Alaska’s Stand Alone Pipeline clears a major hurdle; AGDC and the Mat-Su Borough still at odds on the Port for the project

There was some good news released on March 4 regarding the Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline (ASAP) which if constructed would provide natural gas to interior Alaska. The Army Corps and BLM issued federal approval for the pipeline. As it stands right now the only pipeline project being considered for construction by AGDC is the AKLNG project.

The current administration wants an export component to the pipeline, which according to AGDC officials only the larger AKLNG project can provide. The project has also moved to a stage gate review so the legislature can review at each stage of the project and decide whether to continue the project or shut it down. Despite what has been published in other publications the project is not doomed. So far, the project continues to move forward with the hope a partnership with the producers can be formed. This is not a project that under the Gov. Mike Dunleavy administration the state of Alaska will do on its own. It’s a shift in thinking from the Walker administration.

“This Joint Record of Decision and the federal permits for ASAP demonstrate ratification of the environmental and engineering aspects of a trans-Alaska natural gas project and support AGDC’s efforts to bring Alaska’s North Slope natural gas to market. Because ASAP and Alaska LNG share a common path for 80 percent of Alaska LNG’s pipeline route, this permit and the underlying data will help the Alaska LNG project efficiently advance through the federal permitting process,” Tim Fitzpatrick, external affairs and government relations for AGDC, stated in an email to the Frontiersman.

The news is good in a sense that it gives hope for approval of the larger project, which is a major hurdle for the 42-inch, 800-mile plus project. The AKLNG project is awaiting the draft environmental impact statement from FERC, which was expected by Feb. 28, but is now been delayed until June. Delaying the final impact statement from November 2019 to sometime in 2020.

AGDC’s response sent via email to the Frontiersman when asked about the delay in the draft EIS.

“FERC’s comprehensive analysis of Alaska LNG now includes more than 150,000 pages of environmental and engineering data, including responses to more than 1,700 FERC queries submitted since AGDC initiated this permitting process twenty-two months ago. Previous FERC scheduling changes accelerated the permitting calendar, and we believe that today’s revision does not affect the prospects for Alaska LNG. We look forward to working with FERC to complete this process and obtain the permits required to bring Alaska’s North Slope natural gas to market.”

As reported in the Frontiersman, the Mat-Su Borough is at odds with AGDC because it believes incorrect information was submitted in the FERC process concerning Port MacKenzie. This includes identifying the optimal site at the port and identifying the haul road within the optimal site.

The AGDC recently responded to FERC regarding the items questioned by the Mat-Su Borough who has intervener status in the FERC process.

From the response submitted by AGDC, “MSB continues to assert that AGDC’s analysis of the Port MacKenzie site is flawed and inadequate. As discussed below, MSB’s comments contain several factual and legal errors. More importantly, even if accepted as true, MSB’s comments do not change the unavoidable conclusion that the significant environmental impacts and safety concerns associated with siting the Alaska LNG liquefaction facilities at Port MacKenzie render it an inferior alternative to AGDC’s proposed site at Nikiski.”

AGDC did not address every concerned raised by MSB. It did however acknowledge that the site identified by AGDC did not include the haul road at a location within the optimal site. AGDC contends that even with the corrected optimal site boundary it doesn’t change the fact that the road itself is not sufficient.

From the AGDC filing after AGDC it acknowledged that MSB is correct that the optimal site was not submitted to FERC.

“However, that does not mean that the existing haul road on the site is adequate for the uses required by the Alaska LNG facilities. The primary reason the existing haul road on the Port MacKenzie site is inadequate is that it is steeper than the maximum allowable slope required to transport modules from the barge deck to uplands. That deficiency remains regardless of the placement of the road on the diagram at issue.”

In speaking with Terry Dolan Public Works Director for the Mat-Su Borough he states that modifications can be made to meet the grade requirements.

“If there is a need those modifications can be made. The road can be adjusted,” Dolan said.

To Dolan’s point, It’s been done all over the world time and time again. There are other differences in opinions between the Borough and AGDC when it comes to whether the optimal port terminus is Nikiski or MacKenzie but if it comes down to costs on upgrading the road Dolan made another good point.

“What’s cheaper upgrading the haul road within the Port MacKenzie’s optimal site or building a pipeline under the Cook Inlet?”

One can assume it would be the upgrade of the haul road.

I don’t want to understate AGDC’s concerns about Port MacKenzie. Another excerpt from the ADGC’s response the borough’s filing to FERC.

“More importantly, the MSB’s “Optimal Site” still raises the numerous environmental and safety concerns associated with the Port MacKenzie site relative to the Nikiski site. As previously discussed in AGDC’s earlier responses, those concerns include: a higher level of waterway congestion in the Cook Inlet Navigation Channel given Port MacKenzie’s proximity to the heavily used Port of Alaska; increased operational risks stemming from more severe ice conditions over significantly longer shipping distances, and greater tidal currents; draft restrictions limiting the times when the Knik Arm Shoal channel could be crossed; and substantial incremental impacts, including anthropogenic disturbances to marine mammals and specifically beluga whales, and resulting restrictions associated with the construction and operation of LNG facilities within the Beluga Critical Habitat Area 1.”

The borough has publicly rebuked these concerns.

The borough also offered to pay for a maritime study that would be conducted by the Coast Guard. AGDC as the project filer to FERC would have to approve the study. AGDC turned down the offer citing there is no need because Port MacKenzie was not the port submitted to FERC as the port of choice.