The Mountain Valley Pipeline has been flying under the radar for many of us. Here’s the draft and it looks like there are not too many issues that could delay the construction of it.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Friday issued its draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the proposed Mountain Valley Pipeline, saying the controversial line would produce “limited adverse environmental impacts.”
In its nearly 3,400-page review (including 2,600 pages of appendices), FERC said the only exception to limited environmental impacts for the entire 301-mile line would be impacts on forest along the proposed route, Kallanish Energy finds.
Natalie Cox, a spokeswoman for Mountain Valley Pipeline, told the Roanoke (Virginia) Times newspaper the impact statement follows more than two years of project planning and development and collection of data from surveying activities.
It also reflects, Cox said, “the comments, considerations and concerns of landowners, community members, government agencies and local elected officials along the proposed route.”
As proposed, the 301-mile, 42-inch high-pressure Mountain Valley Pipeline would transport natural gas from Wetzel County, West Virginia, to another natural gas transmission pipeline in Pittsylvania County, Virginia.
The line will be constructed and owned by Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC, which is a joint venture of EQT Midstream Partners, NextEra US Gas Assets, Con Edison Gas Midstream, WGL Midstream, Vega Midstream MVP, and RGC Midstream. EQT Midstream will operate the pipeline.
With a vast supply of natural gas from Marcellus and Utica Shale, the Mountain Valley Pipeline is expected to provide up to 2 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) of firm transmission capacity to markets in the Mid- and South Atlantic regions of the U.S.
The project will extend the Equitrans transmission system in Wetzel County to Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Co.’s (Transco) Zone 5 compressor station 165 in Pittsylvania County.
Pipeline opponents said Friday their review of the commission documents was just beginning, but there were expressions of skepticism about FERC’s analysis.
“FERC’s conclusion that adverse environmental effects of the MVP would be limited and will be satisfactorily mitigated by the applicant is ludicrous,” Rick Shingles, a member of Preserve Giles County, told the Roanoke Times.