund/AP Photo
“Instead, the decision was based upon a new, previously unstated, ‘good faith’ criteria,” the judge wrote.
The division is appealing the decision, Sam Curtis, a spokesperson with the state Department of Law, said by email Saturday. Jeffrey Robinson, an attorney for Dan J. Sullivan, said in an email he expected the division to appeal and couldn’t comment until the Alaska Supreme Court rules on the case.
Advertisement
The controversy over the two Dan Sullivans has underscored the stakes involved in the incumbent’s reelection campaign. The Alaska race is one of about half a dozen U.S. Senate races expected to be highly competitive in the fall, and the seat is one Democrats are trying to flip in their efforts to try to regain the majority. But it’s expected to be an uphill battle in a state that President Trump won by 13 points in 2024.
The senator and allies, including the National Republican Senatorial Committee, have condemned the challenger’s efforts to join the race, arguing his presence could confuse voters. Republican Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom earlier this month opened an investigation into the non-Senator Sullivan’s candidacy.
Under Alaska’s election system, the top four candidates from the primary, regardless of party, move on to the ranked-choice November general election.
The senator has accused the challenger Sullivan of working with Democrats and the campaign of Democratic former U.S. Rep. Mary Peltola — who is considered the senator’s main opponent — to cause confusion and boost Peltola’s chances. The sitting senator brought the situation to reporters’ attention at the Capitol earlier this month, accusing Democrats of being “complicit in trying to trick Alaskans” to “rig an election in their favor.”
Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, speaks to reporters at the Capitol in Washington, D.C., June 30, 2025.
Advertisement
Mark Schiefelbein/AP Photo
Peltola’s campaign and state Democrats have denied the allegation, as has the challenger.
Sen. Sullivan and Peltola are the highest-profile candidates in the crowded race and the only ones to report raising any money.
Beecher has said she determined the challenger Sullivan is not eligible to run because his candidacy was not filed in good faith and instead was done with an intent to confuse voters. She said he had registered to vote as Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. and, in conjunction with his candidacy, changed his party affiliation to Republican. She also cited similarities between his campaign website and the senator’s, and his work with a consultant whose clients have included some Democrats. She did not mention finding any evidence of alleged coordination.
In arguing to keep the challenger disqualified, attorneys for the state pushed back on suggestions the ballot could be designed in a way to reduce voter confusion over two candidates with the same name and party running for the same office.
Advertisement
“The Constitution does not require States to place a sham candidate on the ballot and then attempt to mitigate the damage through design choices,” attorney Rachel Witty, with the Alaska Department of Law, and outside attorneys Christopher Murray and Michael Francisco wrote in court filings.
Attorneys for the challenger Sullivan argued that the Constitution lays out three exclusive qualifications for the Senate, addressing only age, citizenship and residency. They said Beecher lacked the legal authority to boot their client off the ballot.
The challenger Sullivan has said that sharing a name and party affiliation with the incumbent gave him “an instant megaphone.” But the 69-year-old retired teacher and former U.S. Forest Service employee said he had considered a run for some time and had grown frustrated with the senator.
He initially was certified on the state’s candidate list as Dan J. Sullivan, with the senator listed as Dan S. Sullivan and identified as the incumbent.
