The Matanuska-Susitna and Kenai Peninsula boroughs are far apart on their opinions of where the proposed Alaska LNG terminal should be built and whether the draft federal environmental impact statement is adequate.
The state-led gas line development team has told federal regulators it is confident the Alaska LNG project’s steel pipeline could withstand Cook Inlet’s strong currents, shifting seabed, and traveling boulders along the 29-mile underwater route to the gas liquefaction plant in Nikiski, on the Kenai Peninsula.
The Alaska Gasline Development Corporation continues answering questions and providing additional information to federal regulators, submitting on March 1 the first of six batches of information it is scheduled to submit through September.
The state’s gas pipeline development corporation and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough continue debating the worthiness of the borough’s Port MacKenzie property for the proposed Alaska LNG project, as the state’s latest filing with federal regulators accuses the borough of “factual and legal errors.”
The Matanuska-Susitna Borough on January 25 added 145 pages to its ongoing argument that Port Mackenzie would be a better location than Nikiski for the Alaska LNG project’s natural gas liquefaction plant and marine terminal.
The Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC) has told federal regulators it will be late June before the state-led project team can provide all the detailed engineering data requested in December for the proposed Alaska LNG project’s gas treatment plant at Prudhoe Bay and gas liquefaction plant in Nikiski.
“To date, only minimal drafts, and in most cases just outlines, of these plans have been provided, and/or the development of the plans have been deferred to a later date,” FERC said, referring to its past requests of AGDC for proposed mitigation plans for wildlife avoidance, marine mammal monitoring, vegetation and soils restoration, groundwater monitoring, and invasive plants.