|
AKLNG sends responses to scoping issues Alaska LNG Project tells FERC it will continue to evaluate agency, public comments, including those received after Dec. 4 deadline KRISTEN NELSON Petroleum News
The applicants proposing the Alaska LNG Project have submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission responses to issues raised during scoping for the project. The project proponents are the Alaska Gasline Development Corp., BP Alaska LNG, ConocoPhillips Alaska LNG and ExxonMobil Alaska LNG.
In a Dec. 18 letter to FERC Karen Wuestenfeld, environmental impact statement lead for the project, said the response covers written comments received by FERC from March 4 to Dec. 4, and comments made during scoping meetings in October and November.
Wuestenfeld said multiple state and federal agencies also provided comments which will be included, along with responses, in the project’s draft 2 Resource Report which the project plans to file in the first or second quarter of 2016.
Siting issues Siting issues which were raised in scoping meetings and written comments to FERC included both pipeline routing and liquefaction plant siting.
In a breakout of responses AKLNG said factors considered in siting and routing would be described in Resource Report No. 10. In an overview of issues raised the project said the Nikiski liquefaction site was selected based on criteria including “access to infrastructure, constructability criteria, navigation issues, water depth, environmental impacts, and cost.”
Leading the charge for consideration of an alternative site for the LNG plant and an alternative pipeline route, the City of Valdez, in comments from Mayor Larry Weaver, argued for a pipeline route to Valdez and a liquefaction facility located there. Weaver said “consideration of an alternative route to Anderson Bay is supported by previous scoping decisions” made by FERC, the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Two previous EISs, in 1988 and 1995, “considered a route from the North Slope to Boulder Point at Nikiski, and both EISs concluded that the Valdez Route was a superior alternative.”
On the pipeline route, Weaver said using the trans-Alaska oil pipeline right of way and existing camp pads and access roads would reduce “the impact of construction on otherwise pristine wilderness areas.”
Pipeline route Other than the destination for the pipeline, two other areas were noted in comments, and in AKLNG responses.
The Fairbanks North Star Borough highlighted one of the routing issues - the distance from the proposed line to Fairbanks.
Borough Mayor Karl Kassel told FERC that the “50-plus mile lateral line” which would be required to bring natural gas to Fairbanks would cost in the multimillion-dollar range with the cost falling “on our already cash-strapped citizenry” and the proposed lateral, while included in the state’s proposed Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline, is not included in the scope of AKLNG. The proposed AKLNG and the lateral would both be in the Minto Flats area. “Consideration of this unfortunate reality should be an integral aspect of any environmental impact assessment of the project,” the mayor said.
AKLNG said a route closer to Fairbanks was not proposed based on “increased pipeline length through wetlands, an increased number of cultural resources, the increased amount of forested land crossed, a greater proportional impact on populated areas in the Fairbanks North Star Borough and the City of Fairbanks, and an increased cost.”
Denali routing, subsistence AKLNG said there were issues raised on the routing through Denali - both the state and national parks - and said its “environmental analysis includes an assessment of potential impacts on the recreational and visual values and uses of the Denali area, and mitigation options.”
Individuals who commented at a November scoping meeting held in Healy were concerned about the impact of the pipeline and its construction on views in the area and on the area’s significant tourism industry.
Among socioeconomic impacts discussed, AKLNG said it recognizes the importance of subsistence and said Alaska Department of Fish and Game subsistence surveys provide the basis of its analysis of subsistence, and will help identify ways to reduce project impacts.
At scoping meetings on the North Slope FERC heard concerns about impacts on subsistence hunting.
North Slope Borough Mayor Charlotte Brower said in a letter that the EIS analysis must consider: “The full range of potential impacts to subsistence, including those associated with construction and operation of project facilities, vessel, vehicle, and aircraft traffic, impediments to or deflection of caribou movement, whale or pinniped movement, fish movement, and waterfowl nesting and other habitat uses, displacement from harvest areas, and loss of potential harvest opportunities associated with project-related employment.”
“The continued availability of and access to subsistence resources is of critical importance to the residents of the North Slope,” the mayor wrote. “North Slope residents continue to depend heavily on subsistence foods and practices for maintaining both their physical and cultural health.”
Nikiski Another area where residents expressed concern at a scoping meeting was in Nikiski in October, with numerous residents expressing concern about the impact of the proposed LNG facility on traffic, noise and light impacts from the proposed facility and impact on adjacent land values.
AKLNG has been acquiring property in the Nikiski area, but residents in the area of the proposed facility told FERC they were concerned by the closeness of the proposed plant and impact on the value of their properties.
AKLNG said it has acquired more than 560 acres of land in the Nikiski area and continues negotiations.
In a related matter, AKLNG told FERC in an Oct. 22 letter that the Kenai Peninsula Borough has said AKLNG needs to maintain properties it has acquired and mitigate hazardous conditions. AKLNG said certain tracts it has acquired “contain uninhabited, and in some cases derelict, structures that complicate ongoing property management, in some cases posing health and safety challenges,” and said it had made safety determinations and in some cases been advised of such concerns by residents, their elected representatives and state law enforcement representatives.
AKLNG said it “has made plans to remove structures from properties determined to present such hazards.”
Relocation of the Kenai Spur Highway was a concern expressed by many at the scoping meeting and AKLNG said while that was not part of AKLNG it is a “connected action” supporting the proposed Nikiski LNG location. It said the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities is evaluating potential routes and providing AKLNG “with guidance and comments to progress the routing, public engagement, permitting and construction of the relocation.”
Residents also expressed concern about Nikiski area commercial and personal use fisheries, and about access to the shore around the proposed facility. AKLNG said access for the public around the proposed marine terminal and LNG carriers will be considered in project planning “based on current regulatory requirements.”
LNG shipping from the North Slope AKLNG also discussed suggestions that LNG should be shipped from the North Slope. That was not considered, it said, “because such an alternative is not operationally or economically viable and, accordingly, would not achieve the purpose and need to commercialize North Slope natural gas.” AKLNG said “extreme weather and ice conditions in the Arctic, and shallow nearshore waters, would require the design and construction of unique specialized vessels and offshore facilities to operate year round.” And the cost to construct LNG and marine terminal facilities on the North Slope “would be significantly higher,” AKLNG said.
| 