A federal appeals court denied a protest brought against the government’s approval of a project meant to supply natural gas to Woodside Energy’s Louisiana LNG export facility.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) performed the required work for the project, the court said in ruling against the claims an environmental impact study was insufficient.

The case goes back to April 2023, before Australian-based Woodside bought the project from Tellurian.

Last spring, the FERC permitted Tellurian’s Driftwood Pipeline company to build and operate lines 200 and 300—two 30-mile parallel natural gas pipelines. The project was to expand Driftwood LNG’s connections with pipeline networks in southwestern Louisiana.

Environmental groups Healthy Gulf and Sierra Club filed a protest against the pipelines with the Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, which typically hears cases that involve the FERC.

A three-judge panel heard arguments in September 2024.

Woodside acquired Tellurian for $900 million in October 2024 and renamed the Driftwood project to Louisiana LNG. In February, the company was exploring partnerships for the project, according to a Reuters report. The project remains under development. 

A Woodside spokesman said the company "welcomes the decision of the D.C. circuit court," in an email to Hart Energy. The company is targeting the project to be ready for a final investment decision before the second half of 2025.  

Lines 200 and 300 would connect Louisiana LNG to existing pipeline networks north of Lake Charles. The two lines would work in tandem with the proposed Driftwood Mainline project, the primary line of supply for the export facility.

As in several previous cases, the environmental groups claimed the FERC did not take into account the market demand for the project and the total impact an LNG facility would have on upstream and downstream greenhouse-gas emissions.

The court ruled the FERC fulfilled its obligations according to the law.

“‘Our role is not to flyspeck an agency’s environmental analysis’” but instead to “‘ensure that the agency has adequately considered and disclosed the environmental impact of its actions,’” Circuit Judge Bradley Garcia wrote, referring to the current judicial standard.

Comments