|
OFC summarizes agency, applicant issues Report from Office of the Federal Coordinator summarizes coordination role for Alaska Pipeline Project, what agencies still need Kristen Nelson Petroleum News
A Sept. 4 report from the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects generally lauds cooperation between the companies working on a North Slope to North American markets natural gas project and federal agencies, but also details areas where the office believes more work is needed by the sponsor.
The report says OFC is issuing the status report even though the North Slope to North American markets project has been put on hold by the Alaska Pipeline Project sponsors — TransCanada and ExxonMobil — while they look at a liquefied natural gas project which would LNG overseas.
OFC, headed by Larry Persily, has been working on federal agency cooperation on permitting for the project. A memorandum of cooperation among the agencies was signed in 2006; the report covers activities during the last three years, including a summary of issues tracked by OFC, most recent actions on those issues “and the next steps that should be taken to help reduce the risk of permitting delays should the sponsor proceed with a project.”
Additional data collection Some issues, including air quality, require more data. The report says the applicant has “little to no baseline air quality data” outside the Fairbanks North Star Borough, and says it will be “critical for the applicant to continue discussing baseline data needs with the agencies.”
The U.S. Coast Guard has completed navigability determinations for 85 water bodies that could be crossed by the main line or the line to Point Thomson, as well as by the smaller state-sponsored North Slope to Southcentral line, and after the applicant finalizes the route the Coast Guard will be able to verify which of those require navigable water approvals.
Required support systems must be in place before construction begins or the project could be slowed down, increasing costs, the report says.
“The applicant has indicated that among its transportation needs, only West Dock at Prudhoe Bay would require upgrades to support project construction,” but several agencies “identified that logistics information was not adequately described for the transportation of construction materials via railroad, road and ports,” and that is information the applicant would be able to share once there is a final project design, enabling agencies “to evaluate the information to ensure all potential impacts can be determined and mitigated.”
Special pipeline permits There are specific rules for the design of natural gas pipelines, the report says, and when different specifications are proposed, a special permit will be required from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
“The applicant began a lengthy engagement process with PHMSA in 2010, which continued through 2012, to discuss design details and components that might be subject to a special permit.”
The report notes that PHMSA has said it will need at least 12 months to review information under a special permit application “and may require additional testing or data before a special permit could be issued. Technical discussions between the applicant and PHMSA regarding project design should proceed as expeditiously as possible so that PHMSA has the information needed for its review before development of an environmental review document for the project.”
Wetlands issues About half of the 800-mile route in Alaska would be within wetlands, “resulting in the need for careful delineation of wetlands jurisdictional boundaries and potential impacts,” the report says. While the applicant has had discussions with agencies, agency comments on the draft resource reports have requested “that the applicant provide data to support the rationale for its selected mapping methodology” for wetlands.
OFC recommends that the applicant review their wetland mapping data with agencies “to guarantee it has met the appropriate requirements and addressed concerns outlined in comments on the draft resource reports, in particular impacts and mitigation measures.”
| 