Home » Services » Natural Gas Regulation » Electronic Docket Index
Draft Addendum to Environmental Review Documents Concerning Exports of Natural Gas from the United States
On August 15, 2014, the Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy published the final Addendum To Environmental Review Documents Concerning Exports Of Natural Gas From The United States (Addendum). The purpose of the Addendum is to provide additional information to the public regarding the potential environmental impacts of unconventional natural gas exploration and production activities. DOE has received many comments related to concerns about the potential impacts from increased development of unconventional natural gas resources in the United States, particularly production that involves hydraulic fracturing. While not required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), DOE has prepared this Addendum in an effort to be responsive to the public and provide the most current information available.

This Addendum is intended to provide information only on the impact areas most often associated with unconventional natural gas production. The Addendum is not the result of new analysis or research, but rather is based on DOE’s review of existing studies and analyses. A key resource in preparing the Addendum was the report Environmental Impacts of Unconventional Natural Gas Development and Production (May 29, 2014), prepared by the National Energy Technology Laboratory, a DOE Laboratory. A link to that report is also included below.

On May 29, 2014, DOE announced the availability for public review and comment the Draft Addendum To Environmental Review Documents Concerning Exports Of Natural Gas From The United States (Draft Addendum). DOE made this Draft Addendum available for public review and comment. The comment period closed on July 21, 2014. DOE considered all comments prior to developing the final Addendum.

Comment period closed.
Related Documents & Comments Library
Indicate comment
1. expand/collapse 6/19/2014 6:25:46 PM Labadia, Carlos Land Use "Vertical wells are typically spaced with 40 acres per well, the drill pads from which each horizontal well originates are typically spaced with 160 acres per well. A single square mile of surface area would require 16 pads for 16 conventional wells, while the same area using horizontal wells would require a single pad for 6 to 8 wells. (NETL, 2009)". How do you rationalise this statement with your chosen depiction in Exhibit 6-1 of what is clearly a County that is heavily populated with the outdated and less-commonly (currently) employed vertical wells? By your own admission... "For example, 6-to-8 horizontal wells can be drilled from a single pad and equal the production of 16 vertical wells developed on 16 pads to cover an area of 1 mile by 1 mile (259 hectares)". If this is true, why have you chosen to display images (i.e., Exhibits 6-1 and 6-2) depicting conventional drilling methods that do not enlighten the reader with visual references to the way that unconventional (i.e., the majority of the Marcellus Shale Play) technology is reducing impacts? At least, you should have shown two aerial photos from the same area; one illustrating the effects of conventional drilling versus one showing the greatly reduced effects of unconventional. This would have been the more intellectually stimulating thing to do. Another point...you state "Locally, each well pad covers about three acres with an equivalent amount for infrastructure, and much of this area remains disturbed through the life of the well, as long as 20 to 40 years". Again, intellectual integrity and verification of aerial photography from wells drilled many years ago dictates that this statement is not true. The greatest land impacts derived from well activities occur during the drilling stage. This stage usually occupies a small fraction of the well cycle (perhaps a few months). After drilling activities are complete, most companies greatly reduce the areal impact of well pad activities and commence the restoration phase. Resource extraction activities require a greatly reduced Project footprint (thereby reducing impacts on the environment); a conclusion that can be applied to pipeline operations as well since pipeline operation (the much longer phase) allows for revegetation and return to previous vegetative conditions (including forest) for approximately 97% of pipeline rights-of-way.
2. expand/collapse 6/26/2014 8:06:08 PM Edes, Joseph General Comment I am writing as a member of Citizens for Huerfano County (CHC), and not as an official representative of CHC. I have read the Draft Addendum and if we know all this about the messy footprint of natural gas drilling, shipping, and associated activities, then why-oh-why do we continue in this direction. The skills of engineers, businessmen, technicians are transferable to 21st century technologies. Math is math, law is law, economics are economics. What are these people afraid of? Let's put our nation on the path that Germany is taking, going to solar and wind technologies. It is so unnecessary to continue with these polluting activities when better sources are at hand. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
3. expand/collapse 7/17/2014 1:10:37 PM Sakmar, Susan General Comment * Request for Extension of Time to Comment * On May 29, 2014, the DOE released a number of documents in connection to proposed changes to the DOE's review process for LNG exports. Together, the documents total hundreds of pages and involve complex issues related to LNG exports, environmental impacts of increased shale gas development, life cycle analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas extraction and exports and a myriad of other related issues. Public comments for all 3 major issues - (1) LNG export procedures, (2) Draft Addendum to Environmental Issues, (3) Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Perspective - are due on July 21, 2014. I intend to comment on all three issues but the 45-comment period for all three issues is not enough time to review and analyze all of the complex issues involved. I respectively request that DOE extend the comment period to 90-days for the Draft Addendum which would allow time for the public to review the large volume of information DOE has released and make useful and relevant comments.
4. expand/collapse 7/18/2014 1:36:59 PM Cooper, Bill General Comment Please see attached comments.
  1. CLNG DOE comments on the Addendum final July 18 2...
5. expand/collapse 7/18/2014 6:37:04 PM Kemp, Stuart General Comment The comments of Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. on the Draft "Addeundum to Environmental Review Documents Concerning Exports of Natural Gas from the United States" are attached.
  1. HESI comments - DOE Draft Addendum.pdf
6. expand/collapse 7/21/2014 7:05:10 AM Sakmar, Susan General Comment Please see attached comments.
  1. Sakmar Comments_DOE LNG Export Change of Procedur...
7. expand/collapse 7/21/2014 1:19:57 PM Meadows, Stephanie General Comment Please find the Submission of the American Petroleum Institute Regarding DOE's Draft Upstream Addendum Attached as a PDF file.
  1. 14 July 21 Final API Comments on DOE draft Enviro...
8. expand/collapse 7/21/2014 3:04:47 PM MacMillan, Hugh General Comment Please find comments and signatories attached.
  1. CHPNY Fracking Compendium_woal.pdf
  2. Sign_on_letter_to_Obama-Moniz_re_DOE_reports_7 21...
9. expand/collapse 7/21/2014 3:24:23 PM Schue, Keith General Comment Please accept the attached comments and related material on the Addendum to Environmental Review Documents Concerning Exports of Natural Gas from the U.S. These comments pertain to unconventional natural gas development, which is the subject of the Addendum and related DOE background information, and they apply to each of the report subjects. This is submitted on behalf of Americans Against Fracking and others listed as signatory organizations.
  1. Gillen-Kiviat-Fracking threats to species with re...
  2. CHPNY Fracking Compendium_woal.pdf
  3. Comments on DOE addendum_7-21-14.pdf
  4. Howarth -- A Bridge to Nowhere.pdf
  5. TNC - Impacts of hydrofracking on forest resource...
10. expand/collapse 7/21/2014 3:47:30 PM Faggert, Pamela General Comment Comments of Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP Concerning: (1) the Proposed Changes in Procedures For LNG Export Decisions, (2) the Draft Addendum to Environmental Review Documents Concerning Exports of Natural Gas from the United States and (3) the Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Perspective on Exporting Liquefied Natural Gas from the United States - Please see attached.
  1. DCP comments on DOE LNG environmental reports 7 2...
11. expand/collapse 7/21/2014 4:05:26 PM Bowman, Erica General Comment Please see attached comments of America's Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA).
  1. ANGA Comments to LNG Export Environmental Addendu...
12. expand/collapse 7/21/2014 4:21:20 PM Eatherington, Francis General Comment Please consider the attached comments from Cascadia Wildlands on the Addendum to Environmental Review Documents Considering Exports of LNG from the U.S.
  1. CascadiaWildlands addendum comments.pdf
13. expand/collapse 7/21/2014 4:22:29 PM LoBaugh, Les General Comment Please see attached Addendum to Environmental Analaysis
  1. Freeport LNG et al - Comments on Addendum to Env...
14. expand/collapse 7/23/2014 11:07:39 AM Wurth, Emily General Comment See attached.
  1. Sign_on_letter_to_Obama-Moniz_re_DOE_reports_7.21...
  2. CHPNY Fracking CompendiumJuly11_woal.pdf
15. expand/collapse 7/23/2014 1:34:35 PM Matthews, Nathan General Comment See attached.
  1. Comment Letter from Sierra Club (21July2014).pdf
  2. Ex. 01 - EIA Moduling System Overview.pdf
  3. Ex. 02 - Model Documentation.pdf
  4. Ex. 03 - EIA Documentation of Oil and Gas Supply ...
  5. Ex. 04 - Deloitte Analysis for Excelerate.pdf
  6. Ex. 05 - Oil and Gas Water Use in Texas - update....
  7. Ex. 06 - Environmental Public Health Dimensions o...
  8. Ex. 07 - Jackson EPA Hydraulic Fracturing 2011-10...
  9. Ex. 08 - Myers potential pathways.pdf
  10. Ex. 09 - Review of Phase II Hydrogeologic Study.p...
  11. Ex. 10 - EPA_ReportOnPavillion_Dec-8-2011 - part ...
  12. Ex. 10 - EPA_ReportOnPavillion_Dec-8-2011 - part ...
  13. Ex. 11 - USGS Pavilion Report.pdf
  14. Ex. 12 - myers-tech-memo-093012.pdf
  15. Ex. 13 - Fracking Nature News and Comment.pdf
  16. Ex. 14- Myers Pavilion.pdf
  17. Ex. 15 - EPA Region 8.pdf
  18. Ex. 16 - Action Memo Dimock.pdf
  19. Ex. 17 - EPA Completes Drinking Water.pdf
  20. Ex. 18 - Sunday Times review of DEP drilling reco...
  21. Ex. 19 - Kemball Cook Ozone Impacts.pdf
  22. Ex. 20 - Air and Waste Management.pdf
  23. Ex. 21 - Air Quality Designations for 2008 Ozone ...
  24. Ex. 22 - Schnell.pdf
  25. Ex. 23 - WY Governor Rushin Letter.pdf
  26. Ex. 24 - Sublette County Daily Ozone AQI.pdf
  27. Ex. 25 - Koch article.pdf
  28. Ex. 26 - WY Dept Health - OzoneReport.pdf
  29. Ex. 27 - Pinedale DEQ Ozone Advisories.pdf
  30. Ex. 28 - Pinedale Ozone Advisory for Feb. 28.pdf
  31. Ex. 29 - DEQ 2014 winter ozone Pinedale Online.pd...
  32. Ex. 30 - Utah Dept of Envl Quality.pdf
  33. Ex. 31 - Utah DEQ Uinta Basin Ozone.pdf
  34. Ex. 32 - GASCO DEIS.pdf
  35. Ex. 33 - CO Air Quality Control Comn Presentation...
  36. Ex. 34 - CO Comn O and G Stats.pdf
  37. Ex. 35 - CO AQCC 2013 Summer Ozone.pdf
  38. Ex. 36 - CO Dept Health Forecasting.pdf
  39. Ex. 37 - Four Corners Air Quality Task Force Repo...
  40. Ex. 38 - Myers- Association Btwn Ambient.pdf
  41. Ex. 39 - Regional Impacts of Oil and Gas Developm...
  42. Ex. 40 - Rodriguez et al OandG Impacts.pdf
16. expand/collapse 7/25/2014 1:48:09 PM McCaffree, Jody General Comment Please consider attached comments and exhibits. (DOE/FE note: Portions of these exhibits are being withheld pending redaction of Personally Identifiable Information. A redacted version of this document will be posted when that process is complete.)
  1. DOE_CALNG-McCaffree_7-21-2014_Comments.pdf
  2. DOE_July-21-2014_CALNG-McCaffree_Exhibits_portion...
17. expand/collapse 8/7/2014 10:41:18 AM Matthews, Nathan General Comment See Attached
  1. 1_Redacted.pdf
  2. 2_Redacted.pdf
  3. 3_Redacted.pdf
  4. 4_Redacted.pdf
  5. 5_Redacted.pdf
  6. 6_Redacted.pdf
  7. 7_Redacted.pdf
  8. 8_Redacted.pdf
  9. 9_Redacted.pdf
  10. 10_Redacted.pdf
  11. 11_Redacted.pdf
  12. 12_Redacted.pdf
  13. 13_Redacted.pdf
  14. 14_Redacted.pdf
  15. 15_Redacted.pdf
  16. 16_Redacted.pdf
  17. 17_Redacted.pdf
  18. 18_Redacted.pdf
  19. 19_Redacted.pdf
  20. 20_Redacted.pdf
  21. 21_Redacted.pdf
  22. 22_Redacted.pdf
  23. 23_Redacted.pdf
  24. 24_Redacted.pdf
  25. 25_Redacted.pdf
  26. 26_Redacted.pdf
  27. 27_Redacted.pdf
  28. 28_Redacted.pdf
  29. 29_Redacted.pdf
  30. 30_Redacted.pdf
  31. 31_Redacted.pdf
  32. 32_Redacted.pdf
  33. 33_Redacted.pdf
  34. 34_Redacted.pdf
  35. 35_Redacted.pdf
  36. 36_Redacted.pdf
  37. 37_Redacted.pdf
  38. 38_Redacted.pdf
  39. 39_Redacted.pdf
  40. 40_Redacted.pdf
  41. 41_Redacted.pdf
  42. 42_Redacted.pdf
  43. 43_Redacted.pdf
  44. 44_Redacted.pdf
  45. 45_Redacted.pdf
  46. 46_Redacted.pdf
  47. 47_Redacted.pdf
  48. 48_Redacted.pdf
  49. 49_Redacted.pdf
  50. 50_Redacted.pdf
  51. 51_Redacted.pdf
  52. 52_Redacted.pdf
  53. 53_Redacted.pdf
  54. 54_Redacted.pdf
  55. 55_Redacted.pdf
  56. 56_Redacted.pdf
  57. 57_Redacted.pdf
  58. 58_Redacted.pdf
  59. 59_Redacted.pdf
  60. 60_Redacted.pdf
  61. 61_Redacted.pdf
  62. 62_Redacted.pdf
  63. 63_Redacted.pdf
  64. 64_Redacted.pdf
  65. 65_Redacted.pdf
  66. 66_Redacted.pdf
  67. 67_Redacted.pdf
  68. 68_Redacted.pdf
  69. 69_Redacted.pdf
  70. 70_Redacted.pdf
  71. 71_Redacted.pdf
  72. 72_Redacted.pdf
  73. 73_Redacted.pdf
  74. 74_Redacted.pdf
  75. 75_Redacted.pdf
  76. 76_Redacted.pdf
  77. 77_Redacted.pdf
  78. 78_Redacted.pdf
  79. 79_Redacted.pdf
  80. 80_Redacted.pdf
  81. 81_Redacted.pdf
  82. Transmittal Letter from Sierra Club for 40 468 Pu...