ExxonMobil and BP have thrown their support behind the mammoth Alaska LNG project as environmental groups continue to criticise the scheme, which already is facing an uncertain future, writes Caroline Evans.

In separate letters filed last week with the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Ferc), the supermajors threw their support behind the proposed liquefied natural gas project.

ExxonMobil said the $43 billion plan is in the public interest and could be developed with minimal environmental impact.

The letter, which was submitted as a comment to Ferc's draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) on the project, also said ExxonMobil hopes and anticipates "that DEIS will lead to a final EIS in a timely fashion and thereafter support an expeditious issuance of necessary permits".

BP, which is exiting Alaska through a sale to privately-held Hilcorp, also said it supports the "overall quality, content and conclusions of the DEIS".

However, the UK supermajor also suggested implementation of what it said were industry best practices to mitigate impacts to polar bears.

BP also suggested the inclusion of several pieces of scientific literature to help inform Ferc's recommendations to lessen impacts to the state's caribou population.

The London-headquartered giant also said the most current scientific literature shows that long-term displacement of caribou is unlikely, with the possible exception of calving.

In the DEIS released earlier this year, Ferc said the project, which includes a 20 million tonnes per annum liquefaction facility at Nikiski in the southern part of the state and an 800-mile (1287-kilometre) pipeline connecting it to North Slope gas production, would cause "substantial long-term to permanent impacts on permafrost, wetlands, forest, caribou (Central Arctic Herds), and air quality."

Ferc staff also found "inconsistencies" in some of the data submitted by the developer, Alaska LNG.

Environmental organisation the Center for Biological Diversity has also submitted comments to Ferc, saying the project would "exacerbate the climate crisis; cause significant, irreversible environmental damage; harm threatened and endangered species already struggling to survive; negatively impact subsistence practices; and threaten public health".

The green group said the Ferc DEIS did not adequately examine whether Alaska LNG was in the public interest, and that it could not properly evaluate the project's environmental impact because vital information was missing.

The fate of the project was uncertain earlier this year after Alaska Gasline, a state entity tasked with developing the facility, ousted chief executive Keith Meyer in a board shake-up that replaced four out of seven directors at the direction of Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy.

Dunleavy has been an outspoken critic of the project.

Meyer was replaced by Joe Dubler, who took up the role of Alaska Gasline's interim president in January.

Dubler later said the project was being evaluated to determine its viability, and that it could be wound down if it was found to be uneconomic.

However, companies operating on the North Slope continue to support the project as a potential outlet for the stranded gas resource in the area.

In May, Alaska's lieutenant governor said ExxonMobil and BP agreed to contribute a combined $20 million to help develop Alaska LNG.

A final EIS is due in March next year.

Weekly

Supermajors support Alaska LNG project