Officials answer proposed Alaska gas pipeline questions
by Mary Beth Smetzer/msmetzer@newsminer.com
Jan 30, 2012 | 6429 views | 0 0 comments | 6 6 recommendations | email to a friend | print
FAIRBANKS — Bob Sattler, senior archeologist and environmental quality analyst at Tanana Chiefs Conference, was one of two people who responded to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s invitation to make comments and share concerns and issues for a preliminary environmental review of the Alaska Pipeline Project.

Fewer than 50 people turned out Monday evening for the public scoping meeting conducted by the federal agency about environmental concerns of the proposed natural gas pipeline from the North Slope’s Prudhoe Bay to Canada.

FERC is an independent agency that regulates the interstate transmission of electricity, natural gas, and oil and is the primary approving agency for the natural gas pipeline project.

“In my experience consulting with Alaska Native leaders in villages along the prospective ROW (right of way) corridor, there is nearly universal support for the gas pipeline project with anticipation of tribal government and ANSCA village corporation involvement,” Sattler said.

Although his written testimony was worked up with Jerry Isaac, TCC chairman, Sattler said they are based on seven years of his personal observations consulting with state, federal and tribal officials over the environmental review in the project area, and “are not formal positions endorsed by TCC board of directors or any member of tribal government among TCC members.”

The joint natural gas pipeline project by TransCanada Alaska Company, LLC and ExxonMobil Alaska Midstream Gas Investments, LLC would transport gas produced on the North Slope to the Alaska-Canada border to connect with a pipeline system in Canada for delivery to markets in North America.

Sattler said communities within the TCC area, historically have been affected by past pipelines, beginning with two military pipelines, the CANOL and Haines-Fairbanks lines built between the mid-1940s and the mid-1970s and the trans-Alaska pipeline that have left a legacy of contaminated sites and other issues.

“Pipelines in this region of Alaska have had profound effects on the Native communities in the directly impacted areas,” Sattler said. “The potential socio-economic effects posed by the APP are rooted in that history and need to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement.”

Although TCC and member villages have met with project sponsors in the past two years, Sattler said only the subsistence component is showing up in FERC reports and not enough attention is being given to the effects on the small Native communities along the proposed corridor.

Pamela Miller, Northern Alaska Environmental Center, Arctic program director, asked Danny Laffoon, the FERC moderator if the APP is really a viable effort at bringing an alternative fuel resource to the Interior, based on Gov. Parnell’s interest in developing another pipeline to export gas to Asia.

“We’re definitely taking this project seriously,” Laffoon responded. “We’re taking lots of effort and seriously looking at this project.”

Another of Miller’s concerns was about emission controls at the Prudhoe Bay processing plant would be handled.

She also asked if there was a possibility that if the pipeline was built would the natural gas make it over the southern border of Canada or be used internally perhaps at the Tar Sands oil sites in Alberta.

An overview presentation by Mel Johnson of the Alaska Pipeline Project, outlined the pipeline route which will run 745 miles in state before it crosses the Canadian border near Beaver Creek and continues 972 miles through the Yukon and British Columbia to Northwest Alberta 1,717 miles later.

The bulk of the 4-foot diameter, approximately 1-inch-thick, walled pipeline would be buried underground with provisions for a minimum of five off takes within Alaska.

The project also includes a Point Thomson Gas Transmission Line that would run approximately 58 miles from Point Thomson delivering gas to the gas treatment plant at Prudhoe Bay.

Written or electronic filings of any comments or interventions or protests will be accepted by the federal commission through Feb. 27.

Comments on Alaska Pipeline Project (Docket No. PF0-11-000) can be sent to Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426, or by filing electronically at www.ferc.gov under the “e-Filing” link and the link to the User’s Guide.

Contact staff writer Mary Beth Smetzer at 459-7546.
Comments
(0)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
No Comments Yet
Newsminer.com encourages a lively exchange of ideas regarding topics in the news. Users are solely responsible for the content. Comments are not pre-approved by News-Miner staff. Please keep it clean, respect others and use the 'report abuse' link when necessary. Read our full user's agreement.