AKLNG gets comments on project plans

Federal, state agencies respond Dec. 11 to October filing of two preliminary reports with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Bill White

Researcher/writer for the Office of the Federal Coordinator

In their first feedback on Alaska LNG’s preliminary construction plans, federal and state agencies raised dozens of questions and issues they want to make sure are covered as the project sponsors progress with design and environmental analysis.

The agencies on Dec. 11, 2014, asked sponsors of the multibillion-dollar project for more information about where they plan to get construction gravel, how they plan to lay a pipeline across Cook Inlet and what kind of wear and tear state roads and bridges would endure as hundreds of thousands of tons of materials move across Alaska during construction.

The requests for more information were expected as the sponsors are in the early stages of their design, route selection and construction planning for the LNG export project.

The feedback came in a 24-page letter from James Martin, environmental review team leader at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which will coordinate and issue the single federal environmental impact statement for the project.

Feedback on two reports

Martin’s letter is part of the ongoing formal dialogue between regulators and the sponsors about the project and its environmental review. Both the project and its review are in their early stages.

The $45 billion to $65 billion Alaska LNG project is a joint effort of North Slope producers ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips and BP, with the state of Alaska and pipeline company TransCanada. The project would involve a massive North Slope plant to cleanse produced gas of carbon dioxide and other impurities, an approximately 800-mile pipeline from the North Slope to the liquefaction plant, and an LNG plant and shipping terminal at the coastal town of Nikiski, 60 air miles southwest of Anchorage.

The pipeline would be capable of carrying 3 billion to 3.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day. Alaskans, pipeline operations and the LNG plant would consume some of this gas. The LNG plant would have the capacity to make up to 20 million metric tons a year of LNG, processing about 2.5 billion cubic feet a day of gas. The sponsors would target Asian markets for LNG sales.

Some comments informational

Some state comments were informational: early warnings about other permits the project would need, suggested edits to conform language to wording in regulations, signals about subtleties in regulations Alaska LNG should know about, notes that map information is mislabeled, or similar issues.

In their comments, FERC and the state generally requested more specifics. The Alaska LNG sponsors expected this. When they filed on Oct. 1, they noted that the draft resource reports were preliminary and that much greater specifics would follow.

The sponsors are planning to provide increasingly more detailed resource reports about the project’s environmental impact in revisions planned for early 2015 and early 2016. The sponsors then anticipate that in summer 2016 they will make a full application, with final reports, to FERC asking it to approve construction of the project, assuming work goes on schedule and the project economics look viable.

Other comments

•Describe in more detail who would own and operate each facility Alaska LNG would build; Preliminary Draft Resource Report 1 is unclear on this point.

•Provide more detail on the locations of potential connectors where Alaskans might take gas off the 800-mile pipeline, “as well as information on discussions with local entities to take the gas from the take-off points.” The North Slope producers said they would provide off-take points for local distribution. But the state would decide the locations and how the gas moves to customers from the mainline.

•Identify where gravel and sand used during construction would be mined and where blast rock and other construction debris would be disposed, plus the likely quantities. On the northern portion of the pipeline route, along the Dalton Highway, “good quality material sites ... are hard to find, develop and permit,” the state said.

•Assess the effects of soil disturbance “caused by burial of the pipeline to permafrost integrity, particularly through stream banks and wetlands.”

•Provide much more detail on the plan to lay the gas pipeline atop the Cook Inlet seabed versus burying it.

•Analyze whether roads and bridges are adequate to endure the expected movement of equipment, heavy materials and people during construction. What would be the timeline and who would be responsible for any upgrades? The state asked for information specifically about maintenance and wear of the Parks and Dalton highways, which parallel most of the 800-mile gas pipeline route, and the Elliott Highway north of Fairbanks. Heavy truck traffic particularly during winter construction could challenge Fairbanks’ efforts to keep within air-quality standards, the state noted.

•The state Department of Transportation also requested more information about Preliminary Draft Resource Report 1’s statement that airports might need upgrades. “What needs to be done, at what airports and at what cost?”

•The department asked about the report’s statement that part of the Kenai Spur Highway would need to be rerouted away from the LNG plant site for safety. The highway runs past the site in Nikiski. The department asked for more information “as soon as possible,” because it needs time and funding to move the road.

•Describe whether dredging would be needed to move in equipment and material for construction of the LNG plant at Nikiski and for construction of North Slope facilities.

•Provide more specifics on wetlands and water-body construction, revegetation and erosion control plans.

Editor’s note: This is a reprint from the Office of the Federal Coordinator, Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects, online at www.arcticgas.gov/regulators-comment-alaska-lng-preliminary-plans.