FERC tries to end delays over Weaver’s Cove LNG

Monday, 26 November 2007

Weaver's Cove LNG, a joint venture between New York-based energy company Hess Corp. and Poten & Partners, proposes to build an import terminal at Fall River, Massachusetts.


The terminal would include a new pier to receive carriers of around 145,000 cubic metres capacity and would have a single 200,000 cubic metres full-containment storage tank.


In addition, two new 24-inch natural gas pipelines would be developed by Mill River Pipeline, a sister company to Weaver's Cove, to link the facility to the Algonquin Gas Transmission Co. interstate pipeline.


In support of Weaver’s Cove, FERC Director of Energy Projects J. Mark Robinson has written to the US Department of Commerce and other interested parties regarding appeals brought by Weaver’s Cove and the pipeline unit in regard to the US Coastal Zone Management Act.


“Having conducted a wide-ranging analysis of the need for this project and itsenvironmental impacts, the Commission concluded that the project is required in thepublic interest to develop the nation’s energy infrastructure and to increase the reliabilityand security of the supply of natural gas to New England,” said Robinson.


“While the Commission recognizes that the development and construction of LNG facilities present significant environmental and safety challenges, the Commission balanced these considerations with its overriding responsibility under the NGA to ensure the timely development of an adequate, reliable energy infrastructure,” he said.


The FERC officer also pointed out that the regulator’s analysis included an exhaustive study of the project’s environmental impacts, in particular the impact the project would have on the Taunton River and Mount Hope Bay.


The commission’s environmental review concluded that the project would have limited adverse environmental impact with the implementation of mitigation measures.


“The commission examined a number of alternatives to the Weavers Cove LNG project, but found that none was preferable to the proposed action and that each alternative presented its own unique set of impacts,” said Robinson.