1 / 13

Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting in Pennsylvania Mr . Andrew Paterson

Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting in Pennsylvania Mr . Andrew Paterson VP of Technical and Regulatory, Marcellus Shale Coalition August 1, 2013. 1 | MARCELLUS SHALE COALITION. Pipeline Permitting in PA. Clean Water Act (federal)

raanan
Télécharger la présentation

Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting in Pennsylvania Mr . Andrew Paterson

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting in Pennsylvania Mr. Andrew Paterson VP of Technical and Regulatory, Marcellus Shale Coalition August 1, 2013 1 | MARCELLUS SHALE COALITION

  2. Pipeline Permitting in PA • Clean Water Act (federal) • Section 404 regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the US, including wetlands. It also authorizes the use of general permits should an individual state elect to do so. • Pennsylvania has adopted a State Programmatic General Permit, PASPGP-4, which covers activities that are similar in nature and result in no more than minimal individual or cumulative adverse effects on the aquatic environment. • Nationwide Permits (NWP) are used in other states. 2 | MARCELLUS SHALE COALITION

  3. Pipeline Permitting in PA • Purpose of PASPGP-4 • Protect the aquatic resources of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. • Reduce the administrative burden of duplicative programs and increase efficiency for both the USACE and the PADEP through interagency cooperation. • Improve the regulatory response time. • Add predictability to the permit program for the applicant and general public. 3 | MARCELLUS SHALE COALITION

  4. Permit Duration Data 4 | MARCELLUS SHALE COALITION

  5. PASPGP-4 vs. NWP • Single and Complete Project • “Single & Complete Project” – PASPGP-4 is not consistent with NWP: • Under PASPGP-4, all crossings associated with a specific project are added together for project categorization and review. • Under NWP, each crossing is an independent project that is reviewed separately. 5 | MARCELLUS SHALE COALITION

  6. PASPGP-4 vs. NWP • Temporary Impacts • PASPGP-4 includes temporary impacts when determining permit categorization. • NWP evaluates permanent impacts to waters of the U.S. in the calculation of permit eligibility. It is not necessary to include temporary impacts because by definition, they are mitigated and do not accumulate. 6 | MARCELLUS SHALE COALITION

  7. Temporary Impacts Before After 7 | MARCELLUS SHALE COALITION

  8. Temporary Impacts Before After 8 | MARCELLUS SHALE COALITION

  9. Permit Delays • Affect on Midstream Pipeline Project Permitting • Since fourth Quarter of 2010, the majority of midstream pipeline permits in PA have been classified as “Category III” under PASPGP-4. • The average permit processing is in excess of 145 days (compared to the Nationwide Permit Program 45-60 days). • Despite the increase in review time, there has been no change in permitting outcomes or conditions of construction. 9 | MARCELLUS SHALE COALITION

  10. Consequences of Process Due to the backlog of pipeline permits in Pennsylvania, approximately 600 – 700 Marcellus wells remain shut-in, waiting for pipelines. This affects revenue for both the industry and the royalty owners. This also impacts the economy, which is deprived of readily available natural gas as an energy resource. Pennsylvania is at a competitive disadvantage compared to other states.

  11. Solutions • Solutions to Permit Delays • Eliminate the overall project concept under PASPGP-4 and limit the interpretation of “single and complete project” to the interpretation provided under the NWP. • Monitor cumulative impacts of multiple single and complete projects independently of project review and authorization, as is done under the NWP. • Follow the NWP practice of counting permanent impacts only (not temporary impacts) when determining permit categorization under PASPGP-4. 11 | MARCELLUS SHALE COALITION

  12. Benefits for the Commonwealth • If the Solutions are Implemented: • Permitting in PA will be more timely and predictable. • Natural gas will be delivered more efficiently to the market. • Strong environmental protections will remain in place. • PA will be aligned with the May 17, 2013 Memorandum from President Obama to reduce government review and permitting timelines for infrastructure projects including pipeline projects. 12 | MARCELLUS SHALE COALITION

  13. Thank you! Marcellus Shale Coalition www.marcelluscoalition.org www.learnaboutshale.org www.shaleinsight.com Twitter.com/marcellusgas Facebook.com/marcelluscoalition 13 | MARCELLUS SHALE COALITION

More Related