The Alaska-run company that is developing a massive LNG terminal to export North Slope natural gas argued that federal regulators "overstated" many of the potential environmental impacts.
But several national conservation groups complained that Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff did not go far enough in a draft environmental review issued in June. They said the agency should extend its analysis, which would add to the project's permitting obstacles.
The contrasting assessments highlighted what could be a complicated path to federal approval for the Alaska LNG project. The project has for years faced challenges beyond permitting that include a lack of customers and an estimated cost of $43 billion that is significantly higher than rival North American projects. Alaska LNG, which would be capable of exporting 20 million tonnes per annum of LNG, would involve a proposed 800-mile, 42-inch-diameter gas pipeline from the North Slope supporting an LNG export terminal on the Kenai Peninsula in southern Alaska.
The project attracted a spate of FERC filings as the agency's public comment period on the draft environmental impact statement drew to a close Oct. 3. The environmental review found that, while most environmental impacts could be mitigated, some would still be "adverse and significant." FERC staff found construction and operation of Alaska LNG "is likely to adversely affect" six protected species and that the project "would result in substantial impacts on permafrost, wetlands, forest, and caribou." Among other issues, the report said that development would have significant visual impacts, along with noise and air-quality effects.
FERC is scheduled to complete the final environmental impact statement for the Alaska project in March 2020. Environmental reviews factor prominently into FERC decisions on whether to issue Natural Gas Act certificates that provide federal authorization to natural gas infrastructure projects.
The state-run company, Alaska Gasline Development Corp., or AGDC, responded to the findings in extensive filings with FERC. Among the impacts that AGDC said FERC staff overstated were the effects on caribou, vessel strikes on marine mammals, and damage to certain habitats.
"There are several resources that deserve additional consideration in light of studies conducted in Alaska and to be consistent with legal requirements and defined regulatory agency jurisdictions," AGDC said. "This is particularly true for the contextual assessment of potential caribou, air quality, permafrost, and wetland impacts."
AGDC said the project's visual impacts in Denali National Park and Preserve would be lessened by an alternative route that would align a segment of the pipeline with a highway. FERC staff had considered the alternative in the draft review, finding that both the alternative and the originally proposed route are acceptable "without significant environmental advantages from either."

A coalition of national and local groups, including Earthjustice, the Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife and the Chickaloon Village Traditional Council, argued that the draft environmental impact statement and supporting information were "woefully incomplete" and that FERC should suspend the permitting process or refuse to authorize the project.
"It would have significant impacts on wildlife, wildlife habitat, subsistence uses, and air quality, as well as many other natural values," the groups wrote. "Yet, the DEIS dismisses most of these impacts as insignificant based on unspecified, unproven, or unenforceable mitigation measures."
Exxon and BP PLC, which are providing technical assistance for Alaska LNG in the permitting process and working to bring down the project's cost, submitted filings in support of the project. They encouraged federal regulators to consider best practices and additional research on issues such as potential impacts to caribou.
The supermajors earlier this year agreed to each fund a third of AGDC's 2020 fiscal-year costs, or up to $20 million total. It was a critical lifeline for the project. Alaska shifted its focus in July to only permitting in a signal that the state no longer plans to work to commercialize the gas export venture or manage it in the long term.
Other backers of the project included Alaskan trade groups representing oil and gas and construction interests.
