|
Mat-Su battles AGDC over site for LNG facility; urges FERC delay
Kristen Nelson Petroleum News
As the Alaska Gasline Development Corp. moves ahead with its plans for the Alaska LNG Project, with a schedule from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a final decision, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough has intervened, and is asking FERC to delay decisions until Port MacKenzie has been adequately considered as a site for the project’s liquefaction facility and terminal.
In 2013 Nikiski on the Kenai Peninsula was selected as the lead site for the Alaska LNG project liquefaction plant and terminal. Valdez, which had been promoting that city as the site for the liquefaction plant and terminal, said it would continue to make its case. And Valdez, along with the North Slope producers, Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., the Chickaloon Village Traditional Council and environmental groups, intervened at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission after the Alaska Gasline Development Corp. filed with that agency for its proposed Alaska LNG project in April 2017.
The Matanuska-Susitna Borough, site of Port MacKenzie on the west side of Cook Inlet, was a late intervenor, filing in early January, as was the Kenai Peninsula Borough, which filed in August.
Mat-Su intervened because it wanted Port MacKenzie considered as a potential alternative; Kenai filed to protect the Nikiski site selection.
In a response to the Kenai Peninsula Borough’s intervenor request, filed in early September, Mat-Su, through its attorney, said it sought intervention “specifically highlighting that AGDC had failed to analyze Port MacKenzie as a potential alternative.” The borough raised the issue with AGDC and was assured “the error would be corrected.” But AGDC failed to act and Mat-Su then brought the issue to FERC’s attention.
FERC staff asked AGDC to provide an environmental and engineering analysis of Port MacKenzie, which it provided in July.
Mat-Su said in its September filing that AGDC made “several assumptions about the site at Port MacKenzie without consulting” the borough and has not accurately relayed answers it received from the borough.
“The Matanuska-Susitna Brough seeks only a full, fair, and honest evaluation of the actual site at Port MacKenzie,” it told FERC.
Mat-Su disputes selection process This process began in December 2017 when the Matanuska-Susitna Borough lodged a formal complaint with FERC, arguing that the borough’s site at Port MacKenzie, across Cook Inlet from Anchorage, had been unfairly cut from site selection for the liquefaction facility.
AGDC, which took over as lead on the project at the end of 2016, responded to the borough’s appeal to FERC in January, telling FERC that while the site selection was made prior to AGDC becoming owner of the Alaska LNG project, it had an understanding of the screening process used by ExxonMobil, the former project manager, to evaluate sites.
AGDC also said that the Matanuska-Susitna Borough was aware of the project and the preferred site at Nikiski when the former joint owners of the project initiated pre-filing at the FERC in September 2014, and said the director of Port MacKenzie participated in open houses and scoping meetings and supported the Nikiski selection.
Mat-Su response After AGDC provided FERC with its analysis of two Port MacKenzie options in July, the borough notified FERC through its attorney that it was still reviewing the AGDC response but said “it has already identified several aspects of AGDC’s response with which it disagrees,” and promised substantive comments.
Those comments were delivered in mid-September as a point-by-point response to the AGDC filing.
The borough said, “despite FERC’s clear directives, AGDC still has not accurately analyzed the proposals put forth by MSB and did not participate in any meaningful consultation with MSB in responding to FERC’s data request.”
The borough said there were “numerous factual errors and willfully misleading statements” in the AGDC response and called for a delay in the process: “FERC must not proceed with its review of AGDC’s application until AGDC has presented a complete and accurate analysis of Port MacKenzie as an alternative site of the Alaska LNG liquefaction facility.”
Port MacKenzie The borough said that “despite six years of communications, AGDC has not provided a rational basis for excluding Port MacKenzie as a feasible or preferred alternative for the site of the Alaska LNG liquefaction facility” and called for an unbiased analysis of Port MacKenzie by AGDC.
As for the environmental impact statement on AGDC’s Alaska LNG project, FERC said in a schedule published Aug. 31 that a notice of availability of the final EIS would be issued Nov. 8, 2019, with a 90-day federal authorization decision deadline set for Feb. 6, 2020.
In its Sept. 14 filing, the borough said the continued delay by AGDC “in providing accurate information to the Commission regarding Port MacKenzie serves no purpose but to further delay the final Environmental Impact Statement in this docket and potentially to lead Commission staff to include incorrect information in its alternative analysis.”
Referring to Resource Report No. 10, submitted by AGDC as part of its FERC application, the borough said the report “never considered Port MacKenzie, bur rather a phantom site to the north despite information from MSB regarding the error.” The borough said it informed AGDC of the error in October 2016, “yet AGDC filed its application in April 2017 without addressing the error.”
Response to response In February FERC requested information from AGDC on 14 issues related to Port MacKenzie and also requested documentation of consultation with the Matanuska-Susitna Borough.
AGDC responded in July, identifying two options at Port MacKenzie for siting the liquefaction facility and citing consultations with the borough. The borough said it wasn’t informed of these options until June and said it “quickly responded to inform AGDC that these two options were not reasonable and would likely maximize environmental impacts from the Project.”
The borough said it provided AGDC with what it considered an optimum site at Port MacKenzie but said AGDC did not analyze that site. “As a result, MSB has conducted its own preliminary evaluation of the Optimum Site,” it told FERC.
The borough said it should not be responsible for a full analysis of the Port MacKenzie alternative but said that it was providing FERC with information to indicate what such an evaluation would entail. To the extent FERC needs additional information, the borough said, “it should direct AGDC to compile that information, recognizing the facts presented in the exhibits accompanying this pleading.”
- KRISTEN NELSON
| 