DOCSLIB.ORG

Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study Plan November 2011 EPA/600/R-11/122 November 2011 Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources Office of Research and Development US Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. November 2011 EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study Plan November 2011 Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study Plan November 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures .................................................................................................................................... vi List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................... vi List of Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................. vii Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... viii 1 Introduction and Purpose of Study ..............................................................................................1 2 Process for Study Plan Development ...........................................................................................3 2.1 Stakeholder Input ............................................................................................................................................ 3 2.2 Science Advisory Board Involvement .............................................................................................................. 5 2.3 Research Prioritization .................................................................................................................................... 6 2.4 Next Steps ....................................................................................................................................................... 7 2.5 Interagency Cooperation ................................................................................................................................. 7 2.6 Quality Assurance ............................................................................................................................................ 8 3 Overview of Unconventional Oil and Natural Gas Production ......................................................9 3.1 Site Selection and Preparation ...................................................................................................................... 12 3.2 Well Construction and Development ............................................................................................................ 13 3.2.1 Types of Wells ........................................................................................................................................ 13 3.2.2 Well Design and Construction ................................................................................................................ 13 3.3 Hydraulic Fracturing ...................................................................................................................................... 15 3.4 Well Production and Closure ......................................................................................................................... 16 3.5 Regulatory Framework .................................................................................................................................. 16 4 The Hydraulic Fracturing Water Lifecycle ................................................................................... 17 5 Research Approach ................................................................................................................... 20 5.1 Analysis of Existing Data ................................................................................................................................ 20 5.2 Case Studies .................................................................................................................................................. 20 5.3 Scenario Evaluations ..................................................................................................................................... 21 5.4 Laboratory Studies ........................................................................................................................................ 21 5.5 Toxicological Studies ..................................................................................................................................... 21 6 Research Activities Associated with the Hydraulic Fracturing Water Lifecycle ............................. 22 6.1 Water Acquisition: What are the potential impacts of large volume water withdrawals from ground and surface waters on drinking water resources? ............................................................................................... 22 6.1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................................ 22 6.1.2 How much water is used in hydraulic fracturing operations, and what are the sources of this water? 24 i EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study Plan November 2011 6.1.2.1 Research Activities – Source Water ................................................................................................ 24 6.1.3 How might water withdrawals affect short- and long-term water availability in an area with hydraulic fracturing activity? ................................................................................................................................. 25 6.1.3.1 Research Activities – Water Availability .......................................................................................... 25 6.1.4 What are the possible impacts of water withdrawals for hydraulic fracturing operations on local water quality? ................................................................................................................................................... 27 6.1.4.1 Research Activities – Water Quality ................................................................................................ 27 6.2 Chemical Mixing: What are the possible impacts of surface spills on or near well pads of hydraulic fracturing fluids on drinking water resources? ............................................................................................. 28 6.2.1 Background ............................................................................................................................................ 28 6.2.2 What is currently known about the frequency, severity, and causes of spills of hydraulic fracturing fluids and additives?............................................................................................................................... 28 6.2.2.1 Research Activities – Surface Spills of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids and Additives .......................... 29 6.2.3 What are the identities and volumes of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids, and how might this composition vary at a given site and across the country? .............................................................. 30 6.2.3.1 Research Activities – Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid Composition ........................................................ 30 6.2.4 What are the chemical, physical, and toxicological properties of hydraulic fracturing chemical additives? ............................................................................................................................................... 31 6.2.4.1 Research Activities – Chemical, Physical, and Toxicological Properties .......................................... 31 6.2.5 If spills occur, how might hydraulic fracturing chemical additives contaminate drinking water resources? .............................................................................................................................................. 32 6.2.5.1 Research Activities – Contamination Pathways .............................................................................. 33 6.3 Well Injection: What are the possible impacts of the injection and fracturing process on drinking water resources? ..................................................................................................................................................... 34 6.3.1 Background ............................................................................................................................................ 34 6.3.1.1 Naturally Occurring Substances ...................................................................................................... 34 6.3.2 How effective are current well construction practices at containing gases and fluids before, during, and after fracturing? .............................................................................................................................. 35 6.3.2.1 Research Activities – Well Mechanical Integrity ............................................................................. 35 6.3.3 Can subsurface migration of fluids or gases to drinking water resources occur, and what local geologic or man-made features may allow this? ................................................................................................. 37 6.3.3.1 Research Activities – Local Geologic and Man-Made Features ...................................................... 38 6.3.4 How might hydraulic fracturing fluids change the fate and transport of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Unconventional Gas and Hydraulic Fracturing Issue Briefing
    Unconventional gas and hydraulic fracturing Issue briefing bp.com/sustainability Unconventional gas and hydraulic fracturing Issue briefing 2 How we operate At BP, we recognize that we need to produce energy responsibly – minimizing impacts to people, communities and the environment. We operate in around 80 countries, and our systems of governance, management and operation are designed to help us conduct our business while respecting safety, environmental, social and financial considerations. Across all BP operations, established practices support the management of potential environmental and social impacts from the pre-appraisal stage through to the operational stage and beyond – reflecting BP’s values, responsibilities and local regulatory requirements. BP’s operating management system integrates BP requirements on health, safety, security, social, environment and operational reliability, as well as maintenance, contractor relations, compliance and organizational learning into a common system. BP participates in a number of joint venture operations, such as in Algeria and Indonesia, to extract unconventional gas. Some of these are under our direct operational control, while others not. When participating in a joint venture not under BP control, we encourage the operator of the joint venture, through dialogue and constructive engagement, to adopt our practices. For more information bp.com/aboutbp bp.com/oms Cover image BP’s gas well drilling site in, Wamsutter, Wyoming, US. The BP Annual Report and Form 20-F may be downloaded from bp.com/annualreport. No material in this document forms any part of those documents. No part of this document constitutes, or shall be taken to constitute, an invitation or inducement to invest in BP p.l.c.
    [Show full text]
  • The Context of Public Acceptance of Hydraulic Fracturing: Is Louisiana
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Master's Theses Graduate School 2012 The context of public acceptance of hydraulic fracturing: is Louisiana unique? Crawford White Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses Part of the Environmental Sciences Commons Recommended Citation White, Crawford, "The onc text of public acceptance of hydraulic fracturing: is Louisiana unique?" (2012). LSU Master's Theses. 3956. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses/3956 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Master's Theses by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING: IS LOUISIANA UNIQUE? A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in The Department of Environmental Sciences by Crawford White B.S. Georgia Southern University, 2010 August 2012 Dedication This thesis is dedicated to the memory of three of the most important people in my life, all of whom passed on during my time here. Arthur Earl White 4.05.1919 – 5.28.2011 Berniece Baker White 4.19.1920 – 4.23.2011 and Richard Edward McClary 4.29.1982 – 9.13.2010 ii Acknowledgements I would like to thank my committee first of all: Dr. Margaret Reams, my advisor, for her unending and enthusiastic support for this project; Professor Mike Wascom, for his wit and legal expertise in hunting down various laws and regulations; and Maud Walsh for the perspective and clarity she brought this project.
    [Show full text]
  • Range Signs Asset Exchange Agreement
    Range Signs Asset Exchange Agreement April 30, 2014 FORT WORTH, TX -- (Marketwired) -- 04/30/14 -- Range Resources Corporation (NYSE: RRC) today announced the execution of an agreement to exchange producing properties and other assets with EQT Corporation (NYSE: EQT). Range will transfer to EQT ownership of approximately 73,000 net acres and related assets in Glasscock and Sterling Counties, Texas comprising all of Range's Conger properties, which are largely held by production. The Conger properties are currently producing approximately 28 Mmcfe per day with 62% being liquids primarily from the Cisco/Canyon. These Permian Basin properties have multiple horizontal and vertical stacked pay drilling opportunities in the Wolfcamp, Cline and Wolfberry horizons. EQT will transfer to Range ownership of EQT's operated interest covering 138,000 net acres and their 50% interest in 1,200 miles of gathering pipelines and compression in the Nora Field of Virginia, giving Range 100% ownership of that asset. In addition, Range will receive $145 million in cash. The Nora properties Range will receive are currently producing approximately 41 Mmcf per day. These properties have multiple vertical and horizontal stacked pay drilling opportunities in the coalbed methane, conventional tight gas intervals and Devonian shale horizons. Range's 2014 capital expenditure budget will remain unchanged at $1.52 billion. The exchange is subject to satisfaction of customary closing conditions, final due diligence and customary post closing adjustments. The transaction is anticipated to be completed in the second quarter of 2014. Range has posted on its website a presentation describing the assets it is receiving in this exchange and the size and scale implications of owning 100% of the working interest and the royalty interest in the Virginia properties now owned by Range.
    [Show full text]
  • Untested Waters: the Rise of Hydraulic Fracturing in Oil and Gas Production and the Need to Revisit Regulation
    Fordham Environmental Law Review Volume 20, Number 1 2009 Article 3 Untested Waters: The Rise of Hydraulic Fracturing in Oil and Gas Production and the Need to Revisit Regulation Hannah Wiseman∗ ∗University of Texas School of Law Copyright c 2009 by the authors. Fordham Environmental Law Review is produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press (bepress). http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/elr UNTESTED WATERS: THE RISE OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING IN OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION AND THE NEED TO REVISIT REGULATION Hannah Wiseman * I. INTRODUCTION As conventional sources of oil and gas become less productive and energy prices rise, production companies are developing creative extraction methods to tap sources like oil shales and tar sands that were previously not worth drilling. Companies are also using new technologies to wring more oil or gas from existing conventional wells. This article argues that as the hunt for these resources ramps up, more extraction is occurring closer to human populations - in north Texas' Barnett Shale and the Marcellus Shale in New York and Pennsylvania. And much of this extraction is occurring through a well-established and increasingly popular method of wringing re- sources from stubborn underground formations called hydraulic frac- turing, which is alternately described as hydrofracturing or "fracing," wherein fluids are pumped at high pressure underground to force out oil or natural gas. Coastal Oil and Gas Corp. v. Garza Energy Trust,1 a recent Texas case addressing disputes over fracing in Hidalgo County, Texas, ex- emplifies the human conflicts that are likely to accompany such creative extraction efforts. One conflict is trespass: whether extend- ing fractures onto adjacent property and sending fluids and agents into the fractures to keep them open constitutes a common law tres- pass.
    [Show full text]
  • Range and Marcellus Presentation (PDF)
    Natural Gas, Range Resources and the Marcellus Shale I. Big Picture II. How Do We Do It? III.Issues and Concerns 2 Range Resources • Natural gas production company • Included in S&P 500 • Committed to Pennsylvania • Regional Headquarters in Washington County • Pioneered Marcellus Shale, 2004 • More than $1 billion invested in Pennsylvania • Employs more than 250 Pennsylvanians, thousands of indirect jobs 3 What is the Marcellus Shale? • Large, natural gas rich, shale formation spanning tens of million of acres • Actual piece of Marcellus Shale core sample • Natural gas and hydrocarbons are trapped inside the solid shale 4 U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Shale Basins 5 Marcellus Shale Formation (compared to aerial extent of Barnett Shale in Texas) ot all of the Marcellus will produce the same arnett provides 5% of US natural gas ost experts believe that Pennsylvania has more natural gas than Saudi Arabia has oil 6 Marcellus is a World Class Discovery f estimated recoverable reserves are accurate at 50 Tcf- 500 Tcf, how does the Marcellus stack up against the largest oil and gas fields in the world? World’s Largest Oil Fields World’s Largest Natural Gas Fields Field, Country Discovery Gb Tcfe Field, Country Discovery Tcf Gboe North Field-South 1976 1400 233 Ghawar, Saudi 1948 80 480 Pars, Qatar-Iran Arabia Urengoy, Russia 1966 222 37 Burgan, Kuwait 1938 60 360 Yamburg, Russia 1969 138 23 Bolivar Coastal, 1917 32 192 Venezuela Hassi R’Mel, 1956 123 20 Algeria Sufaniya, Saudi 1951 30 180 Arabia Shtokman, Russia 1989 110 18 Rumiala, Iraq 1953 20 120 Zapolyarnoye, 1965 95 16 Russia Ahwaz, Iran 1958 17 102 Hugoton, USA 1926 81 13 Marun, Iran 1964 16 96 Groningen, 1959 73 12 Kirkuk, Iraq 1927 16 96 Netherlands Romashkino, 1948 16 96 Bonavenko, 1971 70 12 Russia Russia Tengiz, 1979 15 90 Medvezhye, 1967 68 11 Kazakhstan Russia Source: IPC Petroleum Consulting, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 184/Friday, September
    Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 184 / Friday, September 21, 2001 / Notices 48723 Cleveland Electric Illuminating the distribution and transportation of Company (‘‘NEO Construction’’), a Company (‘‘Cleveland Electric’’), and natural gas. NONGC had total assets of wholly owned subsidiary of NOOCI (the The Toledo Edison Company (‘‘Toledo $18,374,761 and $25,319,652 as of ‘‘LDC Transaction’’). Upon the asset Edison’’), and indirectly owns all of the December 31, 2001, and June 30, 2001, transfer to NEO Construction, NEO issued and outstanding voting securities respectively. Construction became a gas utility of Pennsylvania Power Company (‘‘Penn Effective June 4, 1998, FirstEnergy company under the Act. On July 7, Power’’), and Northeast Ohio Natural acquired all of the outstanding shares of 2000, NEO Construction changed its Gas Corp. (‘‘NONGC’’). Ohio Edison, MARBEL (the ‘‘MARBEL Acquisition’’). name to ‘‘Northeast Ohio Natural Gas Cleveland Electric, Toledo Edison and The MARBEL Acquisition expanded Corp.’’ 4 On March 30, 2001, NOOCI was Penn Power, collectively comprise the FirstEnergy’s products and services to merged into its parent, MARBEL (the ‘‘FirstEnergy Operating Companies.’’ include the exploration, production, ‘‘MARBELL Merger’’). Consequently, the Ohio Edison directly owns 16.5% of the distribution, transmission, and assets of NOOCI, which include all of issued and ouststanding voting marketing of natural gas and oil. Prior the issued and outstanding stock of securities of Ohio Valley Electric to the closing of the MARBEL NONGC, are now owned by MARBEL. Corporation (‘‘OVEC’’), and OVEC owns Acquisition, an internal reorganization In this application, Applicant requests all of the issued and outstanding voting took place within the MARBEL system, that the Commission authorize the securities of Indiana-Kentucky Electric as a result of which NONGC—the only acquisition of all of the issued and Corporation (‘‘IKEC’’).
    [Show full text]
  • UCS TIGHT OIL.Indd
    The Truth about Tight Oil Don Anair Amine Mahmassani Methane from Unconventional Oil Extraction Poses Significant Climate Risks July 2013 Since 2010, “tight oil”—oil extracted from hard- to-access deposits using horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (fracking)—has dramatically changed the US oil industry, reversing decades of declining domestic oil production and reducing US oil imports (EIA 2015a). In 2015, tight oil comprised more than half of US oil produc- 10,000 feet to reach sedimentary rock and then sideways or tion, bringing total production close to 10 million barrels per horizontally for a mile or more. Next, a mixture of water, day—a peak not seen since the 1970s (see Figure 1). But this sand, and chemicals is pumped at high pressure into the wells sudden expansion has also led to an increase of global warm- to create fractures in the rocks, which frees the oil and gas ing emissions due, in large part, to methane—an extremely potent heat-trapping gas that is found in larger concentra- tions in tight oil regions. Although most of the emissions associated with the con- sumption of oil are a result of burning the finished fuel (for example, in a car or truck), the emissions from extracting, transporting, and refining oil add, on average, 35 percent to a fuel’s life cycle emissions. These “upstream” emissions can- not be overlooked when seeking to mitigate emissions from oil use overall. Recent scientific evidence highlights major gaps in our knowledge of these large and rising sources of global warming pollution (Caulton et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Advancing Understanding of Resource Recovery and Environmental Impacts Via Field Laboratories
    Advancing Understanding of Resource Recovery and Environmental Impacts via Field Laboratories Jared Ciferno – Oil and Gas Technology Manager, NETL Upstream Workshop Houston, TX February 14, 2018 The National Laboratory System Idaho National Lab National Energy Technology Laboratory Pacific Northwest Ames Lab Argonne National Lab National Lab Fermilab Brookhaven National Lab Berkeley Lab Princeton Plasma Physics Lab SLAC National Accelerator Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Lawrence Livermore National Lab Oak Ridge National Lab Sandia National Lab Savannah River National Lab Office of Science National Nuclear Security Administration Environmental Management Fossil Energy Nuclear Energy National Renewable Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy Los Alamos Energy Lab National Lab 2 Why Field Laboratories? • Demonstrate and test new technologies in the field in a scientifically objective manner • Gather and publish comprehensive, integrated well site data sets that can be shared by researchers across technology categories (drilling and completion, production, environmental) and stakeholder groups (producers, service companies, academia, regulators) • Catalyze industry/academic research collaboration and facilitate data sharing for mutual benefit 3 Past DOE Field Laboratories Piceance Basin • Multi-well Experiment (MWX) and M-Site project sites in the Piceance Basin where tight gas sand research was done by DOE and GRI in the 1980s • Data and analysis provided an extraordinary view of reservoir complexities and “… played a significant role
    [Show full text]
  • Water Management
    SHALE FACTS Water management Conserving and protecting water resources Statoil is committed to using water responsibly during the life cycle of our development and operating activities. PROTECTING Water used in oil and gas production is sourced from rivers, creeks and GROUNDWATER lakes. This is done in compliance with regulations and permits. The amount of water used during hydraulic fracturing varies according We conduct baseline to geological characteristics. For example, a typical Marcellus horizontal deep shale gas well requires an average of 20.8 million litres (5.5 million assessments to evaluate the gallons) of water per well. The volume needed decreases as technology quality of the groundwater to and methods improve. ensure that our activities are not negatively affecting the freshwater sources in the area. Hydraulic fracturing in the Bakken, United States Freshwater impoundment, Marcellus, United States Statoil is piloting the use how THE water IS USED of returned (produced) Drilling water for hydraulic Drilling fluids (water combined with additives) are used during the drilling fracturing purposes, with process to transport drill cuttings to the surface, stabilise the formation around the wellbore, and clean, cool and lubricate the drillbit. the aim of reducing overall water consumption. Hydraulic fracturing Water is the main component of fracturing fluid; it is pumped into the well at high pressure to fracture the rock. Fracturing fluid is comprised of approximately 99.5% water and proppant (sand or ceramic pellets), and 0.5% chemical additives. Returned water After being injected into the well, a portion of the fracturing fluid will be produced back (returned) to the surface.
    [Show full text]
  • Focus on Hydraulic Fracturing
    INTRODUCTION Focus on Hydraulic Fracturing We have been hydraulically fracturing, or fracking, wells to stimulate the production of natural gas and crude oil for decades. Our Health, Safety and Environment (HSE) Policy and Code of Business Ethics and Conduct mandate that wherever we operate, we will conduct our business with respect and care for the local environment and systematically manage local, regional and global risks to drive sustainable business growth. Our Hydraulic Fracturing Operations Our global governance structures, supported by proprietary policies, standards, practices and guidelines, are subject to performance assurance audits from the business unit and corporate levels. Action plans to outline commitments and support process improvements have been part Montney of our risk management process since 2009. This B R I T I S H COLUMBIA system allows us to effectively address the risks and opportunities related to our development operations through solutions that reduce emissions Bakken and land footprint, manage water sustainably and create value for our stakeholders. Wells MONTANA NORTH We are managing over 2,100 unconventional wells in our DAKOTA portfolio as of June 30, 2018. Niobrara Q2/2018 COLORADO Eagle Ford N E W MEXICO Eagle Ford Bakken Delaware Delaware Niobrara Montney TEXAS ConocoPhillips FOCUS ON HYDRAULIC FRACTURING 1 INTRODUCTION Global Social and Environmental Risk Management Standards and Practices Identify, assess and manage operational risks to the business, employees, contractors, HSE stakeholders and environment. Standard 15 HSE elements Identify, understand, document and address potential risks and liabilities related to health, safety, Due Diligence environment and other social issues prior to binding business transactions. Standard Due diligence risk assessment requirements Minimum, mandatory requirements for management of projects and Capital unconventional programs.
    [Show full text]
  • RANGE RESOURCES CORPORATION (Exact Name of Registrant As Specified in Its Charter)
    UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549 FORM 8-K CURRENT REPORT Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): May 1, 2020 (April 30, 2020) RANGE RESOURCES CORPORATION (Exact name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter) Delaware 001-12209 34-1312571 (State or Other Jurisdiction (IRS Employer of Incorporation) (Commission File Number) Identification No.) 100 Throckmorton Street, Suite 1200 Fort Worth, Texas 76102 (Address of Principal Executive Offices) (Zip Code) Registrant’s Telephone Number, Including Area Code: (817) 870-2601 Not Applicable (Former Name or Former Address, if Changed Since Last Report) Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions (see General Instructions A.2. below): ☐ Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425) ☐ Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12) ☐ Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b)) ☐ Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c)) Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Trading Title of each class Symbol(s) Name of each exchange on which registered Common Stock, $0.01 par value RRC New York Stock Exchange Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an emerging growth company as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act of 1933 (§ 230.405 of this chapter) or Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (§ 240.12b-2 of this chapter).
    [Show full text]
  • Findings Statement for Final SGEIS on Regulatory Program for Horizontal
    FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON THE OIL, GAS AND SOLUTION MINING REGULATORY PROGRAM Regulatory Program for Horizontal Drilling and High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing to Develop the Marcellus Shale and Other Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs FINDINGS STATEMENT June 2015 LEAD AGENCY: NYSDEC LEAD AGENCY CONTACT: EUGENE J. LEFF Deputy Commissioner of Remediation & Materials Management NYSDEC, 625 Broadway, 14th Floor Albany, NY 12233 P: (518) 402-8044 www.dec.ny.gov Pursuant to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), and its implementing regulations set forth at 6 NYCRR Part 617, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation makes the following findings: Lead Agency: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Address: Central Office, 625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12233 Name of Action: Regulatory Program for Horizontal Drilling and High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing to Develop the Marcellus Shale and Other Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs Description of Action: High-volume hydraulic fracturing, which is often used in conjunction with horizontal drilling and multi-well pad development, is an approach to extracting natural gas that raises new and significant adverse impacts not studied in 1992 in the NYSDEC’s previous Generic Environmental Impact Statement on the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program (GEIS). DEC prepared a Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) to satisfy the requirements of SEQRA by studying the high-volume hydraulic fracturing technique, identifying significant adverse impacts for these anticipated operations that were not identified in the GEIS, and identifying mitigation measures to minimize adverse environmental impacts. The SGEIS was therefore used in considering if and under what conditions high-volume hydraulic fracturing should be allowed in New York State.
    [Show full text]