|
All gas projects need permits FERC: Timeline same for all lines, permitted or not; if pre-filing in early 2006 full flow by 2016 Kristen Nelson Petroleum News Editor-in-Chief
There is no time advantage for Alaska North Slope natural gas projects which have permits, Robert Cupina, deputy director of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s Office of Energy Projects.
“Any Alaska gas pipeline project or LNG project requires a certificate of public convenience and necessity from FERC,” Cupina told the American Conference Institute’s “Alaska Oil & Gas” conference in Anchorage Sept. 19.
The Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act of 2004 allows applications under the new act or under the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Act of 1976. Either way, he said, FERC is involved: it either has to issue a new certificate or revise an old one.
That takes care of the pipeline projects.
What about liquefied natural gas? That project was authorized as an export project, not under the FERC’s authority because it was not for interstate commerce. That’s changed, Cupina said, and both the pipeline and the liquefaction facility would require certificates. Revisions for TransCanada The same FERC timeline applies to all projects, he said.
The commission issued a conditional certificate for the TransCanada project in the 1970s, “but it’s under suspension.” If the project goes forward, TransCanada would apply to FERC to “revive” the proceedings and issue an amended certificate.
“The commission would determine what the applicant needs to do and amend the terms and conditions of the president’s decision from back then,” he said.
The Department of Energy would also be involved: it “would determine what updated environmental information is necessary.” The wrinkle here, Cupina said, is that because of the TransCanada right of way, which is a Department of the Interior task, “the secretary of Energy may well determine that the Department of Interior could take the lead for that type of project, the TransCanada project.”
Cupina said there is no timeline for a project revision, but FERC has estimated “it would take about the same amount of time as a new project” because of such factors as the need to review old studies.
The project for which FERC has worked out a timeline is “a producer-type project,” he said, “the type the legislation is primarily intended to address.” This would be a project under the National Gas Act, with FERC as the lead agency for an environmental impact statement. Congress has mandated a draft EIS 12 months after an application and a final EIS six months later.
“But the key is that a complete application has to be on file,” he said.
FERC is encouraging applicants to pre-file. The pre-file process has an 18 month, allowing the agency time to do two field seasons of work.
“Those studies and data collections are essential to making an application to FERC,” he said, and the agency feels pre-filing is “essential to help ensure that when the actual application is filed it is complete and that the 20-month time clock is started on the real application.”
The 20 month timeline after an application is deemed complete includes an 18-month EIS process and two months at the end for FERC to issue a commission order.
And what happens during the 18-month pre-filing period? Cupina said FERC “staff is getting to know the routes and the alternatives, it’s doing public scoping, working the Native Alaskans and other stakeholders” as well as with other agencies.
And, he said, it’s crucial for all projects that pre-filing occur early in the year, because two field seasons are required. If pre-filing occurred early in 2006, he said, between January and June, “based on that we see an in-service date of 2015 with full flow by 2016.” Why LNG needs a certificate The liquefied natural gas project, with an 800-mile pipeline from the North Slope to Valdez and a liquefaction terminal, is “similar to the old Yukon Pacific project that FERC authorized about 10 years, ago, but jurisdictionally it’s got some differences,” Cupina said.
The Yukon Pacific trans-Alaska gas system, Tags, “was authorized as an export project and the 800-mile line was not under the jurisdiction of the FERC because it was not for interstate commerce,” he said.
But the Alaska Gasline Port Authority project is different — “both the line and the terminal … are for interstate commerce and therefore they would both need a certificate.”
Cupina said there would probably be some benefits from the environmental studies from 10 years ago, but because this project is for interstate commerce FERC has estimated it “would take us about the same amount of time to do an LNG project.”
Port authority attorney Bill Walker, describing the project to the conference Sept. 20, said it would deliver gas to a regasification facility in the Canadian port of Kitimat, for delivery through existing pipelines in Canada to markets in the Lower 48 Midwest and West Coast. He said the authority is also working with proposed receiving terminals on the U.S. West Coast to deliver LNG directly to Oregon or California.
| 