Skip to comments.FERC issues draft EIS on Freeport LNG’s Phase II projects
Posted on 03/17/2014 12:47:05 PM PDT by thackney
The US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has issued a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) on Freeport LNGs Phase II modification and liquefaction projects. FERC concluded that construction and operation of the projects would result in adverse impacts on certain resources and nearby communities.
FERC said, We have identified that there would be significant and unavoidable impacts on residents of the town of Quintana due to construction noise and construction traffic if the projects are approved by the commission. The commission added, However, other adverse impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with the implementation of Freeport LNGs mitigation measures and the additional measures we recommend in the EIS.
The projects proposed by Freeport LNG are in Brazoria County near Freeport, Tex. The proposed Phase II modification project includes modification to the previously authorized LNG vessel berthing dock, LNG transfer pipelines, LNG unloading arms, and the access road system at Freeport LNGs existing Quintana Island terminal. Freeport LNG would not build components of the previously authorized facility, including vaporization equipment that was approved to increase the LNG Terminals sendout capacity.
The firms proposed liquefaction project consists of the liquefaction plant at and adjacent to the existing Quintana Island LNG terminal and would provide Freeport LNG the capacity to export about 13.2 million tonnes/year of LNG. Freeport would install three liquefaction trains and supporting equipment capable of liquefying 1.8 bcfd of gas.
In support of the liquefaction plant, Freeport LNG proposes to construct a natural gas pretreatment plant about 2½ miles north of the existing Quintana Island terminal. In addition, several interconnecting pipelines and utility lines would extend from the Quintana Island terminal to the pretreatment plant.
I can only imagine how many pages were in this report. I have worked on a much, much smaller project that required an EIS.
It got down to the point where there was a silted up ditch along a railroad nearby. The water in it was declared a Federally Protected Wetland and we had to take precautions so that it would not be “impacted” (like somebody stepping in it while walking from one part of the project to another).
We had to survey it, document it, and put up posts and fencing around it during construction to protect it. Luckily, being a RR ditch, there was nothing living in it (oil, creosote, etc was in it) or we would have had to relocate any of the inhabitants. Some may be thinking this is a joke, but it isn’t.
In another project, we had to “mitigate the damage” (in other words, pay) done to homeless people who lived under a nearby bridge.
It is a decent sized project. When the paperwork equals the weight of all equipment and materials, they will be able to begin construction.
More than 3,500 workers will be employed during the four- to five-year construction period if the liquefaction facilities are fully built out as proposed, and over 160 new full-time employees will be hired to manage, operate and maintain the new facilities.
Best laugh of the day!
Sadly, during construction, start-up and turn-over to operations is when the real paper work begins.
You nailed it.
Not me. We had already been issued our EIS approval for a project on 30" gas line. Just a few weeks before construction start-up, the guy that gave the approval retired. A young buck fresh out of college took his place, came out for a 'review' and immediately declared Wetlands on three low spots in the woods. That idiot held up construction for two months. It could have been longer. EPA needs to be completely replaced by people with common sense and without an agenda. It will never happen though.