|
Green gas pipeline support is qualified Conservation groups see North Slope natural gas line as bridge to renewable energy; concerned about possible use of gas in tar sands Stefan Milkowski For Petroleum News
Alaska conservation groups are largely supporting the construction of an Alaska natural gas pipeline, but have made their support contingent on a handful of factors.
In a position paper released earlier this year, the Alaska Conservation Alliance, an umbrella organization comprised of 40 member groups, argued that a gas line would help reduce U.S. dependence on foreign energy sources and reduce emissions linked with global climate change.
Natural gas is cleaner burning than other fossil fuels, and its production could help Alaska develop renewable energy sources, read the statement.
“Right now we’re facing probably one of the largest environmental crises of our time in global warming, and we had to make some choices,” said Trish Rolfe, the Alaska regional representative of the Sierra Club, an ACA member.
“We see (a gas line) as a bridge to a renewable-energy future for Alaska and the nation,” she added.
But the ACA also included a list of “principles and questions to guide (its) support” for a pipeline project. The list covers social and economic aspects of the project, including the level of public involvement and overall state revenues, as well as environmental aspects, such as pipeline route and design.
Among the environmental criteria, the ACA lists the use of best available technology and best management practices, as well as “sufficient funds” held in escrow for dismantling of the project.
It also considers whether the project “strive(s) to develop Prudhoe Bay gas within the existing development area.”
“The real question is how much gas do the pipeline proponents need, over what time, to make the project viable,” said Pamela A. Miller, arctic coordinator for the Northern Alaska Environmental Center, another ACA member. “Generally we’re supportive of using that gas in the known fields.”
Miller and others also expressed concern over how gas would be used at the end of the pipeline.
“One of the biggest concerns that many of the major national environmental groups are going to be looking at is how does our gas play into the Alberta tar sands,” said Kate Troll, ACA’s executive director.
ACA has not taken a position on a specific gas line project. Troll said it was too early to tell whether the TransCanada project or the Denali project would meet the principles spelled out by ACA, but said both were headed in the right direction.
She added that the criteria were offered in good faith.
“It’s not trying to give a qualified support by listing unattainable conditions,” she said.
Covering old ground Conservationists and others said the situation today is fundamentally different than with the trans-Alaska oil pipeline three decades ago, when environmental opposition contributed to lengthy delays.
The gas line will use existing pipeline and highway corridors and will undergo a more developed environmental review process.
“It will be a very different process today than it was then, for sure,” said Jennifer Thompson, director of communications for the Office of the Federal Coordinator.
“It’s not like we’re proposing to dig up undisturbed ground,” she added.
Any pipeline builder will have to secure a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and right-of-way permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and state Department of Natural Resources. It will also have to follow the National Environmental Protection Act and complete an Environmental Impact Statement.
The pipeline builder will need similar permits in Canada, as well as many other smaller permits from federal and state entities.
Gus Gustafson, who is advising the permitting process for Denali, said Denali’s early pre-filing with FERC was in part an effort to address environmental concerns early in the process.
“What we’re doing, and what we’ll continue to do, is get out in front on issues,” he said.
In response to concerns over upstream development or final use of the gas, Gustafson said if exploration disturbs environmental groups, “they’ll have to deal with that.” He added that Denali would not preclude shippers from shipping gas to the Alberta tar sands or other locations even though the Lower 48 was the major market for North Slope gas.
A spokeswoman for TransCanada wrote in an e-mail that environmental permitting “is always a critical component for any major project.” The spokeswoman, Cecily Dobson, added that the permitting was important but not “time-critical” at this point.
Avoiding the courts Rolfe, of the Sierra Club, said conservation groups were hoping to avoid litigation over a gas pipeline by getting involved in the process early on.
“We want it to move forward and have the least amount of impact on the environment,” she said. “We’re hoping to do that up front so there won’t be any need for litigation.”
Meanwhile, U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens has proposed legislation that would limit judicial review of energy projects.
According to his Web site, he also favors “further streamlining” of federal permitting processes, including “FERC administration, wetlands consultation, and other provisions” for inter- and intrastate natural gas pipelines.
| 