|
Oil, gas permitting efficiencies proposed
Kristen Nelson Petroleum News
Legislation proposed by Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell would improve efficiencies in oil and gas exploration and development permitting, officials with the Department of Natural Resources told the Senate Special Committee on TAPS Throughput Feb. 26.
The proposal, contained in Senate Bill 59 (and House Bill 129) would allow DNR’s Division of Oil and Gas to consolidate exploration and development approvals and streamline the approval process for plans of operations, while protecting the environment and providing for public participation.
Division of Oil and Gas Director Bill Barron told the committee that the division has asked its clients — both industry and citizens — how it could better do its business and repeatedly heard a desire for “a larger holistic approach for what activities are going to take place in certain geographic areas” and a request that public comment and interaction take place “upfront rather than piecemeal as projects and programs” come to the division.
Wendy Woolf, a petroleum lands manager in the division’s units section, said SB 59 clarifies that DNR “can review each phase” of an exploration or development project “across a geographic area, rather than conducting finite reviews on each individual project, which is the way we currently do it.”
Comparable to areawide leasing The proposal is similar to the state’s areawide leasing program, where a finding is made that oil and gas leasing in an area is in the state’s best interest and mitigation measures and stipulations are laid out in advance of the lease sale.
But the next two phases of oil and gas — exploration and development — are currently handled piecemeal, with individual exploration activities such as seismic and exploration wells each requiring public notice, “a repetitive process,” Woolf said.
The same is true during the development plan phase, where modifications to a plan or the addition of a drilling pad would also trigger additional public notice requirements.
Then, she said, the company with the adjacent lease decides to explore and develop, triggering the same process.
Geographic area identification
SB 59 would allow the division to define a geographic area. The division would then identify permissible activities for the phase — ice roads and ice pads, for example, in the exploration phase.
Woolf said for a defined area the division would come out with an exploration phase decision listing activities it would allow and stipulations and would provide public notice and an opportunity to comment. Based on input received the division would “come out with a decision on the allowable exploration activities within that particular geographic area and the specific conditions that that activity can occur ... under.”
When a permit was submitted for a step in the exploration phase — seismic, for example — the division wouldn’t have to do a public notice. Plans would still have to be approved, but what the division would be doing would be assuring that the plans were in compliance with the decision for the exploration phase.
And companies would still have to get all the permits.
Similar for development The final phase — transportation — the approval of pipelines, would not change under the proposal, Woolf said.
The process would be similar for the development phase, although Woolf said geographic areas for development are expected to be smaller.
Barron said that with looking at projects in a holistic manner, the division still has to review the plan and engage with fellow agencies on specifics.
In discussion with committee members Barron said each of the steps the division takes now is a 60 to 90 day process.
Asked about potential time savings under the proposal, Barron said that there are seven or eight of the 60 to 90 day periods between the exploration and development phase.
| 