baby uggs uk Federal agency orders AGDC to consider other gas line terminal locations
This is despite the AGDC having long touted that the line is set to run from the North Slope to Nikiski.
In a letter dated Feb. 15, 2018, within a series of data request correspondences, FERC officials wrote to AGDC Pipeline Engineering Manager Frank Richards also “reminding” the state group that FERC regulations in implementing the National Environmental Policy Act require applications filed under the Natural Gas Act to include certain information. According to the letter, AGDC has appeared to intentionally have left out the info, though AGDC President Keith Meyer maintains otherwise.
“A letter from FERC is typically a formal thing,” Meyer said. “They want to make sure the applicant understands that they want answers to these questions. A number of the questions we feel could be answered during application review, and don’t have to be answered now. Some have already been answered. Some we feel we’ve provided enough info already.
“To the extent they want more info, we can provide that,” Meyer said. “But the requests are very detailed.”
Federal permit approvals, depend on identifying the least environmentally damaging, practical alternative for projects like Alaska LNG, known as AKLNG under its previous ownership. The potential benefits of the project, which include but are not limited to the creation of up to 10,000 jobs during design and construction; additional export revenue; and long term affordable gas supply for power generation, home heating, and other needs, do not exclude any project from that requirement.
Meyer said Friday that this is specifically because it’s a multi use port.
“Under the previous joint venture, they discounted Port Mac, because you can’t have a multi use port living in harmony with an LNG facility,” Meyer said, referring to the now dissolved deal between the state, British Petroleum, Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips.
But the mayor of the Mat Su Borough isn’t buying that reasoning.
“This thing about we’re a community port, so we’re disqualified? There’s nothing in FERC rules that says that,” Halter said. “So I think it’s kind of a false assertion.”
AGDC did evaluate a site near Port Mackenzie, referring to a spot about three miles north up the shoreline as Point Mackenzie, not to be confused with the census designated place in the Mat Su Borough.
“There was a fair amount of confusion,” said Mat Su Borough Assemblyman Randall Kowalke. “I was talking to people in Juneau today, and they were bouncing from ‘point’ to ‘port.’ I think there was confusion there.
“Again, there’s a Point Mackenzie, and it’s the other direction from where was evaluated,” he said.
The Mat Su Borough has referred to the so called Point Mackenzie again, not the region within the borough, but a small geographical feature up the shoreline from Port Mac as “arbitrarily named” and “the wrong site.” In a Jan. 9 filing, Mat Su officials also protested the omission of Port Mackenzie from the AGDC’s site selection, saying it was “in spite of the fact that AGDC, on numerous occasions over several years and multiple site visits, insisted that Port MacKenzie would be studied as an alternative for the liquefaction facility.”
But AGDC officials have said that Point Mackenzie was not the “wrong” site.
“It was certainly not a mistake in the minds of the product developers of AKLNG, when they chose Point Mackenzie, because they’d ruled out Port Mac because of its definition as a multi use port,” Meyer said. “So it was a conscious decision.
“I believe, though, that maybe the Port Mackenzie folks thought that Port Mackenzie and the Port Mackenzie site were being evaluated,” he said. “But in fact, it was ruled out early on because of its multi use nature.”
Meyer was unable on Friday to tell Channel 2 what the monetary cost of evaluating Point Mackenzie was, nor could he tell Channel 2 the financial impact of an official evaluation on Port Mackenzie.
Mat Su Borough officials, though, have cited that the potential LNG facility at Port MacKenzie evaluation could mean the proposed gas pipeline itself would be shortened by 50 miles, avoid the environmental risk of crossing Cook Inlet, and could cost up to $3 billion less.
FERC has requested that a complete response to their own requests be returned to them within 20 days, and noted in its Feb. 15 letter to AGDC that the information requested is necessary in order for FERC to continue preparation of the environmental impact statement draft.
Still, Meyer said, the AKLNG project remains on the straight and narrow, and his hope is that the project is well underway by the end of the year, to the point where third party funding and investors can be considered. Construction start dates remain projected for the back half of 2019.
“That means we have to get a lot lined up in the front half,” Meyer said. “There will be lots of challenges, but we’ve got a plan and we are marching forward.