Dirok Development Field Draft EIA HOEC 180215

Environmental
Clearance
for Developmental Wells,
GGS, Pipeline and
GPP in the Block AAPON
94/1, Dirok, Tinsukia
District, Assam
Draft EIA Report
Prepared for:

Hindustan Oil Exploration Company Limited

Prepared by:

SENES Consultants India Pvt. Ltd.
Accreditation No. – NABET/EIA/1013/43

February, 2015
EIA for Dirok Development Field
DRAFT REPORT
M/s Hindustan Oil Exploration Company Limited
Environmental Clearance for

Developmental Wells, GGS, Pipeline and
GPP in the Block AAP-ON-94/1, Dirok,
Tinsukia District, Assam
The EIA report preparation have been undertaken in compliance with the approved ToR
issued by MoEF vide letter no. F. No. J-11011/245/2014-IA II (I) dated 9th December,
2014.Information and content provided in the report is factually correct for the purpose and
objective for such study undertaken.
SENES ii HOEC
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................1
1 Introduction..................................................................................................................15
1.1 Background ..................................................................................................................15
1.2 Objectives of the study.................................................................................................22
1.3 Scope of the study........................................................................................................22
1.4 Structure of the EIA report ..........................................................................................23
2 Description of the Project ............................................................................................24
2.1 Overview......................................................................................................................24
2.2 Objectives of Proposed Development Project .............................................................24
2.3 AAP-ON-94/1 Block Location & Description ............................................................24
2.3.1 Location .......................................................................................................................24
2.3.2 Accessibility.................................................................................................................25
2.4 AAP-ON-94/1 Block- Dirok Development Field ........................................................30
2.4.1 Environmental Settings of Dirok Development Field .................................................30
2.4.2 Existing Activity in the Block......................................................................................33
2.5 Location of Wells, Proposed GPP and GGS................................................................33
2.6 Environmental Settings of Wells, GGS, GPP and Pipeline .........................................34
2.6.1 Wells and GGS ............................................................................................................34
2.6.2 Environmental Setting of GPP.....................................................................................43
2.6.3 Pipeline ........................................................................................................................45
2.7 Proposed Project Activities..........................................................................................49
2.8 Drilling Activity...........................................................................................................49
2.8.1 Pre-drilling Activity .....................................................................................................49
2.8.2 Drilling Activity...........................................................................................................54
2.8.3 Well Decommissioning................................................................................................60
2.9 Gas Gathering Station (GGS) ......................................................................................61
2.9.1 Pre- Construction activity ............................................................................................61
2.9.2 Site Construction..........................................................................................................61
2.10 Gas Processing Plant (GPP).........................................................................................62
2.10.1 Pre- Construction activity ............................................................................................63
2.10.2 Site Construction..........................................................................................................64
2.10.3 GPP Components .........................................................................................................64
2.10.4 Process Flow ................................................................................................................67
2.11 Pipeline Laying ............................................................................................................68
SENES ii HOEC
2.11.1 Construction Consideration – River and Water Channel.............................................73

2.12 Utilities & Resource Requirements .............................................................................74
2.12.1 Power Supply ...............................................................................................................74
2.12.2 Water Consumption and Supply ..................................................................................74
2.12.3 Fuel Consumption........................................................................................................74
2.12.4 Accommodation and Campsites ..................................................................................75
2.13 Pollution Sources and Characterization .......................................................................77
2.13.1 Noise and Vibrations....................................................................................................77
2.13.2 Air Emissions...............................................................................................................78
2.13.3 Liquid wastes ...............................................................................................................79
2.13.4 Solid and Hazardous Waste Streams ...........................................................................80
2.14 Drilling Hazards...........................................................................................................81
2.15 Project Cost..................................................................................................................81
3 Description of the Environment...................................................................................82
3.1 Study area.....................................................................................................................82
3.2 Physical Environment ..................................................................................................84
3.2.1 Climate and meteorology.............................................................................................84
3.2.2 Ambient Air Quality ....................................................................................................86
Details of ambient air quality results are presented in Annexure 3.3. .....................................91
3.2.3 Ambient Noise Quality ................................................................................................91
3.2.4 Topography ..................................................................................................................94
3.2.5 Physiography and Geology ..........................................................................................94
3.2.6 Hydrogeology ..............................................................................................................98
3.2.7 Ground Water Quality................................................................................................100
3.2.8 Drainage.....................................................................................................................106
3.2.9 Surface water quality .................................................................................................108
3.2.10 Land-Use and Land Cover .........................................................................................111
3.2.11 Soil Quality ................................................................................................................115
3.2.12 Natural Hazards .........................................................................................................119
3.3 Ecological Environment.............................................................................................119
3.3.1 Methodology ..............................................................................................................120
3.3.2 Terrestrial Ecosystem.................................................................................................122
3.3.3 Aquatic Ecosystem.....................................................................................................133
3.3.4 Agricultural Diversity ................................................................................................134
3.4 Socioeconomic Environment .....................................................................................134
SENES iii HOEC

3.5 Area of Impact ...........................................................................................................135

3.6 Methodology ..............................................................................................................136
3.7 General Socioeconomic Profile .................................................................................137
3.8 Basic Amenities and Infrastructure............................................................................144
3.9 Cultural and historical sites........................................................................................146
4 Anticipated Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................................147
4.1 Impact Assessment Methodology ..............................................................................147
4.1.1 Impact Criteria and Ranking......................................................................................147
4.1.2 Impact Significance ...................................................................................................149
4.2 Impact Assessment.....................................................................................................153
4.2.1 Visual Impacts & Aesthetics......................................................................................153
4.2.2 Impacts on Air Quality...............................................................................................155
4.2.3 Impact on Noise Quality ............................................................................................161
4.2.4 Impact on Soil Quality ...............................................................................................166
4.2.5 Impact on Topography & Drainage ...........................................................................169
4.2.6 Impact on Surface Water Quality ..............................................................................171
4.2.7 Impact on Ground Water Quality ..............................................................................174
4.2.8 Impact on Biological Environment............................................................................175
4.2.9 Impact on Socioeconomic Environment....................................................................179
4.2.10 Impact on Occupational Health and Safety ...............................................................182
4.2.11 Community Health & Safety .....................................................................................182
5 Analysis of Alternatives.............................................................................................188
5.1 GPP Location .............................................................................................................188
5.2 Pipeline Alignment ....................................................................................................188
6 Additional Studies......................................................................................................191
6.1 Quantitative Risk Assessment....................................................................................191
6.1.1 Objective of the QRA Study ......................................................................................191
6.1.2 Risk Assessment Methodology..................................................................................192
6.1.3 Pipeline Failure Frequency Analysis .........................................................................194
6.1.4 Process Leak – Frequency Analysis ..........................................................................197
6.1.5 Blow Out – Frequency Analysis ................................................................................198
6.1.6 Consequence Analysis ...............................................................................................199
6.1.7 Individual Risk...........................................................................................................206
6.1.8 Risk Mitigation Measures ..........................................................................................208
6.1.9 Emergency Management ...........................................................................................211
SENES iv HOEC
6.1.10 Emergency Response - Organizational Structure ......................................................211

6.1.11 Emergency Classification ..........................................................................................213
6.1.12 Emergency Response Procedure................................................................................215
6.2 Compliance to Previous EC Conditions ....................................................................217
7 Project Benefits..........................................................................................................224
8 Environmental Management Plan..............................................................................225
8.1 Environment Management Plans ...............................................................................225
8.1.1 Air Quality Management Plan ...................................................................................226
8.1.2 Noise Management Plan ............................................................................................228
8.1.3 Soil Quality Management Plan ..................................................................................229
8.1.4 Site Closure Plan........................................................................................................232
8.1.5 Surface Water Quality Management Plan..................................................................233
8.1.6 Ground Water Quality Management Plan..................................................................235
8.1.7 Waste Management Plan............................................................................................236
8.1.8 Flare & Illumination Management Plan ....................................................................240
8.1.9 Spill Management Plan ..............................................................................................240
8.1.10 Greenbelt Management Plan......................................................................................241
8.1.11 Wildlife Management Plan ........................................................................................243
8.1.12 Road Safety & Traffic Management Plan..................................................................245
8.1.13 Occupational Health & Safety Management Plan .....................................................247
8.1.14 Management of Social Issues and Concerns..............................................................248
8.2 Environmental Management System and Monitoring ...............................................250
8.2.1 HOEC Environment Management Policy and System ..............................................252
8.2.2 Roles & Responsibility ..............................................................................................253
8.2.3 Environmental Monitoring Program..........................................................................258
8.3 Budgetary Provisions for EMP Implementation........................................................267
9 Disclosure of Consultants ..........................................................................................273
SENES v HOEC
List of Tables
Table 1-1: Compliance to MoEF ToR .....................................................................................16
Table 2-1: Coordinates of Existing and Proposed Well, Proposed GGS and GPP
Locations......................................................................................................................33
Table 2-2: Quantity of Construction Materials Required for Each New Well ........................51
Table 2-3: Hole Sizes And Depths of The Drill Sites..............................................................54
Table 2-4: Quantity of Construction Materials Required for GPP ..........................................64
Table 2-5: Typical Noise Emissions from Construction Machinery .......................................77
Table 2-6: Drilling rig and equipment noise level ...................................................................78
Table 2-7: Liquid Wastes Generated and Disposal..................................................................79
Table 2-8: Waste Generated and Their Disposal .....................................................................80
Table 3-1: Ambient Air Quality Results..................................................................................90
Table 3-2: Ground water Monitoring Results........................................................................103
Table 3-3: Surface Water Quality Results .............................................................................109
Table 3-4: Soil Analysis Results............................................................................................117
Table 3-5: Distance of the Existing and Proposed Facility from WLS .................................122
Table 3-6: Primate and Primate Habitat.................................................................................128
Table 3-7: Scheduled Animal Species in the Study Area ......................................................132
Table 3-8: List of the study area villages in Dirok Development Field in Tinsukia District 135
Table 3-9: Demographic Profile selected villages near to proposed well location in Dirok
Development Field.....................................................................................................140
Table 3-10: work force participation of selected villages near to proposed well location in
Dirok Development Field ..........................................................................................142
Table 4-1: Impact Prediction Criteria ....................................................................................148
Table 4-2: Criteria based Significance of Impacts.................................................................149
Table 4-3: Impact Identification Matrix ................................................................................151
Table 4-4: Input Parameters Considered for Monitoring.......................................................157
Table 4-5: Predicted GLCs for Air Pollutants .......................................................................157
Table 4-6:– Distance at Which Ambient Noise Standards are Met .......................................165
Table 4-7: Impact Significance Matrix (without mitigation).................................................184
Table 4-8: Impact Significance Matrix (with mitigation)......................................................186
Table 6-1: Scenarios for QRA Study .....................................................................................193
Table 6-2: Primary Gas Pipeline Failure Frequency..............................................................194
Table 6-3: Natural Gas Pipeline Failure Frequency ..............................................................195
Table 6-4: Natural Gas Connectivity - Probability of Jet Fire...............................................197
SENES vi HOEC
Table 6-5: Leak Frequencies from Process Equipment .........................................................198

Table 6-6: Pipeline Design Specifications.............................................................................199
Table 6-7: Threshold Values for each Effect Level...............................................................200
Table 6-8: Threat Zone Distance for Hypothetical Risk Scenarios .......................................204
Table 6-9: Natural Gas Release Modeling Scenarios ............................................................205
Table 6-10: Individual Risk – Pipeline Rupture ....................................................................208
Table 6-11: Compliance Report for Environmental Clearance File No. J-11011/112/2009-
IA II (I) dated April 09, 2009 for the period April to September 2014 .....................218
Table 8-1: Suggestive List of the Species for Dust pollution abatements .............................242
Table 8-2: Proposed Monitoring Requirements of the Project ..............................................259
Table 8-3: Budget for Environmental & Social Management Plan......................................267
List of Figures
Figure 2-1: Regional Setting Map of Dirok Development Field .............................................26
Figure 2-2: Dirok Development Field Location Map on Toposheet .......................................27
Figure 2-3: Dirok Development Field Location Map on Satellite Imagery.............................28
Figure 2-4: Accessibility Map .................................................................................................29
Figure 2-5: Environmental Settings of Dirok Development Field..........................................32
Figure 2-6: Environmental Setting of Dirok 1 and Dirok 2 Sites ............................................36
Figure 2-7: Environmental Setting of Dirok 4 and GGS .........................................................37
Figure 2-8: Environmental Setting of Dirok 5.........................................................................39
Figure 2-9: Environmental Setting of Dirok 6.........................................................................40
Figure 2-10: Environmental Setting of Dirok 7.......................................................................42
Figure 2-11: Environmental Setting of GPP............................................................................44
Figure 2-12: Environmental Setting of Pipeline alignment .....................................................48
Figure 2-13: Schematic Layout of Drill Site............................................................................53
Figure 2-14: Typical Drilling Rig Configuration.....................................................................55
Figure 2-15: Drilling Waste Management ...............................................................................59
Figure 2-16: Typical Drilling Fluid Circulation System..........................................................60
Figure 2-17: Process Flow Diagram of the GGS .....................................................................62
Figure 2-18: Schematic Lay Out of the GPP ...........................................................................67
Figure 2-19: Water Balance Diagram ......................................................................................76
Figure 3-1: Study Area Map ....................................................................................................83
Figure 3-2: Wind Rose Diagram for Winter Season................................................................86
Figure 3-3: Average PM10 Values at the Monitoring Locations ............................................88
SENES vii HOEC

Figure 3-4: Average PM2.5 Values at the Monitoring Locations ...........................................88

Figure 3-5: Average NO2 Values at the Monitoring Locations ..............................................89
Figure 3-6: Average SO2 Values at the Monitoring Locations ...............................................89
Figure 3-7: Day and Night Time Equivalent Noise Levels .....................................................92
Figure 3-8: Location of Air, Noise Monitoring Locations within the Dirok Development
Field and Surrounding Areas .......................................................................................93
Figure 3-9: Topography Map...................................................................................................95
Figure 3-10: Regional Statigraphy of the Area........................................................................96
Figure 3-11: Regional Geological Setting of the Area ............................................................97
Figure 3-12: major tectonic features in the north-east Indian region.......................................98
Figure 3-13: Depth to Water Level During Pre-monsoon in Dirok Development Field .........99
Figure 3-14: Depth to Water Level During Post-monsoon in Dirok Development Field .......99
Figure 3-15: Location of Groundwater, Surface Water and Soil Monitoring Locations
within the Dirok Development Field and Surrounding Areas ...................................105
Figure 3-16: Drainage Map of Dirok Development Field .....................................................107
Figure 3-17: Percentage Land Use Land Cover Distribution of Well Cluster Study Area....112
Figure 3-18: Percentage Land Use Land Cover Distribution of Pipeline Study Area...........112
Figure 3-19: Land Use Land Cover Map of Well Cluster Study Area ..................................113
Figure 3-20: Land Use Land Cover Map of Pipeline Study Area .........................................114
Figure 3-21: Seismic Zone Map of India...............................................................................119
Figure 3-22: Ecological Sensitivity Map ...............................................................................127
Figure 3-23: Distribution of male and female population in selected villages in Dirok
Development Field.....................................................................................................138
Figure 3-24: Sex wise literacy rate in selected villages in Dirok Development Field...........139
Figure 3-25: Work Class distribution of selected villages in Dirok Development Field.......143
Community consultation in selected villages in Dirok Development Field ..........................146
Figure 4-1: Predicted PM Concentration Plot (3x670+1x134 KW DG Set) .........................158
Figure 4-2: Predicted HC Concentration Plot (3x670+1x134 KW DG Set) .........................159
Figure 4-3: Predicted NO2 Concentration Plot (3x670+1x134 KW DG Set) + Test
Flaring ........................................................................................................................160
Figure 4-4: Noise Attenuation Plot for Drilling Phase ..........................................................163
Figure 5-1: Alternative Pipeline Alignments for Dirok Development Project .....................190
Figure 6-1: Natural Gas Pipeline Failure – Distribution of Incident & Causes.....................195
Figure 6-2: Threat Zone Plot for Jet Fire – 1” Dia Leak .......................................................201
Figure 6-3: Threat Zone Plot for Jet Fire - 8” Pipeline Rupture............................................202
Figure 6-4: Threat Zone Plot for Jet Fire - 12” Pipeline Rupture..........................................203
SENES viii HOEC

Figure 6-5: VCE Modeling Results for Overpressure ...........................................................204

Figure 6-6: Worst Case – Overpressure Risk Modeling Results for Blowout.......................206
Figure 6-7: Tolerance Criteria For Individual Risks..............................................................207
Figure 6-8: Emergency Response Organizational Chart .......................................................213
Figure 6-9: Emergency Classification “Decision Tree” ........................................................214
Figure 8-1: Organogram For Hse Management.....................................................................253
Figure 8-2: Non-Compliance Reporting Protocol..................................................................254
SENES ix HOEC
Abbreviation
ALARP As Low As Reasonably Practicable
BOD Biological Oxygen Demand
BOP Blow out Preventor
Cd Cadmium
CGWB Central Ground Water Board
COD Chemical Oxygen Demand
CPCB Central Pollution Control Board
Cr Chromium
CSR Corporate Social Responsibility
Cu Copper
DG Diesel Generator
DGH Directorate General of Hydrocarbons
DMP Disaster Management Plan
DO Dissolved Oxygen
EC Environmental Clearance
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EMP Environment Management Plan
ETP Effluent Treatment Plant
FC Forest Clearance
GGS Gas Gathering Station
GoI Government of India
GPP Gas Processing Plant
HC Hydrocarbon
HDPE High Density Polyethylene
HOEC Hindustan Oil Exploration Company
HSD High Speed Diesel
HSE Health, Safety and Environmental
IMD Indian Meteorological Department
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature & Natural Resources
SENES x HOEC
KCl Potassium Chloride

KLD Kilo Liter per Day
KW Kilo Watt
MoEF Ministry of Environment and Forests
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NABET National Accreditation Board for Education and Training
NABL National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories
NELP New Exploration Licensing Policy
NH National Highway
NOx Oxides of Nitrogen
O&G Oil & Gas
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Pb Lead
PEL Petroleum Exploration License
PM Particulate Matter
PPE Personnel Protective Equipments
PSC Production Sharing Contract
PUCC Pollution Under Control Certificate
QCI Quality Council of India
QRA Quantitative Risk Assessment
RF Reserved Forest
SO2 Sulphur Dioxide
SPCB State Pollution Control Board
SPL Sound Pressure Level
TDS Total Dissolved Solid
TG Tea Garden
TSS Total Suspended Solids
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
WBM Water Based Mud
WLS Wild Life Sanctuary
SENES xi HOEC
Executive Summary
INTRODUCTION
The Block AAP-ON-94/1 was first awarded for exploration to Joint Venture Consortium (of
HOEC, OIL and IOCL) by the Government of India (GoI) with HOEC as the operator of the
Block. Following successful discovery of natural gas in the Dirok Field in the Block the
Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (MoPNG) has approved the Dirok discovery as
commercial. Currently the consortium is planning to drill development wells, construct a Gas
Gathering Station (GGS) and Gas Processing Plant (GPP) for gas processing and associated
transportation pipelines. HOEC had submitted Form-1 of the EIA Notification, along with a
Draft Terms of Reference (ToR) for EIA study to MoEF. MoEF has issued approved ToR
vide letter No. J-11011/245/2014-IA II (I) dated 9th December, 2014. The EIA study
comprised of initial scoping & site visit, environmental monitoring & surveys, preparation of
draft EIA-EMP report for Public Hearing (PH).
Block Location & Accessibility

The Block AAP-ON-94/1 is located in Assam-Arakan Basin and falls within geologically
complex Schuppen Thrust Belt. It is located in Tinsukia District of the State of Assam, NE
India. This block covers approximately 305 sq. km area. The geographic location of the block
AAP-ON-94/1, Dirok Field is included within the Survey of India’s Topo- Sheet No.
83M/11.
The proposed project activity will be coming within Tinsukia district of Assam and proposed
project units i.e. wells, GGS and GPP can be accessed from Digboi town by NH-38 and
Margherita-Deomali Road. Dirok Tea Estates internal Road network shall be used as
approached road to reach well locations from access road. Major towns near proposed project
locations are Digboi, Tinsukia, Margherita, Doom Dooma & Makum.
Digboi railway station is located at distance of approximately 3 km in North from proposed
GPP location and approximately 18 km from the existing and proposed wells and proposed
GGS locations. Dibrugarh is the nearest airport located at distance of 80 km in North –West
direction from Digboi.
Land Lease
For three newly proposed wells and proposed GPP location, HOEC will procure the land
from the Dirok Tea Garden on long term lease through private negotiation. Total land
requirement for each of the drill sites would be about 2.0 hectares (approx). In the case that
the activity on site may get extended beyond the current project schedule, the leases will be
renewed from time-to-time. Like each drilling well, land for construction of GPP would also
SENES 1 HOEC
be taken by HOEC from private land owner on long-term lease. For proposed GPP,
agricultural land will be procured on long term lease.
A total of 25 km underground pipeline will be laid alongside existing road. The land for
laying the pipeline will be acquired on Right of Use (RoU) basis. Pipeline will be planned
within RoU of access roads/high ways with the permission of land owners, local authorities
and related government departments. For the stretch of pipeline which will be laid in the
forest land of Upper Dihing a forest clearance will be obtained from forest department. The
land for laying the underground pipeline will be used under the provisions of the Right of
User of Land (Petroleum and Pipelines Act, 1962). About 0.3 km pipeline would be laid
beneath the river bed of Burhi Dihing River, for which necessary permission would be
obtained.
All the proposed drill sites, GGS and GPP are away from human habitation; therefore
resettlement and rehabilitation is not applicable for this project.
PROJECT ACTIVITIES
The proposed project activity can be divided in four major activities as described below:
Drilling Activity
• Site selection: Suitable drilling locations were selected based on the physical (terrain
and access) technical suitability and detailed survey on drill site and access road
survey.
• Land acquisition: Land will be taken through long term lease.
• Site access road and drill site construction: Site preparation will involve all
activities required to facilitate the operation of the drilling rig and associated
equipments and machineries. Construction of site access road will not require and as
far as possible, existing roads will be used and widening as well as strengthening of
roads will be done if required. Drill site construction shall involve construction of
platforms, construction of camp site, construction of storage area and construction of
waste pits.
• Pre-drilling activities, rig mobilization and rigging up: This process involves
transport of rig including auxiliary equipments and assembling of various rig parts
and equipment to drill a well
• Initial well construction: Top-hole section will be drilled to a desired depth based on
well design. After drilling top-hole section, “Casing” will be done. After running
casing, space between hole wall and “Casing” will be cemented. Once each section of
the well is completed, the drill string is lifted and protective steel pipe or casing
lowered into the well and cemented into place.
• Drilling of wells: Wells will be drilled by using a standard land rig or a “Mobile Land
Rig” with standard water based drilling fluid treatment system. Additionally, there
SENES 2 HOEC
will be other ancillary facilities like Drilling mud system, Effluent Treatment Plant
(ETP) etc.
• Testing of wells: Between the drilling operations for different zones, logging
operations are undertaken to provide information on the potential type and quantities
of hydrocarbons present in the target formations. Testing facilities will be available at
drilling rig for separation of liquid phase and burning of all hydrocarbons during
testing. The test flare boom will be located at a distance from the drilling rig
• Site closure and decommissioning: After the wells are put into production de-
mobilisation of drilling rig and associated infrastructure will be initiated. .
Decommissioning will involve the dismantling of the rig, all associated equipments
and the residential camp, and transporting it out of the project area.
• Site Restoration: All drill sites after the completion of production activities will be
restored back to its near original condition. . Depending on the preference of the land
owner, land will be returned as it is or reinstated as it was prior to the project activity
Gas Gathering Station (GGS)

The construction of proposed GGS will involve the following steps:
• Site selection: The proposed GGS will be located in the Dirok 4 well site premises.
• Land acquisition: No new land will be required.
• Construction of Access Road: Both access and approach roads are already present.
• Fencing: The proposed GGS facility will be duly fenced to a height of about 2 m.
• Site construction: For proposed GGS the construction work will entail construction
of civil foundation, erection of manifolds, flow line and valve network on
approximately 0.06 ha land.
Gas Processing Plant (GPP)

The construction of proposed GPP will involve the following activities:
• Site selection: It will be constructed near Golai gaon on approximately 6 ha land.
• Land acquisition: Will be taken from private owner on long term lease.
• Construction of access Road: New approach road of approximately 450 meters
length shall be constructed from the existing National Highway to the GPP site.
• Fencing: The proposed GPP facility will be duly fenced to a height of about 2 m
• Top soil scrapping: Will be gauged scraped and stored at top soil storage site.
• Site elevation: The entire site will be elevated, leveled and compacted based on local
topography and high flood level.
SENES 3 HOEC
• Site construction: Construction and development work will be done on

approximately 6 ha (300 m X 200 m) for erection of GPP.
Pipeline Laying
Two parallel pipelines (High Pressure & Low Pressure) shall be laid to transport the natural
gas. The construction details regarding the laying pipeline have been discussed in detail
below
• Designing & planning: Two group parallel pipelines will be laid from proposed GGS
to GPP and from GPP to Kusijan off take point. Total length will be 25 km.
• Corridor selection: A detailed route survey will be undertaken
• Land acquisition: Pipeline will be underground and are planned with in RoU of
access roads/high ways with the permission of land owners, local authorities and
related government departments
• Perimeter fencing: The temporary work strip will be fenced.
• Clearing and grading: The RoU area will then be leveled to the required gradient.
• Trenching: Manual methods will be used to dig the trench for laying the pipeline.
The pipeline will be generally buried to a minimum depth of 1m.
• Pipe hauling and fabrication: Pipe transported to the site on trucks will be
offloaded.
• Bending and welding: Bending and welding will be done to the appropriate angle to
match the vertical and horizontal alignment of the trench.
• Coating: High built liquid epoxy coating will be used at bare pipes and weld joints.
• Hydro-testing: All pipelines shall be tested in-place after construction.
• Backfilling: The pipe trench will be backfilled in the reverse order in which it was
excavated.
• Restoration: Re-grading of the work strips will be done to reflect the original ground
profile.
• Pipeline warning marks: Pipeline warning markers will be provided at a fixed
distance for future monitoring and line walking purposes.
Project Utilities and Resource Requirements

Power: Four diesel-engine generators, each with a capacity of 670 KW, will be
sufficient for rig operations. Three generators will be used at a time and one will be kept
on standby. A 134 KW generator will be made available for lighting at residential camp and
other emergency requirements. One 450 KVA DG set will be used for construction and
SENES 4 HOEC
operation of GGS. Three 670 KW DG set will be used during construction of GPP and 2
(two) 600 KVA captive gas generators will be installed during operation phase of GPP.
Water: The total water requirement for the site preparation and construction phase of the
project is estimated about 1200 KL per well with an average consumption of 45- 50 KLD.
Domestic water requirement will be 6.75 KLD for every 50 site persons deployed. 25 KLD
and 5 KLD water will be consumed during construction and operation phase of GGS
respectively. Water consumption during GPP construction and operation phase will be 150
KLD and 15 KLD respectively. During decommissioning phase the peak demand of water
requirement as estimated would be 10KLD. Water would be sourced from surface water
sources.
Fuel Consumption: During the drilling phase, the consumption of diesel is estimated to be
about 4.5-5 KLD. About 15-20 KLD diesel will be required during the construction of
GGS and GPP.
Manpower: The site preparation phase of 30 days will employ on an average about 45 to 50
workmen preferably from local settlements. The total number of personnel involved in the
drilling activities is expected to be about 50. For Pipeline laying and construction work of
GGS and GPP will involve 100-125 persons per day.
BASELINE ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS

Baseline environmental study of the Dirok Development Field and surrounding area
comprised study of physical, biological and socio-economic environment where proposed
project activity would be done.
Study area
An area with a radius of about 10 km around the center of the proposed wells; 500 m buffer
area along the entire stretch of the proposed pipeline route and an area of 2 km around the
GPP would also be included under the study area for baseline data collection. While
selecting locations for primary monitoring of air, noise, water, soil and meteorology special
emphasis is given to receptors that are likely to be impacted by the proposed project.
Monitoring stations for air and noise were selected in proximity to the proposed wells, GGS,
GPP sites and access roads. Monitoring locations for surface water quality was selected based
on the macro and micro watershed and drainage pattern of the area. Soil sample locations
were selected based on the landuse-land cover of the study area. Locations of ecological and
social surveys were also selected based on receptor locations; in addition, special emphasis is
given to areas within 1 km radius of the well sites and access roads.
Physical Environment
Climate and Meteorology
The Block falls under the humid sub tropical climate zone with warm. Analysis of 2009 IMD
data of Dibrugarh showed cool winter season from December to February and April was the
SENES 5 HOEC
hottest month. The primary survey showed that the predominant wind direction was observed
to be from north-west for the study period. The average wind speed for the months was 3.66
km/hr.
Air Quality
The ambient air quality representing PM10, PM2.5, Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), and Nitrogen
Dioxide (NO2) was monitored at 8 representative locations. All the parameters were found to
be in compliance to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), 2009.
Noise Quality
The noise quality was monitored for 24 hours at Eight (8) locations within study area. Noise
monitoring was conducted at settlement near to the proposed well locations and access roads.
Day time and nighttime equivalent noise levels varied between 47.8-62.9 dBA and 40.1-
59.5dBA respectively. Higher daytime and nighttime equivalent noise levels recorded at
Golai III are probably due noise generated from plying of vehicles at NH 38.
Topography
Dirok Development Field has a more or less flat topography with elevations ranging between
120-160 m msl.
Physiography and Geology
The Block AAP-ON-94/1 lies mainly at the foothills (south) of the first thrust (Naga Thrust)
of the Assam-Arakan Fold belt and contains Naga, Margherita and Disang thrust zones. The
area developed as a passive margin on the Indian craton from Mesozoic to Oligocene times,
facies becoming progressively more marginally marine as the collision of India and Asia
developed during the Paleogene.
Hydrogeology
The study area is made up of weathered sediment of sand (stone) with pebbles of Pliocene to
Pleistocene age and in the west, Surma group of rock sandstone, siltstone and mudstone of
early to middle Miocene.
Groundwater Quality
Groundwater samples were collected and analyzed as per IS: 10500 from Six (6) locations
within the study area. The turbidity value of all six samples has exceeded the acceptable
value. However, concentration of chloride, TDS, total hardness, fluoride, heavy metals are
within limit stipulated in standard. Iron concentration in one ground water sample has
exceeded the drinking water acceptable limit. Low values of total coliform and absence of
faecal coliform in the samples reveal absence of biological contamination in the water
sample.
SENES 6 HOEC
Drainage
The study area falls within the catchment of the Burhi Dihing River. Apart from these
tributaries, there are number perennial and seasonal streams within the Block AAP-ON-94/1
that drains into the Burhi Dihing River. The drainage pattern in this region is dendritic. Few
ox-box lakes are also discernable within the study area.
Surface Water Quality
Surface water samples were collected from three surface water sampling locations. BOD
values in all the surface water samples were recorded below 2.00 mg/l. Coliform
concentration of samples varied from less than 2 MPN /100 lit to 34 MPN/100 ml. Oil and
grease was found to be negligible; iron content in all the surface water sample varies from
<0.05mg/l to 0.49 mg/l and electrical conductivity values of the samples ranged between 101-
228 microsiemens/cm. The channels from which samples were taken and analyzed were
primarily used for bathing, cleaning and for catching fish.
Land Use and Land Cover
Forests covers about 61% of the 10km around well cluster. Second largest land use is tea
garden areas i.e. 14% land. Agricultural land covers about 11.5% land. About 8.2% of land is
used for human settlement. Burhi Dihing along with other streams covers about 3% and water
bodies covers about 1.2% of the land. Industrial land, roads & rail line covers 0.4%, 0.6% &
0.1% respectively.
Land use and land cover mapping was done within 500m of land on either side of the pipeline
alignment and it showed that about 32% comes under human settlements of Margherita and
Digboi town, 29.9% comes under tea garden, agricultural land covers 15%, 12% covered by
reserve forest, 2.3 % unclassified forest and 4% industrial land.
Soil Quality
Three soil samples were taken from Dirok Tea Estate. Other two soil samples were collected
from forest land near Kusijan off take point and agricultural land near Golai II respectively.
The texture of soil samples collected was found to be sandy clay loam, sandy loam, and clay
loam respectively. The pH of soil samples varies from 3.62 to 4.82. Available nitrogen
content in samples taken from paddy field, tea garden, agricultural land and forest land varies
from 91.7 to 419.31 mg/kg. The micronutrient levels observed in the soil samples do not
indicate any extraordinary enrichment of metals or contamination from any external sources.
Natural Hazards
The study area lies in Zone V of the Bureau of Indian Standard (BIS) 2000 which might
encounter earthquakes of maximum intensity. The well sites, GGS and GPP are not located at
flood prone areas.
SENES 7 HOEC
Biological Environment
Owing to the huge amount of annual rainfall, forest types occurring in this region are
primarily of Tropical Evergreen Forest and Tropical Semi-Evergreen Forest. In the northern
part of the study area reserve forest of Upper Dehing East and West block falls along with a
stretch of unclassified forest. In the southern part of the study area a part of the forested land
falls within Dehing Patkai Wildlife Sanctuary, where as major forested lands are within
unclassified forests. None of the existing as well as proposed wells as well as GGS is located
within the forest land. All the wells and the proposed GGS are located within 2km of the
Dehing Patkai Wildlife Sanctuary. The proposed GPP is also not located within forest land
and it is also located more the 10 km from the Dehing Patkai Wild Life Sanctuary. In the
northern part of the study area, a section of the pipeline of about 5 km will pass through the
R.O.U of Digboi Duliajan road. A part of this pipeline falls within the west block of Upper
Dehing reserve forest. Though the land is designated as forest land, but presently the area has
a rural setup, having no forest cover.
Near the well sites the dominating vegetation in the tea garden area is tea bushes, along with
shade trees like Albizzia sp. Casia siamea, Gmelina arborea. Within the human settlements
trees like Mangifera indica, Aegle marmelos, Delonix regia, Vitex negundo, Areca catechu is
found. Agricultural land will be acquired for the GPP. Other than agricultural plant (paddy)
no vegetation is present in the proposed site. As a result no tree cutting will be required for
the development of GPP. Most of the area within 2km of the proposed GPP is covered by
agricultural field and human settlement. Trees like Mangifera indica, Aegle marmelos,
Delonix regia, Vitex negundo are mostly found in the human settlement. Tea Garden area also
comes within 2km of the proposed GPP. Tea bushes mostly dominate the tea garden
landscape along with shade trees like Albizzia sp. Casia siamea. Throughout the entire stretch
of the pipeline vegetation along the RoU is very low. Few road side plantation trees like
Artocarpus heterophyllus, Delonix regia, Phyllanthus embilica, Ficus religiosa are found
along the RoU. of the road.
The non- forest area and forest area form the habitat within the study area of some
endangered and threatened species which are listed in the Schedule I of the Indian Wildlife
(Protection) Act, 1972 and amendment in 1991. Secondary information revealed presence of
nineteen species of Schedule I animals. Out of nineteen one Schedule I species, nine species
belong to mammals; seven species belong to birds and three are reptiles.
The proposed pipeline will pass through the Golai-Powai Elephant Corridor near Golai III
village. The Golai-Powai elephant corridor is located in proximity (about 0.1 km) to the
proposed GPP, in southern direction. As observed during field survey that there are
approximately 110 structures including one two storied hotel, commercial building and
automobile show room within the corridor. A part of terminal of IOCL being constructed
would also be within the elephant corridor. Consultations with local peoples have revealed
that no elephant movement was noticed in this area for last three years.
SENES 8 HOEC
Socioeconomic Environment
The Dirok Development Field comes within Margherita Block of Tinsukia District in the
State of Assam with respect to HOEC’s proposed development activity. 18 villages those are
located within 2 km periphery of the proposed well, GPP or GGS in the Dirok Development
Field were selected to analyze the socio-economic environment. The population as per 2011
census varied from 443 in Makum Block No. 2 to 3996 in Dirok 1. The average sex ratio of
980 and 935 were recorded in village located near to the well cluster and GPP respectively.
Socioeconomic profile
Average literacy rate of all 18 selected villages of observed as 46.13% which is below the
district literacy rate. The highest literacy rate was observed in Makum Assam Tea Co.
Drakhast 2 (76.08%). Average male and female literacy rate in the study area was recorded at
53.78% and 38.25%. The total working population in the selected villages varies from
30.53% to 53.30%. The “Other worker” category contribute highest workforce category
constituting about 89% of the working population of 18 selected villages.
Socioeconomic Infrastructure
All the villages located in the study area have drinking water facility, medical facilities,
educational facilities, electricity for domestic purpose. All the sampled villages do not have
market facility. For market place, villages solely depend on urban places or towns or of
adjacent areas
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The potential impact arising due to the construction and operation of the drilling wells, GGS
and pipeline on the environment have been identified, characterized and evaluated. The major
impacts envisaged due to the realization of the Project is given below:
• Visual Impacts & Aesthetics: Vegetation clearance will be required for proposed
project activity. Again during site construction activity, dust will be generated from
transport of construction material, machinery and personnel, haphazard dumping of
construction waste, domestic waste from labour camp may cause visual and aesthetic
impacts. Lighting at project sites may also cause visual impacts.
• Air Quality: Movement of vehicles, operation of construction machinery, road
construction/strengthening and other site preparatory activities during construction
and drilling at drill sites, GGS, GPP and pipeline construction will cause the
generation of air pollutants viz. PM, NOx, SOx and HC in the ambient air near well
site facilities which may affect the ambient air quality temporarily. Air pollutants like
NOx will also be generated as a result of test flaring.
• Noise Quality: Operation of construction machineries, construction work, pipe laying,
movement of heavy vehicles, operation of drilling rig, DG set operation are the
activities that will primarily impact the noise quality of the surrounding environment.
SENES 9 HOEC
• Topography & Drainage: The existing access road to the drill sites has culverts over
the channels passing through the road; during road development all such structure will
not be disturbed. During site preparation the cutting and filling would be limited and
there is no drainage channel within the proposed drill sites, GGS and GPP. Thus no
change in the micro-drainage pattern and slope of the areas in the vicinity of the well
sites, GGS, GPP and along the access road is expected.
• Water Quality and Hydrogeology: The surface runoff from the drill sites, GGS and
GPP may compose of waste fluids or storm water mixed with oil and grease have the
potential contaminate streams in the vicinity. In addition produced water from well
testing operations and gas separation also have the potential to contaminate the
surface water channels.
• Biological Environment: The new wells would require clearance of tree bushes and
shade trees. Migratory routes or a corridor of elephant is present in this Block. Noise
generated from drilling operations, lighting arrangements and vehicular movement
within the drill site is likely to affect the fauna leading them to move away from the
project area.
• Socio-Economic Environment: In the proposed project activity, loss of livelihood has
not been envisaged. However, disruption of infrastructure, dis-comfort due to dust and
noise, influx of people has been anticipated.
• Impact on Community Health & Safety: Community health and safety of inhabitants
residing close to the well site, GGS, GPP stand to get affected from frequent heavy
vehicular movement along village access roads and due to noise from drilling rig
operations, gas processing and transportation.
The beneficial impacts due to the Project are:
• The local people are interested in working for HOEC as unskilled labour; hence
employment opportunity will increase.
• Improvement in basic infrastructure for facilitation of the Project that will eventually
reap benefits for the local dwellers
ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives were considered with respect to selection of GPP location, pipeline alignment at
the time of design and planning for the project. The GGS is proposed at the area of Dirok 4
well within Dirok Tea Estate where the current GPP would be located at agricultural land of
Golai. Pipeline alignment passing through minimum length of forestland is also selected.
QUANTITATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT

The quantitative risk assessment has been done to provide a systematic analysis of the major
risks associated with development activities in Dirok Block. Oil spills, loss of well
SENES 10 HOEC
control/blow-out and process leaks constitute the major potential hazards of onshore drilling.
Based on Frequency Analysis Method, it has been estimated that the likelihood of a blowout
is Occasional/Rare at 5.4 X 10-5 per well drilled i.e. the likelihood of its occurrence is “Not
likely”. Even on blowout, the probability of ignition is approximately 4.8X10-6 i.e. negligible.
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

Site-specific Environment Management Plans (EMP) has been developed to prevent and
mitigate significant adverse impacts and accentuate beneficial impacts will be implemented
by HOEC for the proposed project. The key mitigation measures specific for each
management plan have been discussed in the Table below:
Environment
Sl.
Management Key Mitigation Measures
No
Plan
Air Quality • Vehicles delivering raw materials like fine aggregates will be
1
Management covered to prevent fugitive emissions
Plan
• Storage and handling of construction material and debris to be
carefully managed to prevent generation of fugitive dust
• Sprinkling of water on earthworks, material haulage and
transportation routes on a regular basis during construction and
decommissioning phase of the new wells and GPP site.
• Periodic ambient air quality monitoring will be conducted in
accordance with the Environment Monitoring Program.
• Duration of flaring will be minimized by careful planning;
• High combustion efficiency, smokeless flare/burner will be used at
GPP site.
• Periodic monitoring of DG set stack emission will be carried out in
accordance with the Environmental Monitoring Plan to assess
compliance with CPCB DG set exhaust standards.
• Greenbelt will be developed in accordance to “Green Belt
Development Plan” along internal roads and boundary of GGS and
GPP to prevent any offsite dispersion of air pollutants. The green
belt will also be serving as wind abatement system to prevent any
generation of wind blow dust onsite.
2 Noise • Selection and use of low noise generating equipment equipped with
Management engineering controls viz. mufflers, silencers etc
Plan • All vehicles utilized in transportation of raw material and personnel
will have valid Pollution under Control Certificate (PUC)
• All high noise generating equipments will be identified and
subjected to periodic preventive maintenance.
• No night time operation of vehicles and construction activities will be
undertaken.
SENES 11 HOEC
Environment
Sl.
No
Plan
3 Soil Quality • Drip trays to be used during vehicular/equipment maintenance and
Management during refueling operations.
Plan • Fuel and lubricant storage areas will be paved and properly bunded.
Bunded areas will be designed to accommodate 110% of the
volume of spilled material.
• Spill kits will be made available at all fuel and lubricant storage
areas. All spills/leaks contained, reported and cleaned up
immediately.
• The pipeline to be hydrostatically tested in accordance with
requirements of “OISD-STD-141- Design & Construction
Requirements of Cross Country Hydrocarbon Pipelines” to check
for any possible leaks/damages.
• Periodic monitoring of soil quality monitoring will be conducted in
4 Site Closure • Waste Management: clean up the site and remove all waste
Plan materials e.g. HDPE liners, any waste material etc. The waste will
be dumped in the designated area as per the guidelines of local
pollution control board.
• Road Restoration: The fill materials should be removed and restore
the site or it may be left for further local community use as per the
agreement with community.
5 Surface • Leveling and grading operations will be undertaken with minimal
Water Quality disturbance to the existing contour thereby maintaining the general slope
Management of site.
Plan • During site preparation and construction, surface water run-off will be
channelized through integrated drainage system.
• Sediment filters and oil-water interceptor will be installed to intercept run-
off and remove sediment before it enters water courses.
• Regular monitoring of surface water quality will be conducted in
• Domestic waste water generated from camp area will be treated through
septic tank and soak pit.
6 Ground • Water based mud to be used as a drilling fluid for the proposed
Water Quality project
Management • Selection of low toxicity chemicals/additives in the preparation of
Plan water based mud.
• Storage and disposal of drill cutting and waste mud to be made in
accordance with “Solid & Hazardous Waste Management Plan”
• Fulfillment of mitigation measures with respect to pipeline
corrosion protection, leak detection and periodic supervision in
SENES 12 HOEC
Environment
Sl.
No
Plan
accordance to OISD-STD-188 and Onshore Pipelines and OISD-
STD-138.
7 Waste • Barite used in the preparation of drilling fluid shall not contain
Management Hg>1mg/kg and Cd>3mg/kg.
Plan • Design aspects of the impervious waste disposal pit will be
communicated/ shared by HOEC with Assam State Pollution
Control Board (ASPCB).
• The drilling cuttings pit will be bunded and kept covered using
tarpaulin sheets during monsoon.
8 Flare & • The elevated flare can be replaced by an enclosed ground flare,
Illumination such as the enclosed ground flare.
Management
Plan
9 Spill • All chemicals will be stored in designated area. To an extent possible all
Management such areas would away from drainage channels.
• The flooring of the area would be impervious (paved or HDPE lining) and
bunding to be provide on all sides of the chemical storage areas
10 Greenbelt • Healthy and established sapling having 1m height should be selected for
Management planting in greenbelt to avoid mortality
Plan • The tall shrubs and dwarf trees with 3 m spacing between plants and rows
is sufficient while medium and tall trees in middle and rear rows are to be
planted at a distance of 6-7m and 8-10m apart respectively depending
upon the space available.
11 Wildlife • Movement of heavy vehicles will be restricted at night time, especially in

Management access road within the forest area as most of the mammals movement
Plan occurred during night;
• Noise Levels at the drill site will be controlled through selection of low
noise generating equipment and installation of sufficient engineering
controls viz. mufflers, silencers etc.
• Care would be taken while disposal drill cutting & other drilling waste
and discharge of waste water from the drilling site.
• Proper monitoring of indicator species will be carried out and compared to
baseline to understand any negative impacts;
12 Road Safety • The condition of roads and bridges identified for movement of vehicles
& Traffic and drilling rig will be assessed by HOEC to ensure their safe movement.
Management • Precautions will be taken by the contractor to avoid damage to the public
Plan access routes including highways during vehicular movement.
• Provide safe and convenient passage for vehicles, pedestrians and
livestock to and from side roads and property accesses along defined
project routes.
SENES 13 HOEC
Environment
Sl.
No
Plan
• Traffic flows will be scheduled wherever practicable during period of
increased commuter movement.
13 Occupation • All machines to be used in the construction will conform to the relevant
Health & Indian Standards (IS) codes, will be kept in good working order, will be
Safety regularly inspected and properly maintained as per IS provisions and to
the satisfaction of the site Engineer.
Management
Plan • Hazardous and risky areas, installations, materials, safety measures,
emergency exits, etc. shall be appropriately marked.
• The sewage system for the camp must be properly designed, built and
operated so that no health hazard occurs.
14 Management • Health - arranging mobile health camps including eye camps, School
of Social health programmes which includes free dental awareness examination
Issues and camps and free check-ups of the students etc.
Concerns • Education - Providing assistance to institutions towards purchasing of
furniture and required amenities to school, libraries, auditoriums, teacher's
common room etc.
The EMP has been designed with a flexibility so that it can be monitored and adapted to
future changes in project design, scope, or the environment and be seamlessly integrated and
implemented by HOEC.
PROJECT COST
The development of the project which would include well drilling, gas processing and
transportation is expected to cost approximately Rs. 325 Crore (54 million US$ taking the
conversion rate of INR 60) for. The budget for implementation of the EMP is INR 40.095
Lakhs.
SENES 14 HOEC
1 Introduction
1.1 BACKGROUND
The Block AAP-ON-94/1 was awarded for exploration to Joint Venture (JV) Consortium by
the Government of India (GoI). Production Sharing Contract (PSC) for the Block AAP-ON-
94/1 was signed on June 30th 1998. Presently, the JV Consortium of the Block comprises of
Hindustan Oil Exploration Company Limited (HOEC), Oil India Limited (OIL) and Indian
Oil Corporation Ltd (IOCL). HOEC is the Operator and OIL is the Licensee of the Block.
The participating interest of the JV Consortium in the development phase is as follows:
HOEC (26.882%), OIL (44.086%) and IOCL (29.032%).
The Consortium had been granted Environmental Clearance (EC) for 2 exploratory drill sites
within the Block via. File No J-11011/50/2006-1A-II (I) during 2007. Pursuant to the
aforesaid EC, the Consortium had drilled 2 exploratory wells within the Block. During 2009
another EC was granted to the Consortium via File no. No. J-11011/112/2009-1A-II (I) for
drilling of three exploratory wells within the Block and pursuant to this EC one exploratory
and appraisal well was drilled. Several sizeable prospects had been mapped and the Dirok
wells drilled by the Consortium have confirmed the presence of multiple gas bearing sands.
Based on the Dirok Discovery and subsequent drilling of appraisal wells in the Block, which
produced hydrocarbon from multiple sands from Girujan Formation; the Ministry of
Petroleum and Natural Gas (MoPNG) has approved the Dirok discovery as commercial.
Based on the Declaration of Commerciality (DoC) report, a Plan of Development (PoD) is
being prepared for the field development. Currently the Consortium plans to drill
development wells in the Block, produce and process gas and develop infrastructure for
transportation of gas.
Development well drilling, gas production, processing and transportation in Dirok
Development Field is included under activities specified in Schedule (Activity 1b) of the EIA
Notification dated 14th September 2006 and requires EC from the Ministry of Environment
and Forests (MoEF).
HOEC has submitted Form-1 along with a Draft Terms of Reference (ToR) for EIA study to
MoEF. MoEF has issued approved ToR vide letter No. J-11011/245/2014-IA II (I) dated 9th
December, 2014. The approved ToR is attached as Annexure 1.1 and is in compliance to
ToR is presented at Table 1.1.
SENES 15 HOEC
TABLE 1-1: COMPLIANCE TO MOEF TOR
Sl.
ToR Compliance
No.
A. Standard TOR:
1. Executive summary of a project Added with the draft report
2. Project description, project objectives and Project description: Refer Chapter 2
project benefits. Project Objectives: Refer Section 1.2
Project Benefits: Refer Chapter 7
3. Site details within 1 km of the each proposed Refer Environmental Settings of Wells, GGS,
well, any habitation, any other installation/ GPP and Pipeline in Section 2.6
activity, flora and fauna, approachability to
site, other activities including
agriculture/land, satellite imagery for 10 km
area.
4. Distance from nearby critically/severely No critically or severely polluted are located in
polluted area as per Notification dated 13th Assam
January, 2010, if applicable.
5. Copy of CRZ map prepared by one of the Not Applicable
agencies authorized by the MoEF for
carrying out the CRZ demarcation, w.r.t. the
project boundary and facilities.
6. Does proposal involves rehabilitation and Refer “Land Procurement” in Sections 2.8.1,
resettlement? If yes, details thereof. 2.9.1 and 2.10.1
7. A certified copy of the report of the status of HOEC will provide the certified copy from
compliance of the conditions stipulated in the MoEF regarding the status of compliance of
Consent to Operate for the ongoing/existing the conditions stipulated in the EC/Consent to
operation of the project by the Regional Operate related to the previous ECs within the
Office of the Ministry of Environment and Block
Forests and SPCB.
8. Has the unit received any notice under the No
Section 5 of Environment (Protection) Act,
1986 or relevant Sections of Air and Water
Acts? If so, compliance to the notice(s).
9. Comprehensive proposal covering surface Refer details for
facilities, pipeline/gas collection system, Well sites: Section 2.8
utilities etc.
Gas Gathering Station : Section 2.9
Gas Processing Plant : Section 2.10 and
Pipeline : Section 2.11
10. Design details of all the facilities including Refer details for
CGS, GGS, pipe network, utilities and Well sites: Section 2.8
technology to be used for development
Gas Gathering Station : Section 2.9
project.
Gas Processing Plant : Section 2.10 and
Pipeline : Section 2.11
SENES 16 HOEC
Sl.
ToR Compliance
No.
11. Details of project cost. Cost for drilling of 3 new and three existing
development wells (including well site
construction and site decommissioning) will be
approximately 27 million US$. The cost of
proposed GGS and GPP construction will be 2
million US$ and 22 million US$ respectively.
Approximate cost for 25 km pipeline lying will
be 3 million US$.
Refer Section 2.15
12. Environmental considerations in the The proposed well, GGS and GPP sites were
selection of the drilling locations for selected based on environmental
which environmental clearance is being considerations viz. location of sensitive
sought. Present any analysis suggested for ecological habitats, settlements, schools/
minimizing the foot print giving details hospitals, water bodies etc. Care had been
of drilling and development options taken to locate the wells, GGS and GPP
considered. distantly from these receptors. Primarily,
agricultural land and tea garden areas were
selected for current development activity. The
environmental considerations are given in
Section 2.5
13. Baseline data collection for air, water and Refer Chapter 3
soil for one season leaving the monsoon
season in an area of 10 km radius with centre
of Oil Field as its centre covering the area of
all proposed drilling wells.
(i) Topography of the project site. Refer Section 3.2.4; and Figure 3.10
(ii) Ambient Air Quality monitoring at 8 Refer Section 3.2.2; Ambient Air Quality
locations for PM10, SO2, NOx, VOCs,
Methane and non-methane HC.
(iii) Soil sample analysis (physical and chemical Refer Section 3.2.11; Soil quality
properties) at the areas located at 5 locations.
(iv) Ground and surface water quality in the Refer Section 3.2.7; Groundwater quality and
vicinity of the proposed wells site. Section 3.2.9: Surface water quality
(v) Climatology and Meteorology Refer Chapter 3.2.1; Climate and Meteorology
including wind speed, wind direction,
temperature rainfall relative humidity etc.
(vi) Measurement of Noise levels within 1 km Refer Chapter 3.2.3; Noise environment
radius of the proposed wells.
(vii) Vegetation and land use; Animal resources Refer Section 3.2.10; Land Use and Section
3.3 for Vegetation and Animal Resources
14. Incremental GLC as a result of DG set Refer Section 4.2.2 , Impacts on air quality for
operation. incremental GLC as a result of DG set
operation
15. Potential environmental impact envisages Refer Chapter 4; Anticipated Environmental
during various stages of project activities Impacts and Mitigation Measures
such as site activation, development,
SENES 17 HOEC
Sl.
ToR Compliance
No.
operation/ maintenance and
decommissioning.
16. Actual source of water and ‘Permission’ for Water would be sourced from surface water
the drawl of water from the Competent sources through vendors
Authority. Detailed water balance, Water Balance Diagram is provided in Figure
wastewater generation and discharge. 2.19; wastewater generation and discharge
provided in Table 2.9
17. Noise abatement measures and measures to Block is not located in Coastal Area.
minimize disturbance due to light and visual Refer mitigation measures to abate noise
intrusions in case coastally located. pollution in Chapter 4 and Chapter 8;
Abatement measures to combat disturbance
due to illumination is provided in Section 8.8
Flare and Illumination Management Plan
18. Treatment and disposal of wastewater. Wastewater generation and discharge provided
in Table 2.9
19. Treatment and disposal of solid waste Refer Table 2.10; Wastes Generated and their
generation. disposal
20. Disposal of spent oil and lubes. Refer Section 2.13.4 and Table 2.8 Waste
Streams and Disposal and Section 8.1.7 Waste
Management Plan
21. Storage of chemicals and diesel at site. The chemicals for mud preparation would be
stored at the drill site at a secluded site. The
site would be paved and bunded and will have
a roof (Section 2.8.2).
Fuel will be stored at onsite storage facility as
per Petroleum Rules, 2002 in a paved and
bunded area (Section 2.12.3).
22. Commitment for the use of WBM only As per the previous drilling programs HOEC
will use water based mud for drilling; Refer
Mud Systems and Cuttings in Section 2.8.2
23. Mud make up and mud and cutting disposal – Refer Mud Systems and Cuttings in Section
all options considered should be listed with 2.8.2
selective option.
24. Hazardous material usage, storage Refer Table 2.10; Wastes Generated and their
accounting and disposal. disposal
25. Disposal of packaging waste from site. Refer Table 2.10; Wastes Generated and their
disposal
26. Oil spill emergency plans in respect of Refer Spill Management Plan; Section 8.1.9
recovery/ reclamation.
27. H2S emissions control. Emergency response plan was in place to
counter any abnormal situations like H2S
release. Self Contained Breathing Apparatus
(SCBA) kits were made available in drill site.
Refer Section 2.8.2 Drilling Activity
SENES 18 HOEC
Sl.
ToR Compliance
No.
28. Produced oil handling and storage. Refer Chapter 2
29. Details of scheme for oil collection system Only natural gas would be produced from the
along with process flow diagram and its area.
capacity. Refer Section 2.9 for details of Gas Gathering
Station (GGS) and Section 2.10 for Gas
Processing Plant (GPP)
30. Details of control of air, water and noise Not Applicable
pollution in oil collection system.
31. Disposal of produced/formation water. Approximately 10 m3/day produced water
would be generated after gas processing; the
water would be treated in an Effluent
Treatment Plant and discharged after
compliance to the CPCB Discharge Standards
or reused. Refer Section 2.10.3
32. Whether any burn pits being utilized for well No
test operations.
33. Restoration and decommissioning plans Refer Section 8.1.4 Site Closure Plan
which should include mud pits and wastage
restoration also and documentation and
monitoring of site recovery.
34. Measures to protect ground water and Refer Section 8.1.6- Groundwater quality
shallow aquifers from contamination. management plan
35. Risk assessment and disaster management Refer Chapter 6; Section 6.1 Quantitative Risk
plan for independent reviews of well Assessment
designed construction etc. for prevention of
blow out.
36. Environmental management plan. Refer Chapter 8 for details of Environmental
Management Plans which include
• Air Quality Management Plan
• Noise Management Plan
• Soil Quality Management Plan
• Site Closure Plan
• Surface Water Quality Management Plan
• Ground Water Quality Management Plan
• Waste Management Plan
• Flare & Illumination Management Plan
• Spill Management Plan
• Greenbelt Management Plan
• Wildlife Management Plan
• Road Safety & Traffic Management Plan
• Occupational Health & Safety
Management Plan
• Management of Social Issues and
Concerns
SENES 19 HOEC
Sl.
ToR Compliance
No.
37. Documentary proof of membership of None
common disposal facilities, if any.
38. Details of environmental and safety related Regular health check up of personnel
documentation within the company including conducted as per Organizational Policy.
documentation and proposed occupational Surveillance safety programs are carried at
health and safety Surveillance Safety regular intervals and documented.
Programme for all personnel at site. This
should also include monitoring programme
Refer Box 8.1 HOEC Corporate HSE Policy
for the environmental.
Refer Section 8.1.13 Occupational Health and
Safety Management Plan
Environmental Monitoring Programme has
been provided at Table 8.2
39. Total capital and recurring cost for Refer Table 8.4
environmental control measures.
40. A copy of Corporate Environment Policy of Refer Box 8.1for Corporate HSE Policy of
the company as per the Ministry’s O.M. No. HOEC
J-11013/41/2006-IA.II(I) dated 26th April,
2011 available on the Ministry’s website
41. Corporate Environment Policy
i. Does the company have a well laid down Refer Box 8.1for Corporate HSE Policy of
Environment Policy approved by its Board of HOEC
Directors? If so, it may be detailed in the EIA
report.
ii. Does the Environment Policy prescribe for As per company’s Environment Policy it has
standard operating process / procedures to the objective and the duty comply with all
bring into focus any infringement / deviation relevant legislations and requirements while
/ violation of the environmental or forest carrying out Oil & Gas Exploration and
norms / conditions? If so, it may be detailed production activities. Refer Box 8.1
in the EIA.
iii. What is the hierarchical system or Refer Figure 8.1 Organogram for HSE
Administrative order of the company to deal Management
with the environmental issues and for
ensuring compliance with the
environmental clearance conditions? Details
of this system may be given.
iv. Does the company have system of reporting Yes, As per HSE Management system, the
of non compliances / violations of company has the system of reporting non
environmental norms to the Board of compliances of environmental norms to the
Directors of the company and / or Board. Refer Figure 8.2 Non Compliance
shareholders or stakeholders at large? Reporting Protocol
This reporting mechanism should be detailed
in the EIA report.
42. At least 5 % of the total cost of the project The final CSR plan to be framed after Public
should be earmarked towards the Enterprise Hearing
Social Commitment based on Public Hearing
issues and item-wise details along with time
SENES 20 HOEC
Sl.
ToR Compliance
No.
bound action plan should be prepared and
incorporated.
43. A note on identification and implementation Not Applicable
of Carbon Credit project if any should be
included.
44. A tabular chart with index for point-wise Provided at Table 1.1.
compliance of above TORs.
B. Additional TOR:
1. A separate chapter on status of compliance of Refer Chapter 7; Section 7.2 Compliance to
Environmental Conditions earlier granted by Previous EC Conditions.
Centre to be provided. As per circular dated Certified report from MoEF will be furnished
30th May, 2012 issued by MoEF, a certified
report by RO, MoEF on status of compliance
of conditions on existing unit to be provided
in EIA/EMP report.
2. Permission from the State Forest Department Application for Wildlife Clearance submitted
regarding the impact of the proposed project to NBWL
on the surrounding National Park/Wild life
Sanctuary/Reserve Forest/Eco sensitive area.
Forest Clearance application to be submitted to
Approval obtained from the State/Central
Forest Department after FRA Clearance
Government under Forest (Conservation Act,
1980) for the forestland should be submitted.
3. Since the project falls within 10km of Application submitted to NBWL
Dehing Patkai Wildlife Sanctuary eco-
sensitive area, a copy of application
submitted to Standing Committee of the
NBWL for Wildlife clearance shall be
furnished.
4. Public hearing to be conducted and issues To be included after Public Hearing
raised and commitments made by the project
proponent on the same should be included in
EIA/EMP Report in the form of tabular chart
with financial budget for complying with the
commitments made.
SENES India, a NABET accredited EIA Consultant, has been entrusted by HOEC to
undertake an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) study for Dirok Development Field.
Additionally, in conformance to HOEC’s Health Safety and Environment (HSE) Policy, an
EIA study will play an important role in formulating appropriate environmental management
response for the proposed drilling project. In this perspective, SENES India has strived to
fulfill the project objectives delineated in the section below.
SENES 21 HOEC
1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The objectives of the EIA study are as follows:
• An overview of the compliance to the regulatory provisions as provided viz. EC,
Consent to Establish (CTE), Consent to Operate (CTO) for previous drillings
programs
• Establish the prevailing baseline environmental and socio-economic condition of the
Dirok Development Field and its surroundings
• Assessing environmental and socioeconomic impacts arising out of the proposed
development activities
• Recommend appropriate preventive and mitigation measures to eliminate or minimize
pollution, environmental & social disturbances during the life-cycle of the project,
ensuring compliance with environmental laws and regulation applicable
• Integrating mitigative measures with existing HOEC’s environmental action plans and
management systems so that they can be implemented, monitored and suitable
corrective action can be taken in case of deviations
1.3 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The basic scope for this study involves conducting an EIA study to understand the
environmental and social impacts of the proposed project and recommend suitable
preventive/ mitigative actions through the Environment Management Plan (EMP). The study
is based on the TOR approved by MoEF, vide letter- No. J-11011/245/2014-IA II (I) dated 9th
December, 2014 (Annexure 1.1). The scope of the study has been summarized below:
• Conduction of a reconnaissance visit to assess the existing environmental and socio
economic setting of the Dirok Development Field
• Undertaking site visits for collection of primary and secondary information on
environmental and social setting in the Field
• Formulating primary environmental monitoring plan and conducting monitoring as
per the plan
• Assessing the potential environmental and social impacts of the project
• Assessing risks associated with the project and preparation of the Emergency
Response Plan
• Suggesting mitigation measures to the negative impacts & implementation of various
positive and enhancement measures as a part of project benefit program to people of
the nearby areas
• Formulating effective EMP to prevent, control & mitigate the adverse environmental
impacts ensuring environmental compliance
SENES 22 HOEC
1.4 STRUCTURE OF THE EIA REPORT

The EIA report documents the results and findings of the EIA study undertaken by SENES.
Subsequent sections of the report present description of the project activities, environmental
& social baseline scenario and the outcome of assessment of the impacts and risks that may
arise during the lifecycle of the project. Subsequently, the environmental management plan
involving mitigation measures that will help in mitigating negative environmental impacts
have also been presented. The content of the report is structured as follows:
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Project Description
Chapter 3: Description of the Environment
Chapter 4: Anticipated Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Chapter 5: Analysis of Alternatives (Technology and Site)
Chapter 6: Additional Studies
Chapter 7: Project Benefits
Chapter 8: Environmental Management Plan
Chapter 9: Disclosure of Consultant
List of annexure provided below forms a part of the EIA report and has been incorporated at
the end of the report for cross-reference.
SENES 23 HOEC
2 Description of the Project
2.1 OVERVIEW
Block AAP-ON-94/1 (area 305 sq. km) is located in Tinsukia district of Assam. The
Block lies between Latitude 27°18'54.99'' to 27°11'30.00'' north and longitude 95°56'55.92''
to 95°20'00.00'' east. Initial exploration in this Block began in November 2000 resulting in
identification of multiple play types based on which the Consortium (HOEC, OIL and IOCL)
acquired 2D/3D seismic data in 2003 and drilled three exploratory and two appraisal wells
in the Block. Several sizeable prospects had been mapped and the Dirok wells drilled by
the Consortium have confirmed the presence of multiple gas bearing sands. Based on the
Dirok Discovery and subsequent drilling of appraisal wells in the Block, which produced
hydrocarbon from multiple sands from Girujan Formation; the MoPNG has approved the
Dirok discovery as commercial. Based on the Declaration of Commerciality (DoC) report, a
Plan of Development (PoD) has been submitted to DGH for the Dirok Field. The estimated
reserve of the Dirok Field is 135 approximately Billion Cubic Feet (BCF) of natural gas.
2.2 OBJECTIVES OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Objectives of the proposed development activities are summarized below:

• To put three existing wells namely Dirok 1, Dirok 2 and Dirok 4 on production and to
drill and complete three new development wells as producer wells to produce
hydrocarbons’ from Dirok Field safely without putting significant impact on the
environment;
• To set up a new Gas Gathering Station (GGS) and a Gas Processing Plant (GPP) with
handling capacity of 20 million standard cubic foot per day (mmscfd) of natural gas.
• To lay down two parallel gas pipelines to transport natural gas from GGS to GPP and
a single gas pipeline from GPP to Kusijan to transport the processed gas.
2.3 AAP-ON-94/1 BLOCK LOCATION & DESCRIPTION
2.3.1 Location
Block AAP-ON-94/1 is located in Assam-Arakan Basin and falls within geologically

complex Schuppen Thrust Belt. It is located in Tinsukia District of the State of Assam. The
Block covers approximately 305 sq. km area. Regional setting of the hydrocarbon field is
shown in Figure 2.1. The geographic location of the Block AAP-ON-94/1 and the proposed
development area i.e. Dirok Field is included within the Survey of India’s Topo- Sheet No.
SENES 24 HOEC D
83M/11. Dirok Field location maps superimposed on Toposheet and satellite imagery are
shown in Figure 2.2 and Figure 2.3 respectively.
2.3.2 Accessibility
Roads
The existing wells, proposed wells, GGS and GPP locations will be located in Tinsukia
district of Assam. The NH-37 is the main road link between Tinsukia district and the rest of
Assam and the country. From Makum town NH-37 bifurcates and continues as NH-38 to the
towns of Digboi, Margherita, Ledo etc. HOEC’s warehouse for storing equipments for
drilling and other activities is located at Digboi town. Digboi is located at the north of the
proposed project location. Apart from Digboi some other major towns in Tinsukia district are
Tinsukia, Margherita, Doom Dooma & Makum which are interlinked with each other through
the NH-37 & NH-38.
The existing and proposed wells and GGS will be located in Dirok Tea Estate under
Kumarpatty Panchayat, approximately 25 km from Digboi. Margherita town is located in the
south of Digboi town at a distance of 17 km and connected with Digboi through NH-38.
Deomali – Margherita road originates from NH-38 near Margherita tea estate factory and
connects Dirok Tea Estate area with NH-38 and subsequently with Margherita. This road will
provide access to all the wells (both proposed and existing) and proposed GGS locations.
Proposed wells and GGS locations and existing well locations will be approached from
Margherita-Deomali Road by using Dirok Tea Estates internal road network.
The proposed GPP location has been selected near Golai about 3.5 km from Digboi town.
The location is approximately 500 m. from NH-38 and located in a paddy field. However, no
approach road is present to reach proposed GPP location from NH-38.
Two group pipelines (high pressure and low pressure) will be originated from GGS and will
be terminated at GPP at Golai, having an approximate length of 16 km. The pipeline will be
laid parallel to Margherita- Deomali Road, NH-38, tea garden internal road links. A pipeline
of approximately 9km length will be laid from the GPP to the buyer’s off-take point at
Kusijan to transport processed sales gas.
Railway
Tinsukia –Ledo line of North East Frontier Railway is one of the major lifelines that connects
this area with rest of the Assam. Digboi railway station is located at distance of
approximately 3 km in North from proposed GPP location and approximately 18 km from the
existing and proposed wells and proposed GGS locations.
Airport
Dibrugarh is the nearest civilian airport located at distance of 80 km from Digboi which is
directly connected to the metropolis of Delhi, Kolkata and Guwahati.
The accessibility map is presented in Figure 2.4.
SENES 25 HOEC
FIGURE 2-1: REGIONAL SETTING MAP OF DIROK DEVELOPMENT FIELD
SENES 26 HOEC
FIGURE 2-2: DIROK DEVELOPMENT FIELD LOCATION MAP ON TOPOSHEET
SENES 27 HOEC
FIGURE 2-3: DIROK DEVELOPMENT FIELD LOCATION MAP ON SATELLITE IMAGERY
SENES 28 HOEC
FIGURE 2-4: ACCESSIBILITY MAP
SENES 29 HOEC
2.4 AAP-ON-94/1 BLOCK- DIROK DEVELOPMENT FIELD
2.4.1 Environmental Settings of Dirok Development Field
The key physical features (Refer Figure 2.5) of AAP-ON-94/1 and Dirok Development Field
have been described below:
• The Block is bounded in the north by Digboi town and the Barajan, Tarajan and
Jaipur settlements, in south by Tirap district of Arunachal Pradesh, in the east by
Tirap River and in the west by Namrup and Hukanimuri settlement.
• The Block lies south of the famous Digboi Field. Digboi town is located
approximately 25 km away from the well site and proposed GGS location.
• Margherita is the major town near the proposed drill sites and located approximately 4
km away in north-east direction. Some other important settlements present in this
Block are Golai Gaon, Makum, Durgabari, Makumpathar etc.
• Upper Dihing and Digboi reserve forests and Dehing Patkai Wildlife Sanctuary
(WLS) cover northern and western parts of the Block respectively. All the existing
and proposed wells and proposed GGS will be located within an aerial distance of 1.5
km from the Dehing Patkai Wildlife Sanctuary. Proposed GPP will be located 2 km in
east of the West Block of Digboi Reserve Forest and about 11 km from the WLS.
• Burhi Dihing river flows at the centre of the block from ENE to WSW direction. The
southern part of the Block is covered by uplands and hills. Rest of the area is covered
by tea gardens. Opencast and underground coal mines operated by Coal India
Limited are situated in the eastern part of the Block.
• All the existing and proposed wells and proposed GGS will be located within Dirok
Tea Estate. Proposed GPP will be located in agricultural land at Golai.
• Dirok Development Field mostly comprises of small to large tea estates, rural area
with agricultural lands, settlements and homestead plantation, tea processing plants
etc. Apart from these tea estate labour colonies, hospitals, dispensaries, schools are
present in the Field.
• Some important roads present in this Block namely NH37, NH 38, Deomali –
Margherita road. Village and tea garden ‘kaccha’ road network also present in the
block. The Block is well connected with rest of the India through North Frontier
Railway line. Dibrugarh is the nearest airport from this Block.
SENES 30 HOEC
Environmental Setting of Dirok Development Field
Tropical Rainforest of Dehing Patkai WLS Tea Garden of Dirok T.E.
Existing Drill Site DRK 1 Paddy field beside Rainforest of Upper Dehing (W
Block) R.F. in Balijan village
Burhi Dihing River Factory of Dirok T.E.
SENES 31 HOEC
FIGURE 2-5: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTINGS OF DIROK DEVELOPMENT FIELD
SENES 32 HOEC
2.4.2 Existing Activity in the Block
Consortium has been granted Environmental Clearance for 2 exploratory drill sites. The CTE
and CTO from the Assam Pollution Control Board (APCB) were granted. Pursuant to the
aforesaid EC, the Consortium has drilled 2 exploratory wells within the Block at Dirok and
N. Ledo sites. After drilling and upon establishment of commercially viable reserve of natural
gas at Dirok the well site was kept for future appraisal and development. As no commercially
viable reserve was estimated at N. Ledo the well site was reinstated and returned to land
owner. During 2009 another EC was granted to the Consortium via. File no. No. J-
11011/112/2009-1A-II (I) for drilling of three exploratory wells within the Block. The CTE
and CTO from the Assam Pollution Control Board (APCB) were granted. As part of this EC
another exploratory and appraisal well was drilled within the Dirok Tea Estate in the Block.
After drilling and upon establishment of commercially viable reserve of natural gas in that
well also the well site was also kept for future appraisal and development.
2.5 LOCATION OF WELLS, PROPOSED GPP AND GGS

The proposed well, GGS and GPP sites were selected based on environmental considerations
viz. location of sensitive ecological habitats, settlements, schools/ hospitals, water bodies etc.
Care had been taken to locate the wells, GGS and GPP distantly from these receptors.
Primarily, agricultural land and tea garden areas were selected for current development
activities. In case, well site selection in proximity to sensitive receptors could not be avoided
(due to presence of geological formations), requisite clearance/permission will be obtained.
In addition, proper environmental and safety measures as referred in the subsequent sections
of this report will be adopted to minimize footprints on these receptors. Existing and
proposed well, proposed GGS and proposed GPP coordinates are provided in Table 2.1 and
the locations of the wells at Dirok Field are shown in Figure 2.2.
TABLE 2-1: COORDINATES OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED WELL, PROPOSED GGS AND GPP
LOCATIONS
Well No Co-ordinate Village name/ Panchayat Dev. Block/District
Dirok 1 950 36/ 35.70//E; Village – Dirok Tea Estate, Block-Margherita,
(Existing) Panchayat – Kumarpatty District - Tinsukia
270 16/ 01.4//N
(Existing) Panchayat– Kumarpatty District - Tinsukia
270 16/ 01.70//N
(Existing) Panchayat– Kumarpatty District - Tinsukia
270 15/ 45.42// N
Dirok 5 950 37/ 03.74//E; Village– Dirok Tea Estate, Block-Margherita,
(Proposed) Panchayat– Kumarpatty District - Tinsukia
270 16/ 12.14//N
Dirok 6 950 37/ 27.57//E; Village– Dirok Tea Estate, Block-Margherita,
(Proposed) Panchayat – Kumarpatty District - Tinsukia
270 16/ 13.85//N
SENES 33 HOEC
Well No Co-ordinate Village name/ Panchayat Dev. Block/District

(Proposed) Panchayat– Kumarpatty District - Tinsukia
270 16 13.85//N
GGS 950 37/ 41.06//E; Village – Dirok Tea Estate, Block-Margherita,
(Proposed) Panchayat – Kumarpatty District - Tinsukia
270 15/ 45.42// N
GPP 95037/42.99//E; Village–Golai , Block-Margherita,
(Proposed) 27021/49.97// N Panchayat– Golai District - Tinsukia
2.6 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTINGS OF WELLS, GGS, GPP AND PIPELINE

Environmental setting around one km radius area (referred as study area) of each well site
and proposed GGS, two km radius area around proposed GPP and 500 m on either side of
proposed pipeline route were carried out during field survey and the same has been checked
with toposheet and satellite imagery.
2.6.1 Wells and GGS
Dirok 1 and Dirok 2

Existing Dirok 1 and Dirok 2 wells are located within Dirok Tea Estate. Dirok Tea Garden
and Lekhajan Tea Gardens are located in north and south to these well locations respectively.
Margherita- Deomali road will serve as access road to this site and this site can be
approached by using tea garden internal road linkage. Dirok tea garden labour colony and
Lekhajan tea garden labour colony are located at distances of approximately 700 m north and
400 m south respectively from the Dirok 1 and Dirok 2. A relatively smaller tea garden
labour colony of the Dirok Tea Estate is located in the west of this location at an approximate
distance of 100 m. Patches of agricultural land surrounds both the Dirok tea garden labour
colonies. These patches are being used for cultivation of paddy during the monsoon season.
Dehing Patkai WLS occupies the south- west part of the study area around Dirok 1 and Dirok
2 and the wells are located about 0.24 km from the WLS boundary. Four ephemeral streams
are passing within 1 km from these wells. Proposed well namely Dirok 5 will be located
approximately 700m north-east from the existing Dirok 1 and 2 well location.
The environmental setting map of the Dirok 1 and Dirok 2 is provided in Figure 2.6.
Dirok 4 and Proposed GGS

Dirok 4, an existing well and proposed GGS will be located at the same well site. Dirok 4 is
located adjacent to Margherita-Deomali Road and thus this road can serve as approach road
to this location. Like other existing and proposed wells, the site is within Dirok tea estate and
area present within 1 km is mainly being used for tea plantation. One hospital and one tea
factory of tea estate is located in the north east to the location at approximate distances of
600m and 700m respectively. Dirok tea garden labour colony is located in the west to this
location at a distance of 400m. One patch of agricultural land is located in the north-west side
SENES 34 HOEC
at an approximate distance of 800 m. This agricultural patch is being used for paddy
cultivation during monsoon season. There is one ephemeral stream flowing from southeast to
northwest of this project site. Proposed Dirok 7 will be located at an approximate distance of
950m in the north-east side of Dirok 4 and proposed GGS.
The environmental setting map of the Dirok 4 and GGS is provided in Figure 2.7.
SENES 35 HOEC
FIGURE 2-6: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF DIROK 1 AND DIROK 2 SITES
SENES 36 HOEC
FIGURE 2-7: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF DIROK 4 AND GGS
SENES 37 HOEC
Dirok 5
The proposed well is located at the plantation area of the Dirok Tea Estate. Tea bushes and
shed trees are present in the proposed well site. The proposed well side can be reached from
Margherita-Deomali road through internal road of Dirok Tea Estate. A stretch of 900m tea
garden road from Margherita-Deomaliroad needs to be strengthened and widened to carry
heavy machines and equipments. Majority of the land within 1km of this proposed well
location is used for tea cultivation by Dirok Tea Estate. Four tea estate labour colonies are
situated within one km radius of proposed Dirok– 5; one in the north at a distance of 100 m.,
one in the south-east at 500m distance, two in the south-west of the proposed well location at
600m distance. A patch of agricultural land used for paddy cultivation is present within 1 km
of this well in the north and further extended to east to the Dirok 5. One narrow rain fed canal
originates near the Dirok 5 well location and meets with another narrow ephemeral stream in
the north–east to the well side. Another ephemeral stream is passing through the west of the
Dirok 5. Existing Dirok 1 and 2 well and proposed Dirok 6 well will be located at distances
of 700m in south-west side and 600m eastern side respectively.
The environmental setting map of the Dirok 5 is provided in Figure 2.8.
Dirok 6
Proposed Dirok 6 well is located in tea plantation area within Dirok Tea Estate and three tea
gardens namely Margherita, Dirok and Lekhajan Tea Gardens are located at North- East and
West to the proposed well location respectively. Similarly, as that of Dirok 5 well site tea
bushes and shed trees are present in the proposed site. The proposed well side can be
approached from Margherita-Deomali road through internal roads of Dirok Tea Estate.
However, a stretch of 1.5 km tea garden road needs to be strengthened and widened. A large
patch of agricultural land is present at the north. Four ephemeral streams are originating
within 1 km of the proposed well site. Three labour colonies are present within 1 km radius of
well location; one in the north at a distance of 800m, one at south at a distance of 300m and
one at north-west at a distance of 600 m from Dirok 6. Proposed Dirok 5 will be located
approximately 600m west from the proposed well side.
SENES 38 HOEC
FIGURE 2-8: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF DIROK 5
SENES 39 HOEC
SENES 40 HOEC
Dirok 7
The proposed well will be located within Dirok Tea Estate and approximately 500m north
from Dirok Tea Estate tea processing factory. Similarly, as that of Dirok 5 and Dirok 6 well
sites tea bushes and shed trees are present in the proposed site. Margherita- Deomali Road
will serve as access road for this site and tea garden internal road of approximately 2km will
be used as approach road. Three tea gardens namely Margherita Tea Garden in the east,
Dirok Tea Garden in the west and north and Lekhajan Tea Garden in the south are located
within 1 km of the proposed well location. The land within 1 km of the proposed well is
primarily used for tea plantation. Two tea estate labour colonies are located at a distance of
300 m in north-east and 500 m in south-east respectively from proposed well location. One
hospital and healthcare facility of Dirok Tea Estate is located approximately 300 m in south
from proposed well site. Four ephemeral streams are present within 1 km of the proposed
well site – two in the north and two in the south. Only some shed trees are present in the
proposed well site. Existing Dirok 4 and proposed GGS will be located approximately 1 km
distance in south-west direction.
SENES 41 HOEC
SENES 42 HOEC
2.6.2 Environmental Setting of GPP
The proposed GPP will be located in the paddy field of the Golai village of Tinsukia district
at a distance of approximately 200m from NH -38 and Tinsukia –Ledo railway line of North
East Frontier Railway. An approach road of length about 200m will be constructed from the
NH-38 to reach GPP location. Central part of the land that is included within 2 km of the
proposed GPP location is agricultural land and being used mainly for paddy cultivation
during monsoon. A patch of Digboi Reserve Forest is located about 1.5 km at the west. At
northern side of proposed GPP location beyond Tinsukia –Ledo line is occupied by
unclassified forest land. The southern part of the GPP beyond the agricultural field is
occupied by plantation area of Powai tea garden. A network of tea garden internal road forms
a network of interlinked road in Powai tea garden and all such roads are connected with NH-
38. A big fishery pond is located in the south of Powai tea garden and settlement of Powai is
located at an approximate distance of 1.6 km in the south of the proposed GPP location.
Settlements namely Golai Basti No. 1 is located at a distance of 1.5 km in the north-west
direction, Golai Basti No. 2 is located at a distance of less than 100m in the north-west
direction and Golai Basti No. 3 is located at a distance of 1 km in the north-east direction
from the proposed GPP location. An Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) terminal is
under construction phase and is located in the north-east to the proposed GPP location at an
approximate distance of 600 m. Another big water body is located in the north of the
proposed GPP location at an approximate distance of 1.5 km. Four narrow ephemeral streams
are present within 2 km of the proposed GPP.
The environmental setting map of the GPP is provided in Figure 2.11
SENES 43 HOEC
FIGURE 2-11: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF GPP
SENES 44 HOEC
2.6.3 Pipeline
A stretch of 16 km proposed pipeline will be laid to transport unprocessed gas from proposed
GGS location to proposed GPP location and a stretch of approximately 9km length will be
laid from the GPP to the Buyer’s Off-take Point at Kusijan to transport processed sales gas.
Major land use in either side upto 500 m of the proposed pipeline RoW are tea garden, human
settlement, small patches of industrial areas, agricultural lands, unclassified forest land and
reserve forest land. The pipeline from the GGS to the GPP shall be constructed conforming to
international ANSI/API and also OISD Indian standards as per best industry practice. Each of
the two group pipelines(High Pressure and Low Pressure) originating from manifold at the
GGS and terminating at GPP at Golai will have a length of around 16km and diameter of 8
inch. The pipelines will be buried with earth cover of minimum 1.0 meter depth. The two
pipelines shall be installed parallel to each other as per ANSI B31.8/OISD standards. A single
pipeline 9 km in length and of 12 inch dia. would be constructed from GPP to Kusijan GGS.
Terrain along the entire route of the pipeline is more or less flat.
Landownership along the Pipeline Route

The pipeline will entirely run through the RoU of already existing roads. So no private land
will be involved for the laying the pipeline.
The proposed pipeline will follow the RoU of the following roads:
• Approximately 5.7 km of pipeline from GGS to the bank side of the Burhi Dihing
River will be laid along the Margherita Tea Garden road and Margherita-Deomali
Road under RoU
• 0.3 km stretch of pipeline would pass Burhi Dihing River and reach the Margherita
town
• From Margherita town, approximately 14 km pipeline will be laid along road side of
NH-38 up to Digboi Town under the RoU.
• From Digboi Town to Kusijan GGS, approximately 5 km will be laid along the road
side of Digboi-Duliajan road under the RoU.
Settlements along the Pipeline Route

Two major settlements fall within the route of the pipeline Margherita and Digboi.
Margherita town starts about 6km from the starting point of the pipeline. For the next 3.5km
the pipeline continues through Margherita town, along the RoU of NH 38. Digboi town is
about 17.5 km from the start point of the pipeline. For the next 3.5km the pipeline will pass
through Digboi town, along the RoU of NH38.
Other than these town other settlements like labour colony of Dirok, Margherita and Powai
tea estate, villages like Golai & Balijan fall along the route of the pipeline.
SENES 45 HOEC
Major Crossings along the Pipeline Route

There are three major crossing along the pipeline route. The crossings are as follows:
• The first crossing along the pipeline is Burhi Dihing River crossing. It is located about
5km from the starting point of the pipeline, along the Row of NH-38. Pipeline
installation is proposed by Horizontal Direction Drilling (HDD), which is trenchless
method for pipeline installation. In this method pipeline follows a parabolic curve
path along the river bed profile. At no point of time during installation, trenching of
river bed is required. The crossing will be approximately 300 m in length.
• The second major crossing is rail line crossing of Digboi-Ledo rain line. Digboi-Ledo
rail line is a broad gauge line. This crossing is located about 6.5km from the starting
point of pipeline, along the RoU of NH-38, within Margherita Town.
• The third major crossing is rail line crossing of Digboi-Ledo rail line near the factory
of Powai tea estate. It is located around 12.5km from the starting point of pipeline,
Ecologically Sensitive Zones along the Pipeline Route

Elephant Corridor – In between the Powai tea estate in south and Golai village in north lies
the Golai-Powai elephant corridor. Elephant uses this corridor to move between Upper
Dehing (West Block) R.F. and Upper Dehing (East Block) R.F. While passing through the
RoU of NH38 the pipeline crosses this elephant corridor near Golai village.
Forest – The Kusijan GGS is located in forest land of Upper Dehing (West Block) Reserve
Forest. Before entering the GGS the pipeline will pass, about 1.77 km through forest land of
afore mentioned reserve forest. In this stretch the pipeline mostly follows the RoU of
Duliajan-Digboi road, and for the last few hundred meters the pipeline follows the RoU of the
approach road of Kusijan GGS that arises from the Duliajan-Digboi road.
Though in this stretch the land is classified as forest land, there is no forest cover. Vegetation
had been cleared from this forest land for more than 40 years and presently the area has a
rural setup with agricultural fields and settlement. Though the pipeline crosses no other
forests, it passes very close to Digboi Reserve Forest (about 200m) and unclassified forests of
Digboi (about 100m) near Digboi town.
Industries along the Pipeline Route

Within 500m of the pipeline a few industrial setups are located.
• Factory of Dirok Tea Estate – It is located within 500m from the start point of the
pipeline.
• Saw Mill – Within Margherita town, about 6.5km from the start point of the pipeline,
a saw mill is located adjacent to the NH38, i.e. few meters from the planned pipeline.
• Factory of Powai Tea Estate – Powai tea garden factory is located adjacent to the
proposed pipeline, about 12.5km from the start point of the pipeline.
SENES 46 HOEC
• IOCL Terminus (Under Construction) – AN IOCL terminus is under construction

near Golai village. It is located about 400m from the proposed pipeline. This area is
about 16 km from the start point of the pipeline.
• Digboi Refinery – The Digboi refinery is the Asia’s oldest oil refinery still in
operation. The Digboi town has grown around the refinery. The refinery is located
about 200m from the route of the proposed pipeline along the Row of NH 38.
• IOCL Terminus – It is an existing terminus, located within Digboi town, close to
Digboi refinery. The route of the proposed pipeline passes within few meters of the
IOCL terminus. In this stretch the pipeline follows the RoU of Duliajan-Digboi road.
The environmental setting map of the pipeline alignment is provided in Figure 2.12.
SENES 47 HOEC
FIGURE 2-12: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF PIPELINE ALIGNMENT
SENES 48 HOEC
2.7 PROPOSED PROJECT ACTIVITIES

The lifecycle of project activities for the proposed project has been divided into distinct steps
and each is described in detail in the subsequent sections. HOEC now planned the following
activities:
• Drilling of three new wells.
• Putting three existing wells and three new wells into production.
• Setting up of a GGS
• Setting up of a new GPP
• Laying two parallel gas pipelines to evacuate natural gas from GGS to GPP.
• Laying a single process gas pipeline from the GPP to Kusijan offtake point.
2.8 DRILLING ACTIVITY

The drilling of three new well has been classified into three phases;
Pre-drilling activity
• Site selection
• Land acquisition
• Site access road and drill site construction
• Pre-drilling activities, mobilization and Rigging up
• Initial well construction
Drilling activity
• Drilling of wells
• Testing of wells
Well decommissioning
• Well abandonment
• Site closure and decommissioning
• Site Restoration
2.8.1 Pre-drilling Activity
The pre-drilling phase will involve the following activities:
SENES 49 HOEC
Site Selection
Three existing wells namely Dirok 1, Dirok 2 and Dirok 4 will be put on production on the
existing well sites. All the locations of three new proposed wells, selected by HOEC’s are
based on geological data available. Suitable drilling locations were selected based on physical
(terrain and access) and technical suitability. Detailed drill site and access road survey will be
carried out prior to land procurement and construction of drill site.
Selecting drill site’s environmental considerations is as below:
• Non-forest area and area with low vegetation.
• Away from organized human habitats.
• Easy access to area of interest
• Away from sensitive ecological habitat
A shift of 200m in the location of development wells can be expected on account of
existing tea garden operations.
Land Procurement
All the proposed new drill site locations are selected at the plantation area of Dirok Tea
Estate. During the site selection process all the legal requirements will be considered and
surface location will be finalized. Once the surface drilling location is finalized, land
acquisition will be done which will also include compensation for shade trees and tea bushes.
After finalization of drill site, HOEC will procure the land from the Dirok Tea Estate on long
term lease. Total land requirement for each of the drill sites would be approximately 2.0
hectares. All the proposed drill sites are away from human habitation; therefore any
displacement will not be required for this project.
Tea Garden Land
HOEC will take the required land on long-term lease through private negotiation In case that
the activity on site may get extended beyond the current project schedule, the leases will be
renewed from time-to-time.
Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Residential / built-up land will not be acquired for the proposed drilling activity; hence
rehabilitation and resettlement will not be associated with the project activities. Additionally,
it is to be mentioned that, no rehabilitation and resettlement is required during construction or
strengthening or widening of approach road.
Site Access Road and Drill Site Construction

Construction of Access Road
Site preparation will involve all activities required to facilitate the operation of the drilling rig
and associated equipments and machineries. Construction of site access road will not require
SENES 50 HOEC
any forest land or involve displacement of any household. As far as possible, existing roads
will be used. Cutting of trees will be avoided. The existing drill sites are located close to
access roads and already have the approach roads which would be adequate to carry the load
of heavy vehicles and machineries during operation phase. Hence construction of approach
road to the existing drill sites would not be required but at some locations repairing of
existing approach road has been envisaged. However, for three new proposed drill sites, the
existing tea garden approach road will be strengthened and widened. Among the proposed
wells, 920 m road of tea garden needs to be widened and strengthened to reach Dirok 5 from
Margherita- Deomali Road. For Dirok 6 a stretch of 1.5 km tea garden road from Margherita-
Deomali Road needs to be strengthened and widened. For Dirok 7, a stretch of approx 2 km
tea garden road needs to strengthened and widened.
Drill Site Construction
Once the approach road to the site is developed, the drilling site will be elevated. Firstly
clearing of existing vegetation mainly comprised of tea plant, shed trees and small bushes at
the proposed new drill sites will be carried out after obtaining permission from tea estate and
forest department. After clearing of existing vegetation, the top soil (comprises of 150 mm
loose top soil) will be removed and saved within the site for later use during site restoration.
Leveling and compaction will be done with the help of graders and mechanical rollers. Earth
and fill material and rubble will be used for land filling and site preparation. All such
materials will be procured from government approved borrows and quarries. A total of about
9200 m3 of earth and fill material and 13800 m3 of rubbles have been estimated to be required
for land filling and site preparation for each of the new drill sites. A mechanized backhoe will
be used for all excavation and cutting activities (for construction of pits) on site.
Subsequently, the proposed well site & campsite will be duly fenced using chain link and
barbed wires. Quantity wise construction material requirement for each new drill site has
been incorporated in Table 2.2.
TABLE 2-2: QUANTITY OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS REQUIRED FOR EACH NEW WELL
Name Quantity (m3)
Cement 34
Sand 137.1
Earth/ Fill Material 9200
Rubble 13800
Others (blue metal) 68.6
Construction of Platforms
For the construction of the foundation of platforms for drill pad and all other heavy
equipment systems or machinery, cast in-situ Reinforced Cement Concrete (RCC) will be
used. The rig foundation will be of size 20m X 20m and will have an elevation of 0.6 m. from
rest of the site. For making the foundations of main rig structure, cast in-situ bored under-
reamed piles of specified lengths will also be used. The elevated structures will have proper
SENES 51 HOEC
storm water drains with sufficient gradient, made up of brick masonry, to take care of surface
runoff water.
Construction of Campsites
Campsites will be elevated to the height as that of the drilling site adjoining the well site. The
camp site will have rooms for drilling workers and HOEC personnel, sanitary facility,
designated cooking area, septic tanks and soak pits for taking care of sewerage and waste
water. Drilling contractor base camp would be established at Margherita town.
Construction of Storage Area

The Consortium will use its own warehouse facility located at Digboi town approximately 25
km away from the proposed well sites. However, storage facilities will be built at each of the
drilling sites to store flammable substances viz. diesel, lubricants and other necessary tools
and chemicals etc. At each of the well site a diesel storage facility capable of storing 35 KL
diesel as 7 days back up will be constructed.
Construction of Waste Pits
Disposal of drilling waste in the form of spent drilling mud and cuttings will be disposed on-
site in specially designed pits provided with an impervious HDPE liner of 1-1.5 mm
thickness. There will be a cuttings pit for disposal of drill cuttings and two waste pits of
disposal of drilling mud and rig wash water.
The schematic layout of proposed drill site is provided at Figure 2.13.
Rig Mobilization and Rigging up

A rig building process will follow the site preparation activities. This process involves
transport of rig including auxiliary equipments and camp facilities, assembling of various rig
parts and equipment to drill a well. The transport of the Rig including auxiliary equipments &
Camp facilities to the site is expected to comprise around 100 truck loads. Though the rig and
related equipments will be directly brought to site, spares, chemicals and other materials will
be received at the staging point and will be used for intermediate storage of materials. The rig
equipment will however be transported directly to the drilling site during mobilization and
will be de-mobilised directly from the site. The materials will be intermittently supplied from
warehouse to the drilling site, during the operations with some stock at the drilling site itself.
Once the drilling rig is assembled, thorough rig inspection will be carried out to check
equipment working capability and quality standards. The rig will have various allied
equipments like mud tanks, mud pumps, compressors, fuel tank, DG sets etc.
Given the sensitivity of the site from the noise emission viewpoint, it has been decided that
all construction activities and transportation of goods and equipments related to such
activities will be restricted to the extent possible to day time.
SENES 52 HOEC
FIGURE 2-13: SCHEMATIC LAYOUT OF DRILL SITE
SENES 53 HOEC
Initial Well Construction

Wells are drilled in sections, with the diameter of each section decreasing with increasing
depth. Before commencing the actual drilling, large diameter pipe (Conductor) will be
lowered into a hole and cemented. Conductor pipes provide a conduit for the return fluid
during drilling next section and also prevent the falling of unconsolidated material into the
hole and potential washout problems. Typical depths of such pipes are 6m.
The lengths and diameters of each section of the well are determined prior to drilling and are
dependent on the geological conditions through which the well is to be drilled. Spudding in
well is the start of drilling activity. Top-hole section will be drilled to a desired depth based
on well design. Once each section of the well is completed, the drill string is lifted and
protective steel pipe or casing lowered into the well and cemented into place. The casing
helps to maintain the stability of the hole and reduce fluid losses from the well bore into
surrounding rock formations i.e. it provides support to hole wall and secures hole section.
Other than that, it isolates problematic hole sections such as loss zones, shale sections, over
pressurized formations, etc. This process of drilling and casing the hole section continues
until the final well depth (target) is achieved. Proposed well profile and casing plan for the
drill sites is given in Table 2-3.
TABLE 2-3: HOLE SIZES AND DEPTHS OF THE DRILL SITES
Hole size (inches) Casing size (inches) Depth from (m md brt) Depth to (m md brt)
26 20 15 275
17.5 13.375 275 1350
12.25 9.625 1350 2225
8.5 2225 2800
2.8.2 Drilling Activity
The drilling of hydrocarbons requires the construction of a conduit between the surface and
the reservoir. This is achieved by the drilling process. The development wells will be drilled
using a standard land rig or an “Onshore Mobile Land Rig” with standard water based
drilling fluid treatment system. This rig will be suitable for deep drilling up to the desired
depth of 2500 metres as planned for the project. The major components of drilling unit are
Hoisting system, Rotating Equipment, Circulating System, Tubular Goods, Pressure Control,
Derrick and Substructure. The typical configuration of a Drilling Rig is shown in the Figure
2.14.
SENES 54 HOEC
FIGURE 2-14: TYPICAL DRILLING RIG CONFIGURATION
To support the drilling operation, the following systems and services will be included in the
rig package:
• Portable living Quarters - It is provided in the rig to house essential personnel on site
on a 24 hr basis. These units are provided with bath/washroom.
• Crane age – Cranes for loading/off loading equipment and supplies.
• Emergency Systems - This includes fire detection and protection equipment.
• Environmental Protection – Blow out Prevention (BOP) system, wastewater treatment
unit, cuttings handling equipment.
Additionally, there will be other ancillary facilities like Drilling mud system, ETP, Cuttings
disposal, Drill Cementing, equipment etc. and utilities to supply Power (DG sets), water, fuel
(HSD) to the drilling process and will be set up as a part of the project.
Emergency response plan was in place to counter any abnormal situations like H2S release.
Self Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) kits were made available in drill site.
SENES 55 HOEC
Mud System and Cuttings

During drilling operations drilling fluid (or ‘mud’) will be pumped through the drill string
down to the drilling bit and returns between the drill pipe –casing annulus up to surface back
into the circulation system after separation of drill cuttings /solids through solids control
equipment. Drilling fluid is essential to the operation and helps in controlling down-hole
pressure, lift soil/rock cuttings to the mud pit, prevent cuttings from settling in the drill pipe,
lubricate, cool and clean the drill bit amongst other functions. Drilling mud basically
comprises of inert earth materials like bentonite which is capable of forming highly dispersed
colloidal solution, barite in water with several additives to give mud weight, fluidity and filter
cake characteristics while drilling. The requirements and the constituents of drilling mud are
dictated by the temperature/pressure conditions of the wells. The mud is continuously tested
for its density, viscosity, yield point, water loss, pH value etc. to ensure that the drilling
operations can be sustained without any down hole complications.
A uniform water-based mud system will be used in all the proposed wells. Unlike an oil-
based mud system, usage of water-based mud will not pose higher risk of contamination to
subsurface formations, but disposal of the fluid and cuttings will be less problematic. Because
of the anticipated borehole instability problems it may be necessary to introduce a base salt,
such as Potassium Sulphate (K2SO4) into the system. Chemicals required for the preparation
of drilling fluid will be centrally stored in Digboi. Additionally, some chemicals will also be
stored in the drill site. The storage area will be paved and bunded and will be provided with a
shed.
Based on the type of formation encountered the mud system used in the earlier drilling
operations in Dirok composed off
• Dirok 1: Water Base Mud: Gel Polymer and K2SO4 Polymer (Potassium Sulphate).
• Dirok 2: Water Base Mud: Pre Hydrated Gel Polymer (PHGP) and Potassium
Sulphate Polymer System (POAS).
• Dirok 4: Water Base Mud: PHB (Polyhydroxybutyrate), K2SO4 Mud and KLA-
GARD.
It is expected the mud composition would be similar in nature for the proposed wells as they
will be drilled through the similar geological formation.
The mud used during the operation will flush out formation cuttings from the well hole due to
crushing action of the bit. Cuttings will be removed by flushing the well with duplex/triplex
mud pumps. The mud from the pump will be discharged through the rotary hose connected to
stationary part of the swivel, the drill string and bit nozzles. The mud coming out of the bit
nozzles will push the cuttings up hole and will transports them to the surface through the
annular space between the drill string and the hole. The mud not only carries away crushed
rock from the bottom of the hole but it also cools the bit as it gets heated due to friction with
formation while rotating. The mud also helps in balancing subsurface formation pressures
SENES 56 HOEC
and by forming a cake on the walls of the well diminishes the possibility of crumbling or
caving of the well bore.
Disposal of Waste Drill Mud and Drill Cutting
The under flow from the solids control equipment (de-sander and de-silter/ centrifuges) will
be collected in a waste mud pit. The waste mud pit will also contain spent mud generated
during post drilling operations. The contents of the waste mud pit will be treated at the site by
a combination of all of the following processes:
• Flocculation
• Gravity Separation
• Centrifuging
• Filtering and
• Emulsification
The cuttings will be separated from the drilling mud using a solids-control and waste
management package. This will comprise a stepped system of processes consisting of linear
motion vibrating screens called shakers, de-sander, de-silter and centrifuges to mechanically
separate cuttings from the mud fluid. Both the cuttings from the shale shakers and centrifuge
are collected in a Solid Discharge pit and then removed to a specially designed pit lined with
1-1.5mm thickness of HDPE. This cuttings pit has a certain slope to drain off water in the
adjacent waste pit. This pit after being filled up shall be covered with an impervious liner
over which a thick layer of native top-soil with proper top slope will be provided. The total
amount of cuttings produce during the entire drilling period is projected to be about 450-500
m3 per well. After completion of the drilling activities, cuttings will be tested for hazardous
nature and based on nature of the drill cuttings, final disposal pathway will be finalized by
HOEC.
Once the cuttings have been separated, the drilling fluid will be reused or processed after
further treatment in a chemically enhanced dewatering (CED) system designed to remove
suspended solids that are too fine for mechanical separation in the solids control package.
The CED system comprises a chemical mixing and dosing unit and decanting centrifuges.
The unusable portion of the drilling mud after dewatering shall be disposed on-site in a lined
pit (HDPE 1-1.5mm thickness) conforming to the regulatory requirements. The drilling and
wash wastewater will be confined to a similar HDPE lined waste pit and then treated by the
on-site Effluent Treatment Plant. The dewatered mud will subsequently be disposed in a
similar manner as for waste cuttings.
Disposal of mud and cuttings is dependent on establishing non-hazardous or hazardous nature
after the end of operations. However HOEC plans to dispose the spent mud in a lined pit
(1mm HDPE) on site confirming to the regulatory requirements.
The whole process by which the drilling fluid will be reused during the drilling operation is
commonly known as a “closed loop system.” This system is ideal for drilling operations in
SENES 57 HOEC
sensitive environments as it cuts down immensely on the total water consumption for the
formulation of drilling mud and also saves on the consumption of chemicals. Figure 2.15
shows the schematic layout of Drilling Mud and Solids discharge system involved for the
wells. Figure 2.16 shows the drilling fluid circulation system which is designed to enable the
drilling fluid to be recycled and maintained in good condition throughout the operation.
Various components of the drilling mud will be selected carefully to be able to provide
desired properties to the mud. Mud chemicals will be added to the uniform mud system to
adjust the mud properties and ensure fluid loss control/circulation, lubricity, shale inhibition,
pH control and pressure control in the well during drilling. Chemicals required for the
preparation of drilling fluid will be centrally stored in Digboi. Additionally, some chemicals
will also be stored in the drill site. The storage area will be paved and bunded and will be
provided with a shed.
Cementing Programme
Cementing is a necessary aspect of drilling oil and gas wells. Cement is used to
• Secure/support casing strings
• Isolate zones for production purposes
• Solve various hole problems
Cementing generally utilizes Portland cement (API Class G Oil Well Cement) with various
additives in small quantities as accelerators/retarders, density adjusters, dispersants, fluid loss
additives, anti gas migration additives, etc.
Well Logging
Between the drilling operations for different zones, logging operations are undertaken to
provide information on the potential type and quantities of hydrocarbons present in the target
formations. Technicians employed by a specialist Logging Service will be entrusted with the
job of undertaking well logging. Logging instruments (sensors) will be attached to the bottom
of a wire line and lowered to the bottom of the well. They are then slowly brought back, the
devices reading different data as they pass each formation and recording it on graphs, which
can be interpreted by the geologist, geophysicist and drilling engineer. There will be no
emissions to the environment associated with wire line logging operations. The radioactive
source required for well logging operations will be kept in specially designed container.
For the drill sites, well evaluation will be done by using electric wire line logs and RFT to
assess the potential of the reservoir. This involves sampling the reservoir formation and
pressure points during logging operations and reduces the requirement to flow hydrocarbons
to the surface, significantly reducing the atmospheric emissions associated with the testing
operation.
Normally, in the event that hydrocarbons are encountered in sufficient quantities as
determined by electric wire line logs, a temporary drill stem test string may be run and the
well fluids flowed to surface and processed using a surface well testing package, involving
the gas being stored and trucked off site and associated gas being flared to atmosphere.
SENES 58 HOEC
FIGURE 2-15: DRILLING WASTE MANAGEMENT
Drilling mud separation

Drilling Operation Drill cuttings plus in shale shaker
drilling mud
Drilling mud reused
Disposal after testing and Washed & free of oil drill

treatment to meet regulatory cuttings to HDPE lined drill
requirement cutting pit
Drill cutting washing
Disposal after testing and Washed waste water to HDPE

treatment to meet regulatory lined waste water pit
requirement
SENES 59 HOEC
FIGURE 2-16: TYPICAL DRILLING FLUID CIRCULATION SYSTEM
Testing
Testing facilities will be available at drilling rig for separation of liquid phase and burning of
all hydrocarbons during testing. The test flare boom will be located at a distance from the
drilling rig.
2.8.3 Well Decommissioning
Site Closure and Decommissioning

After the wells are put into production de-mobilisation of drilling rig and associated
infrastructure will be initiated. Only a small part of the drilling platform along with the
production tubings will be kept on site. Decommissioning will involve the dismantling of the
rig, all associated equipments and the residential camp, and transporting it out of the project
area. It is expected that demobilization phase will last about 10 days and will involve the
trucking away of materials, equipments and other materials from site to bring it back to
original condition. It is estimated that about 100 truckloads will be transported out of site
during this period.
Subsequently, following steps will be typically involved to restore and rehabilitate the area:
• All concrete structures will be broken up, and the debris disposed off
• All other waste products, solid and liquid, will be disposed of in accordance with the
requirements of the EIA and will be treated to render them harmless
• The pit used for drill cutting storage will be covered with HDPE liners and covered
with layer of excavated topsoil during the site closure
SENES 60 HOEC
The following decommission activities would be conducted after the completion of

production activities
• The well will be sealed with cement plugs and wellhead fittings (blind flange) left on
the surface (Cellar)
• The wellhead and all casing string will be cut off to a minimum depth of 3 m (10 ft)
below ground level
• All fencing and access gates will be removed
• Restoration of unusable portion of the access track, removal of pilings and
Landscaping
Site Restoration
All drill sites after the completion of production activities will be restored back to its near
original condition. After decommissioning of site, it will be de-compacted and stored top soil
will be overlain on the de-compacted site with certain moisture conservation measures and
seeding of leguminous plant for restoration soil nutrient level naturally. In this regard a
consultation will be made with the land owner i.e. with Dirok Tea Estate Authority in this
case on the returning back of the leased land. Depending on the preference of the land owner,
land will be returned as it is or reinstated as it was prior to the project activity
2.9 GAS GATHERING STATION (GGS)

The construction of proposed GGS will involve the following steps:
2.9.1 Pre- Construction activity
Land requirement for GGS construction would be about 0.06 ha (30m X 20 m) and will be
located in the existing Dirok 4 well site premises. Proposed GGS will be located in the
existing Dirok 4 well site premises. No new land will be taken in lease. Approach road to
reach well namely Dirok 4 is already present and this road will also be used as approach road
for proposed GGS. Only some repairing of this road has been envisaged. The proposed GGS
site has no trees and any other permanent structure. Therefore, tree felling and any demolition
will not be required. The proposed GGS facility will be duly fenced to a height of about 2 m
using RCC structure and brick wall to restrict unlawful entry into the site.
2.9.2 Site Construction
The proposed GGS will be constructed within the Dirok area. Construction of the GGS shall
be carried out in the extended area of existing Dirok 4 well site. Construction and
development work will be done on approximate 0.06 ha land for construction of the GGS.
The process flow diagram of the GGS is presented in Figure 2.17.
SENES 61 HOEC
For proposed GGS the construction work will entail construction of civil foundation, erection
of manifolds, flow line and valve network. No building will be constructed in proposed GGS
facility. A fire water tank will be constructed and along with that a fire pump will be
installed.
FIGURE 2-17: PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM OF THE GGS
2.10 GAS PROCESSING PLANT (GPP)

The construction of proposed GPP will involve the following activities:
Pre- Construction activity

• Site selection
• Construction of approach road
• Fencing
• Top soil scrapping
• Site elevation
Construction activity
• Site construction
SENES 62 HOEC
2.10.1 Pre- Construction activity
Site selection
The GPP shall be constructed near Digboi town, approximately at 16 km distance from the
proposed GGS. Approximately 6 ha (300m x 200m) land will be required for construction of
the GPP. The proposed GPP would be located on the agricultural land at Golai village. The
GPP location was selected on the basis of suitable land availability and distance from
environmental sensitivity.
Land Acquisition
Like each drilling well land for land for construction of GPP would also be taken by HOEC
from private land owner on long-term lease.
Private Land
Generally, HOEC will take the required land on long-term lease through private negotiation.
For proposed GPP, agricultural land will be procured. HOEC will compensate the land
owners for land value and standing crop. The life of the GPP shall be approximately 15 years.
In the case that the activity on site may get extended beyond the current project schedule, the
leases will be renewed from time-to-time.
Residential / built-up land will not be acquired for the proposed GPP construction; hence
rehabilitation and resettlement will not be associated with the project activities.
Construction of Access Road

New approach road of approximately 450 meters length shall be constructed from the
existing National Highway to the GPP site.
Fencing
The proposed GPP site has no trees and any other permanent structure. Therefore, tree felling
and any demolition will not be required. The proposed GGS and GPP facility will be duly
fenced to a height of about 2 m using RCC structure and brick wall to restrict unlawful entry
into the site.
Top Soil Scraping

The top soil of the entire proposed GPP site will be gauged scraped and stored in designated
top soil storage site for future use.
Site Elevation
Once top soil removal process is completed, the entire site will be elevated, leveled and
compacted. The site may require filling of earth to elevate the drilling platform based on local
topography and High Flood Level (HFL). Quantity of fill material required for the site
SENES 63 HOEC
depends upon the site elevation and HFL. Fill material will be sourced from authorized
quarry area.
2.10.2 Site Construction
The proposed Gas Processing Plant will be designed in conformance to ASME B31.3, and the
raw gas pipeline downstream and the sales gas pipeline upstream of the GPP will be designed
in conformance to ASME B31.8. Construction and development work will be done on
approximately 6 ha (300 m X 200 m) for erection of GPP. Construction of proposed GPP will
also include construction of civil foundation, control room, administration buildings,
warehouse etc. Erection of manifolds, vessels, tanks, pipings, affixing of associated valves
will be done in the proposed GPP. GPP construction will also include mechanical structural
work and instrumentation.
Quantity wise construction material requirement for GPP has been incorporated in Table 2-4
TABLE 2-4: QUANTITY OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS REQUIRED FOR GPP
Name Quantity (m3)
Cement 856.5
Sand 3427.5
Earth/ Fill Material 230000
Rubble 310000
Others (blue metal) 1715
2.10.3 GPP Components
A brief description of the Facilities at GPP is given below.

The Gas Processing Plant (GPP) shall be of very basic in design and construction, and
includes the following equipment/machineries
• Production Manifold/ Test Manifold

• Scraper Receiver
• Test Separator
• Gas feed separator or Inlet Separator ( 3 Phase)
• Scrubber / Filter
• Heaters to raise the temperature of the produced gas at the plant battery limit
according to customer’s requirement
• Stages Separators, 2 No. ( 1st stage and 2nd stage)
• Concealed Ground Flaring System
• Effluent Treatment Plant
SENES 64 HOEC
• Metering arrangement/Sale gas Off-take Point

• Gas engine Electrical Generators
• Fire Fighting System
• Plant Utilities Systems like Instrument Air, Plant Air, fuel Gas System, potable water
system etc
• Base work for Booster Gas compressor stations for future use, civil works planning
and Tie-in provision for future gas Compressors.
• Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition(SCADA)
• Communication Systems
• Control room building
In the GPP, all the group flow lines carrying high pressure raw wet gas will be routed through
a Indirect Bath Heater (IBH) for pre-heating and then pass through a Variable Choke(VC) for
expansion to a lower pressure around 23 Kg/cm2. Then this stream will pass through High
Pressure Three Phase Separator operating at a high pressure of around 23 Kg/cm2. Gas,
condensate and water will be separated in the separator. Gas from top of the Separator will
pass through a Scrubber/Filter operating at same pressure as that of the 3 Phase Separator.
The clean gas will then pass through a Custody Transfer Metering (CTM) arrangement for
measurement of volume and quality of gas prior to handing over to a Designated Customer.
The separated water from the separator will be taken to a Sump Tank and then through an
Effluent Plant (ETP) for final disposal as the guidelines of Water Pollution Act.
Condensate from the Separator will be passed through a Condensate Stabilizer Vessel
operating at a lower pressure around 1.5 to 2.5 Kg/cm2 so that the high molecular gas, flushed
in this vessel can be processed through a Vapour Recovery(VR) system for additional yield
of condensate. Moreover, it will reduce the evaporation loss in the condensate tanks and
thereby the hazard will be minimized. Stabilized condensate from the stabilizer vessel will be
taken to condensate storage tanks. The low pressure gas off the Condensate Stabilizer Vessel
will be compressed with the help of a small capacity (less than 0.5 MMSCFD) 2 Stage
Reciprocating VR Compressor from 2.0 Kg/cm2 to 23 Kg/cm2. The discharge of the
Compressor will be connected to the outlet of the High Pressure Separator. The 1st and 2nd
stage liquid drains of VR Compressor will contain condensate and this stream will be routed
to the inlet of the Condensate Stabilizer Vessel.
The separated low pressure gas will be required to be compressed to higher pressure range
above 21 Kg/cm2 to render it deliverable to the designated customer. For this, compression
facility with gas engine driven reciprocating two stage gas compressors is to be installed in
the GPP. The total capacity of compression required will be around 0.4 MMSCMD (14
MMSCFD)
SENES 65 HOEC
Non-Processing Area Facilities

The Non-processing Area will have the following facilities:
• Oil/condensate storage & Offloading-2 tanks for minimum 15 days capacity. Eventual
options to be considered.
• Condensate Storage tanks Dipstick Metering or other fiscal measuring accepted by the
competent authority
• Loading pumps for transfer
• Fuel storage – Diesel storage tank with unloading pump & Transfer Pumps
• Contaminated storm water system consisting of Pits, Oil Interceptor, Oil Reservoir,
Effluent and other pumps etc.
• Closed drain system consisting of CD Drum and Pump.
• Prefabricated structures for boundary fencing / wall to avoid too much site
construction interference from the elements outside the premises. Quality bunk houses
(Porta cabins) or well ventilated containers shall be considered for office purposes for
similar reasons.
• Water treatment system
• Plant Management and Administration building
• Other Buildings and Sheds.
A brief schematic layout of GPP is provided in Figure 2.18
SENES 66 HOEC
FIGURE 2-18: SCHEMATIC LAY OUT OF THE GPP
2.10.4 Process Flow
Wells will be connected through flow lines and manifolds to a common pipeline for
transportation of well fluids to Gas Gathering Station (GGS). From GGS is Dirok Tea Estate
the fluids would be transported to GPP located in Golai by transportation pipelines. The
approximate length of pipeline between GGS and GPP would be 16 kms. Fluid from GGS
would be first routed to a 3 phase inlet separator where condensate and water from the gas
would be separated. The separated gas would be sent to a scrubber/filter and then to the
processed gas pipeline. The GPP would be planned for 20mmscfd gas processing and
handling capacity. The condensate would be separated from water by first and second stage
separators and stored at the condensate storage tanks. Planned condensate storage and
handling capacity at the GPP would be 800 bpd. Produced water generated from separation
process (approximately 10 m3/day) would be stored at produce water storage tank and treated
in Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) to conform to the CPCB discharge standard.
SENES 67 HOEC
Drainage and Wastewater Disposal

The plant area will be provided with a network of surface drains to cater to the 20-year
maximum intensity of rainfall expected in the area. The process drains will be closed type
and will be kept segregated from the storm water flows. The rain-water flows from area that
has a potential for contamination due to the facility operation will be routed to the process
drain through suitable valve / isolation gate control. A check oil trap will be provided near the
outlet of the storm water drain.
Sewage from the toilets of the buildings will be connected to either septic tanks / soak-away
system. The treated sewage will be used for greenbelt development.
Approximately 10 m3/day produced water would be generated after gas processing; the water
would be treated in an Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) and discharged after compliance to the
CPCB Discharge Standards or reused.
Fire Fighting Facilities

The dyked tank area with containment provisions will be provided with water sprinkler
system and other fire fighting provisions like portable fire extinguishers, sand filled buckets,
fire water tank, fire water pumps, jockey pumps, fire hydrants, monitors firewater rings, etc
as per OISD 117 & 189. Further gas detectors of gases like hydrocarbons, smokes will be
placed in different locations. The tanks will be grouped so as to provide optimum
containment arrangement and prevent any spills and leaks to spread throughout the tank farm
area.
2.11 PIPELINE LAYING

Two parallel pipelines (High Pressure & Low Pressure) shall be laid to transport the
unprocessed natural gas from the manifold at the GGS to the GPP and processed natural gas
shall be transported from the GPP to the sales gas offtake point at Kusijan by a single
pipeline. The laying of pipeline will involve various sequential activities and it will be
conforming to the guidelines specified under OISD Standard “OISD-STD-141- Design &
Construction Requirements of Cross Country Hydrocarbon Pipelines”. Underground pipeline
will be alongside the existing roads namely Margherita- Deomali Road, NH – 38 and
Duliajan- Digboi Road. The construction details regarding the laying pipeline have been
discussed in detail below Pipeline laying activity
• Designing & planning
• Corridor selection
• Perimeter fencing
• Clearing and grading
• Trenching
SENES 68 HOEC
• Bending and welding

• Coating
• Hydro-testing
• Backfilling
• Restoration
• Pipeline warning marks
Designing and Planning

• Two parallel pipelines will be laid from proposed GGS to GPP and from GPP to
Kusijan off take point. As per OSID guideline a minimum clear distance of 0.30 meter
will be maintained between the pipelines that will carry unprocessed gas to GPP from
GGS and the pipeline that will carry processed gas to Kusijan off take point.
Two group parallel pipelines (high pressure and low pressure) will be originating from
manifold at the GGS and terminating at GPP at Golai. This pipeline will have a length of
around 16km and diameter of 8 inch. Approximately 5.7 km of each of the two pipelines
from GGS to the bank side of the Burhi Dihing River will be laid along the Margherita Tea
Garden road and Margherita -Deomali Road. Approximately 0.300 km of each of the two
pipelines will be laid under the Burhi Dihing river bed. After crossing the Burhi Dihing river,
approximately 10 km of each of the two pipelines will be laid along road side of NH-38 up to
the GPP at Golai. A pipeline of 12 inch diameter and approximately 9 km length will be laid
as the processed gas pipeline from the GPP to buyer’s Off-take Point at Kusijan. This
pipeline will be laid alongside NH-38 and Digboi- Duliajan state highway. A small stretch of
pipeline approximately 1.8 km near Kusijan will be laid on the forest land of Upper Dihing
Reserve Forest. Approximately 300 m pipeline will be laid in the privately owned paddy field
to connect high pressure and low pressure parallel pipelines with GPP.
Corridor selection
Before starting any construction work, a detailed route survey will be undertaken to
document the existing condition of the pipeline route and the access roads. These records will
be used as the standard against which the quality of the restoration work will be judged when
the construction work is completed. The exact route of the pipeline will first be pegged out,
while simultaneously staking out the width of the work strip on both sides of the route.
Obstructions such as walls, fences and paths will be disturbed to the minimum amount
necessary for safe working. Records of buried underground utilities such as drains, OFC
cables etc will be prepared and existing third party services will be located, marked, and
either safeguarded or diverted. Warning posts will be erected for overhead cables, and
temporary crossing points clearly identified.
SENES 69 HOEC
Land Procurement
A total of 25 km underground pipeline will be laid to transport unprocessed gas to GGS and
from GGS to GPP and processed gas from GPP to offtake point. The land for laying the
pipeline will be acquired on Right of Use (RoU) basis. The RoU width for the proposed
pipeline will be 10 m. Pipeline will be underground and are planned within RoU of access
roads/high ways with the permission of land owners, local authorities and related government
departments viz. National Highway authority, Public Works Department (PWD), Central
Public Works Department (CPWD) etc. As per Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 Forest
clearance will be necessary for using the forest land for pipeline laying. For the stretch of
pipeline which will be laid in the forest land of Upper Dihing a forest clearance for the same
will be obtained from forest department.
The land for laying the underground pipeline will be used under the provisions of the Right of
User of Land (Petroleum and Pipelines Act, 1962). The land ownership is permanently rested
with the landowner especially for the stretches which will be laid in Dirok Tea Estate and
privately owned paddy field at Golai Gaon. The owner of the land will be posing the right to
use the land above the pipeline whenever required, however barring constructions and
planting trees. Whenever maintenance of the pipeline needed to be undertaken during the
crop period, the landowner will be compensated for the loss of any standing crops by HOEC.

No resettlement issues are envisaged as no permanent land acquisition is involved.
Residential / built-up land will not be acquired for the proposed pipeline; hence rehabilitation
and resettlement will not be associated with the project activities. Therefore, the proposed
project does not involve any displacement of people.
There will not be major changes in the land-use pattern. The landowner, after the pipeline
lying, is entitled to use the land for the purpose for which the land was put to use,
immediately before the acquisition. This will not affect the economic status of the owner, as
monetary compensation will be paid as per legislation.
Perimeter Fencing
The temporary work strip will be fenced to prevent communities and livestock gaining access
to the site. Temporary openings will be provided alongside the NH 38, Margherita-Deomali
road to ensure that access cannot be gained to the work site.
Clearing and Grading

10 m RoU area will be cleared off vegetation and other obstacles such as boulders. The RoU
area will then be levelled to the required gradient. Stripping of top soil will be undertaken and
will be stockpiled in the form of a continuous ridge along the edge of the strip. Required
height of top spoil will be maintained to prevent depredation of the soil and will kept free
from disturbance to reduce the possibility of physical damage and compaction. The work
SENES 70 HOEC
strip will then be made level, using typical construction site machinery to eliminate
irregularities, large stones, tree stumps and other features.
Trenching
Manual methods will be used to dig the trench for laying the pipeline. The topsoil will be
removed segregating the remaining backfill material. The topsoil will be replaced in its
position during the backfilling operation. The width of trench shall be such that a minimum
clear distance of 200mm for trench in normal soil and 300mm for trench in rock is
maintained between edge of pipe and the trench wall at the bottom of trench. The pipeline
will be generally buried to a minimum depth of 1m however in case of rivers/water bodies,
which are prone to scour and erosion, adequate safe cover (minimum 1.5 metre) shall be
provided below the predicted scour profile expected during the life time of the pipeline.
Further details regarding minimum cover for buried have been discussed in section 7.3.3 of
the OISD-STD-141.
Pipe Hauling and Fabrication

• Pipe transported to the site on trucks will be offloaded using side booms. The
selection of access road for pipeline transportation will be based on prior study to
minimize adverse effects on the local traffic and commuters. The pipes then will be
strung adjacent to the trench. Trailers and cranes will be used for the maneuvering of
pipes. No pipe or other material shall be strung along the RoU before all clearing and
grading operations have been carried out. The pipes shall be strung in such a way that
normal use of the surrounding area is disturbed as little as possible. However
necessary care will be taken during stringing to prevent any possible disturbance to
the surrounding land use.
Bending and Welding

The pipe will be bent using a bending machine to the appropriate angle to match the vertical
and horizontal alignment of the trench.
• Welding will be done using conventional manual/ semi automatic welding involving a
crew of welders and fitters. Once the pipe is strung a line-up crew will position the
pipe using side booms in preparation for welding. Pipe strings to be welded shall be
effectively earthed. The process is likely to be carried out inside a mobile shelter that
covers the section that is being welded and worker group involved, thereby
controlling the environment under which the weld is made. All welds will be subject
to nondestructive examination (NDE) prior to application of the field joint coating.
Following the completion of each working day or pipeline section, open pipe ends shall be
effectively closed and shall not be opened until work restarts. The length of the pipe string
has to be limited to ensure integrity and safety due to thermal expansion effects.
SENES 71 HOEC
Pipeline Lowering
• Following weld NDE and field joint coating of the welds, the joined pipeline sections
will be carefully laid in their individual, parallel trenches. This operation will be
completed using side boom tractors in a continuous operation. In rocky or uneven
ground where the potential for pipe coating damage exists, the trench bottom will be
given a protective bed of sand.
Coating
After welding at each weld joint, coating of field joints of bare pipes and the repair of FBE
coating shall be done by site application of High built liquid epoxy coating.
Hydro-testing
All pipelines shall be tested in-place after construction. Cased crossings (rail/road) and river
crossing sections shall be hydrotested before and after installation at least for 4 hours at 1.25
times (for Class 1 & Class 2) or 1.4 times (for Class 3 & Class 4), the design pressure. Water
used for the test medium shall be inhibited water i.e. water to which suitable doses of
corrosion inhibitors and oxygen scavenger are added depending upon quality of the water.
Backfilling
• The pipe trench will be backfilled in the reverse order in which it was excavated, and
where possible, using the same soil that was taken from the trench. In areas where the
backfill material is deemed likely to damage the pipe coating due to the presence of
rocks or stones, sand will be used to protect the pipeline. Backfilling will be
completed by covering the trench with topsoil from the previously established
stockpile. To minimize damaging exposure of the excavated soils while they are in
storage, the trench will be back-filled as early as possible after each pipeline section is
installed, so creating a single, continually advancing work-front.
Reinstatement
After re-grading of the work strip to reflect the original ground profile, it will be de-
compacted using bulldozers to spike and drag the soil in all directions, followed by spreading
of the remaining topsoil over the entire surface. Large stones and debris will be removed
prior to topsoil replacement. The final step in the restoration process will be the
reconstruction of walls, fences and other such features that may have been affected by the
works. After re-instatement, the area will be monitored and maintained, as required, over a
fixed period until normal growth patterns are re-established.
Pipeline Warning Markers

After re-instatement, the only visible evidence of the pipeline will be marker posts placed
along the route for future monitoring and line walking purposes. The posts will be installed at
a maximum distance of 250 m to 300 m, depending on the type of terrain. Each marker will
SENES 72 HOEC
have line of sight to its previous and following marker. Marker posts will be erected
indicating the location of the pipeline and the crossing of other pipelines, cables and features.
Further adequate precautions will be taken as per the provisions of the OISD-STD-226 during
pipeline excavation, water/rail/road/utility crossings, lowering, hydrostatic testing,
commissioning, operation and maintenance.
2.11.1 Construction Consideration – River and Water Channel
With proposed pipeline likely to traverse through major river namely Burhi Dihing River,
appropriate construction techniques viz. Open Cut and/or Horizontal Directional Drilling
(HDD) is likely to be utilized by HOEC. Approximately 0.300 km of each of the two
pipelines from proposed GGS will be laid under the Burhi Dihing river bed. In this regard
specific work procedures and method statements will be developed and implemented by
HOEC to prevent and/or minimize any potential significant impact on the water bodies viz.
enhanced sediment load, disturbance to ecological flow etc.
Further special considerations will be required as per OISD-STD-141 for submerged
crossings generally characterized by their perennial nature, meandering course, steep and
potentially erodable banks, potentially scouring bed, large erodable flood plain both during
the design and installation of such crossings. For river crossings as described above the
following additional requirements are to be considered.
• Hydrological and geotechnical surveys to establish the river bed and water current
profiles to predict the behaviour of the river with respect to change of course, scour of
bed and erosion of banks and to obtain all other parameters related to design and
installation of such crossings.
• The pipeline at such crossings shall be installed with extra depth of cover. The cover
provided shall be adequate to prevent exposure of the pipeline for the entire design
life of the pipeline.
• To ensure the stability of the underwater pipeline, it will be necessary to add weight to
sink and hold the pipeline in position.
• A heavier wall thickness pipe shall be provided for the river crossing section.
• A detailed stress analysis for the pipe section for river crossings should be carried out,
taking into consideration the effect of all loads during laying and it shall be ensured
that the stresses remain within permissible limits in accordance with B 31.4.
• Whenever considered desirable, the section of the pipeline corresponding to the river
crossing should before installation be subjected to hydrostatic pre-testing. However,
the complete pipeline corresponding to river crossing shall be tested after installation.
SENES 73 HOEC
2.12 UTILITIES & RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
2.12.1 Power Supply
The power requirements at the site development and construction phase will be met by DG
Sets. Although the drilling operations will be continuous, the power requirement will
vary depending on the activities being carried out. It is anticipated that four diesel-engine
generators, each with a capacity of 670 KW, will be sufficient for rig operations.
Three generators will be used at a time and one will be kept on standby. A 134 KW
generator will be made available for lighting at residential camp and other emergency
requirements.
One 450 KVA DG set will be used for construction and operation of GGS. Three 670 KW
DG set will be used during construction of GPP and 2 (two) 600 KVA captive gas generators
will be installed during operation phase of GPP.
2.12.2 Water Consumption and Supply
The total water requirement for the site preparation and construction phase of the project is
estimated about 1200 KL per well. With average time requirement for well site preparation
being about 30 days, about 20 KLD (peak demand) of water will be consumed on an average
for each well.
Average consumption of water during the drilling phase will be about 45- 50 KLD. Domestic
water requirement will be 6.75 KLD for every 50 site persons deployed at site. Apart from
this 25 KLD and 5 KLD of water will be consumed during construction and operation phase
of GGS respectively. Water consumption during GPP construction phase will be 150 KLD
and during operation phase will be 15 KLD respectively. During decommissioning phase the
peak demand of water requirement as estimated would be 10KLD.
Water requirement during different phases of project will be met through surface water
sources through authorized vendors. HOEC will take permission from water resource
department regarding sourcing of surface water for drinking and other domestic purpose if
required. The water balance diagram for well sites is provided at Figure 2.19
2.12.3 Fuel Consumption
The fuel consumed will mainly be diesel used by rig, various equipments, and vehicles
operating to transport goods and supplies to the site. During the drilling phase, the
consumption of diesel is estimated to be about 4.5-5 KLD. Out of this, a major part
comprising about 85% will be consumed by the rig (also including the DG sets) and about 15
% will be required for the Campsite.
About 15-20 KLD diesel will be required during the construction of GGS and GPP. There
will be provision for storing o f about 7 days of fuel back up which means storage of about
SENES 74 HOEC
35 KL. The fuel will be provided by the drilling contractor and transported to site through
tankers. Fuel will be stored at onsite storage facility as per Petroleum Rules, 2002 in a paved
and bunded area.
2.12.4 Accommodation and Campsites
A camp facility will be provided to accommodate all operational crew and contractor
personnel. It has been anticipated that about 50-60 staffs and security personnel will stay in
the camp during site preparation and drilling phase. Rest of the staff will be housed in Digboi
and will continue on 12hrs shift basis to the well-site.
Toilet facilities will be built as part of the accommodation units. Sewage lines from units will
be connected through a pipeline system to septic tank and soak pit system for the treatment of
domestic sewage and it will be constructed as per the requirements of local laws. Food and
other organic waste will be subjected to bio-degradation through organic composting.
SENES 75 HOEC
FIGURE 2-19: WATER BALANCE DIAGRAM
Water sourced from onsite borewell

(50m3/day)
17. 5 m3/d
25 m3/d
7.5 m3/d
Rig wash
Mud Domestic Use
Preparation
6 m3/d
Mast Shale Mud tank Cement
Shaker cleaning Vessels Septic Tank &
Soak Pit
14 m3/d
Treated at ETP to conform with CPCB

discharge standards
Discharge to Local Drainage Channel
SENES 76 HOEC
2.7.5 Manpower / Employment

Local personnel will be utilized during site preparation, construction and decommissioning
phases. The activity would lead to enhanced employment and would marginally improve the
economic status of the people. The project will be employing considerable manpower for all
the phases. Site preparation phase of 30 days will employ on an average about 45 to 50
workmen preferably from local settlements. The total number of personnel involved in the
drilling activities is expected to be about 50. This will include technical experts, who will be
responsible for various drilling related activities.
Pipeline laying and construction work of GGS and GPP will involve 100-125 persons per
day. During operational phase, about 50-60 person per day will be involved in GGS and
GPP operation.
2.13 POLLUTION SOURCES AND CHARACTERIZATION
2.13.1 Noise and Vibrations
Drilling is widely accepted to be a noisy activity. Noise will be emitted from drill site in all
the phases of the project lifecycle including site preparation, drilling and decommissioning.
Noise during the site preparatory phase will primarily be contributed by heavy construction
machinery operating on site and vehicular sources for constructing the facilities for wells,
GGS, GPP and pipeline. The major noise generating operations from the proposed activity
during drilling, testing are operation of rotary drilling equipment as part of rig, diesel engines
for power generation, mud pumps and operation of vehicles. As the drilling activity is
continuous, part of the noise associated with the functioning of the rig and ancillaries will be
generated throughout day and night. Average noise emission ranges for different types of
construction machineries and noise level of drilling rig and its equipment are shown in Table
2.5 and Table 2.6 respectively.
TABLE 2-5: TYPICAL NOISE EMISSIONS FROM CONSTRUCTION MACHINERY
Sound Level At Operator (in decibels)

Equipment
Average Range
Earth Moving Equipment
Front End Loader 88.0 85-91
Back Hoe 86.5 79-89
Bull Dozer 96.0 89-103
Roller 90.0 79-93
Truck 96.0 89-103
Material Handling Equipment
Concrete Mixer <85.0 -
SENES 77 HOEC
Sound Level At Operator (in decibels)

Equipment
Average Range
Crane/Hydra <85.0 -
Derrick 100 97-102
Source: British Columbia, “Construction Noise,” Workers Compensation Board of BC
TABLE 2-6: DRILLING RIG AND EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL
Equivalent noise levels in dB(A)

Equipment
Average Range
Drilling Rig 96.9 88.0-103.0
Mud Pumps 76.9 73.3 -80.5
Diesel Generators 72.7 71.8-73.7
Shale Shakers 76.6 -
2.13.2 Air Emissions
Air emissions from point sources expected from the proposed drilling will be mainly from
combustion of diesel in the diesel generators which will be operated to meet power
requirement of the drilling rig, construction and operation activities of GGS and GPP and
from the campsite. The principal pollutants will comprise of Particulate Matter, Sulphur and
Nitrogen dioxides, Carbon mono oxide and other hydrocarbons. HOEC will ensure in the
planning stage that the emissions meet the standard criteria set by the regulations (by CPCB)
in terms of minimum stack height and emission concentrations. The quantity of diesel
consumed during drilling will be in order of 4.5- 5 KLD/drilling site. Apart from this, 15-20
KLD of diesel will be used in construction and operation of GGS and GPP.
Additionally, the flaring during the testing of the well will also lead to the release to the
atmosphere of some pollutants including un-burnt hydrocarbons. In this regard, HOEC will
comply with the guidelines for flaring laid down by the CPCB in the Minimal National
Standards for Oil Drilling and Gas Extraction industry.
Some fugitive emissions of dust and air pollutants from vehicular exhaust have been
anticipated during the project lifecycle, mostly during the construction and decommissioning
activities and from material handling. The proposed project will involve movement of 70
trucks per day during drill site and GGS preparation; drilling operation will involve 15-20
truck movement per day; GPP construction will involve 40 truck movements per day.
Operation phase of GGS, pipeline and GPP will involve movement of 15 trucks.
Additionally, there will be re-entrainment of dust from the approach road leading to the site
mainly during the dry season. Fugitive emissions are also anticipated from storage of volatile
chemicals if not properly capped or handled with care.
SENES 78 HOEC
2.13.3 Liquid wastes
During the drilling operations, drilling wastewater generated (approximately 15- 20 m3 per
day) as a result of rig wash, spent drilling fluid and dewatering of spent mud and washing of
drill cuttings. The drilling waste water around 1000 -1200 m3 will be generated during the
entire drilling period. The wastewater may have high suspended solids, high sulphate content
(as potassium sulphate-based mud is proposed), oil and grease, dissolved salts and heavy
metals. The rig wash water and drilling wastewater generated is proposed to be collected in a
wastewater pit constructed at the drilling site. The pit will be lined by 1-1.5mm thick HDPE
to prevent any contamination to sub-surface aquifers. This waste water will be treated and
reused and recycled. Effluents from, floor washings, pump, seal leakages, spillages will
comprise of chemical ingredients of drilling fluid thereby rendering effluent to be polluted.
The characteristics of drilling and wash wastewater will be primarily dependent on type and
composition of drilling fluid used for drilling. As HOEC is proposing the use of water-based
drilling mud, the potential for contamination of such waste water is significantly lower. To
ensure that effluent from the project comply with the waste water discharge standards as
mentioned in the Sl No. 72 A (ii) Schedule I Standards for Emission or Discharge of
Environmental Pollutants from Oil Drilling and Gas Extraction Industry of CPCB, a mobile
Effluent Treatment Plant will be installed.
Small quantities of domestic waste water and sewage will be generated from the kitchen,
wash rooms and laundry facilities. Domestic waste water generated (about 2.4 m3 per day for
the drilling camp) will be treated through a soak pit/septic tank arrangement.
The quantities of the liquid wastes, their characteristics and anticipated disposal methods are
given in Table 2.9.
TABLE 2-7: LIQUID WASTES GENERATED AND DISPOSAL
Waste Type Quantity Disposal
Drill site
Drilling and Wash 15- 20 m3 per day The water will be adequately treated in an ETP
wastewater to ensure conformance to the CPCB onshore oil
and gas extraction industry effluent standards
Domestic 6 m3 per day Septic tank followed by soak pit
wastewater
Produced water Could not be The water will be adequately treated in an ETP
ascertained at present to ensure conformance to the CPCB onshore oil
GGS
Domestic 6 m3 per day Septic tank followed by soak pit
wastewater
GPP
Domestic 6-7 m3 per day Septic tank followed by soak pit
wastewater
SENES 79 HOEC
Waste Type Quantity Disposal

3
Produced water 10 m per day The water will be adequately treated in an ETP
to ensure conformance to the CPCB onshore oil
2.13.4 Solid and Hazardous Waste Streams
The different solid and hazardous waste streams generated during drilling and their disposal
methodology has been presented in Table 2.10.
TABLE 2-8: WASTE GENERATED AND THEIR DISPOSAL
Waste Type Quantity Characteristics Disposal
Drill site
Kitchen Waste 25 kg Organic waste Will be stored in compost pits on
per day (Non HW) daily basis.
Drill Cuttings 450-500 m3/ Mainly Inert Drill cuttings will be disposed off in a
well material well designed pit lined with
Consisting of impervious liner located on site as
shales, per Sl No. 72 C.1.a Schedule I
Standards for Emission or Discharge
sands and clay;
of Environmental Pollutants from Oil
about 1% of
Drilling and Gas Extraction Industry
drilling mud. (Non
of CPCB as modified in 2005.
HW)
Waste Drilling 15-20 m3/ Barite, Bentonite The mud will be tested for hazardous
Mud (Fluid) day and Traces of contaminants and will be disposed as
Heavy metals per Sl. No. 72 C.1.a Schedule I
(HW) Standards for Emission or Discharge
of Environmental Pollutants from Oil
Drilling and Gas Extraction Industry
of CPCB as modified in 2005
Acid – Lead 2–3 Lead – Acid (HW) Will be recycled through the vendors
Batteries Batteries per supplying acid – lead batteries as
required under the Batteries
drilling of
(Management & Handling) Rules,
well 2001 and Amendment Rules, 2010 .
Oily waste- 0.3 m3 Used & Waste oil Will be collected in metal drums kept
used oil & spent in secured dyked area & disposed as
Oil and loose per. Used Oil rules in approved used
5-10 Kg
oil recycling facility
Recyclables viz. Depending - Proper segregation and storage of
packaging on usage recyclable waste in designated bins
wastes, paper, onsite. Recyclables will be
plastic, periodically sold to local waste
packaging recyclers.
wastes
SENES 80 HOEC
Waste Type Quantity Characteristics Disposal

GGS/GPP
Kitchen Waste 25 kg Organic waste Will be stored in compost pits on
per day (Non HW) daily basis.
Oily waste- Quantity Used & Waste oil Will be collected in metal drums kept
used oil & spent could not be in secured dyked area & disposed as
oil and loose ascertained at per Used Oil rules in approved used
present oil recycling facility
Recyclables viz. Depending - Proper segregation and storage of
packaging on usage recyclable waste in designated bins
wastes, paper, onsite. Recyclables will be
plastic, periodically sold to local waste
packaging recyclers.
wastes
2.14 DRILLING HAZARDS

Loss of well control / blow-out, fire, explosion and oil spills are the major potential hazards
associated with drilling for oil and gas. Primary well control will be achieved by providing
sufficient hydrostatic pressure by means of drilling fluid column in the hole to prevent the
influx of formation fluid into the well bore. In addition to careful monitoring and control of
the fluid system and installation of casing in each section of the well, a blowout preventor
stack consisting of a series of individual preventors will be installed on the wellhead in the
cellar pit. The design will ensure that zone of abnormal pressure, if any, can be
accommodated and the BOP will be rated for pressures well in excess of those expected to be
present.
A risk assessment has been carried out as a part of this EIA study and it contributes towards
identification of hazards, risk and formulation of management plans for emergency response,
blowout and oil spills.
2.15 PROJECT COST

Based on HOEC’s previous experience of drilling in the area, cost for drilling of 3 new and
three existing development wells (including well site construction and site decommissioning)
will be approximately 27 million US$. The cost of proposed GGS and GPP construction will
be 2 million US$ and 22 million US$ respectively. Approximate cost for 25 km pipeline
lying will be 3 million US$. The cost of drilling will depend on the depth of the well to be
drilled.
SENES 81 HOEC
3 Description of the Environment
This chapter describes the existing environmental settings of Dirok Development Field and
its immediate surroundings. This includes physical environment comprising air, water and
land components, biological environment and socio-economic environment. Attributes of the
physical environment like air, water, soil and noise quality in the Field and surrounding area
were assessed primarily through monitoring and analysis of samples collected from the area.
Air, water, soil and noise primary monitoring was conducted by Mitra S. K. Pvt. Ltd. (MSK),
Kolkata (a NABL certified laboratory). SENES personnel were responsible for selecting the
monitoring stations and supervision of onsite monitoring. Primary monitoring was conducted
during winter month of (November-December), 2014.
Information on geology, hydrology, prevailing natural hazards like floods, earthquakes etc.
have been collected from literature reviews and authenticated information made available by
government departments. Primary surveys were carried out to understand and record the
biological environment prevailing in the area and the same was verified against published
information and literature. The socioeconomic environment has been studied through
consultations with various stakeholders within the Dirok Development Field. Additionally,
socioeconomic data have been obtained from the Census of India reports.
3.1 STUDY AREA

An area with a radius of about 10 km around the center of the proposed wells; 500 m buffer
area on either site of the pipeline alignment along the entire stretch of the proposed pipeline
and an area of 2 km around the GPP would also be included under the study area for
baseline data collection (Figure 3.1). This delineation has been done based on the nature of
the project and also after gaining understanding of the surrounding areas through the initial
reconnaissance surveys. While selecting locations for primary monitoring of air, noise, water,
soil and meteorology special emphasis is given to receptors that are likely to be impacted by
the proposed project. Monitoring stations for air and noise were selected in proximity to the
proposed well sites, GGS, GPP and access roads. Monitoring locations for surface water
quality was selected based on the macro and micro watershed and drainage pattern of the
area. Soil sample locations were selected based on the landuse-land cover of the study area.
Locations of ecological and social surveys were also selected based on receptor locations; in
addition, special emphasis is given to areas within 1 km radius of the well sites.
SENES 82 HOEC
FIGURE 3-1: STUDY AREA MAP
SENES 83 HOEC
3.2 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
3.2.1 Climate and meteorology
Climate and meteorology of a place can play an important role in the implementation of any
developmental project. Meteorology (weather and climate) plays a key role in understanding
local air quality as there is an essential relationship between meteorology and atmospheric
dispersion involving the wind speed/direction, stability class and other factors. The Block
falls under the humid sub tropical climate zone.
Seasons
The following are the well-defined seasons of the region
• Pre-monsoon : March-May
• Monsoon : June- September
• Post-monsoon : October- November
• Winter : December- February
Based on the analysis of meteorological data of the representative IMD station at Dibrugarh
(Mohanbari Airport) for the year 2009 (Refer Annexure 3.1) and data obtained from the
primary monitoring conducted at Golai II village during November-December 2014 (Refer
Annexure 3.2) the temperature profile, rainfall pattern, relative humidity, wind speed and
wind direction of the region have been discussed below.
Temperature
Interpretation of IMD Data-2009 for Dibrugarh
Average monthly minimum temperature of 8.2ºC was recorded for January 2009. Analysis of
the temperature profile of the aforesaid period indicated May to September as hottest months.
The month of April recorded the highest maximum average temperature at 38.1 ºC.
Interpretation of Primary Baseline Data
During the study period of late November- December the temperature ranged between 8.2˚C
to 30.2˚C. The hourly variation of average temperature has been listed in Annexure 3.2
Relative Humidity
Relative humidity values measured twice daily at 0830 hrs and 1730 hrs at the Dibrugarh
IMD station revealed high average monthly relative humidity values ranging from 54.68%-
87.65%. Maximum monthly average relative humidity values were observed for the monsoon
months of June to August. The average humidity values recorded for these months during
SENES 84 HOEC
both 0830 hrs and 1730 hours generally varied between 85.97% – 87.65% and 72.67% –
78.71% respectively.
The maximum and minimum relative humidity varied between 100% and 34% respectively
during the primary monitoring study. The hourly variation of average relative humidity has
been listed in Annexure 3.2
Rainfall
A total rainfall of 2307.3 mm was recorded for the year 2009 at the Dibrugarh IMD station
indicating frequent rains which is generally common in these parts of the state. Rainfall
begins from late April and continues up to early October, with the months of June, July and
August receiving maximum rainfall. The monthly total rainfall values recorded at the
Dibrugarh IMD station for 2009 have been provided at Annexure 3.1. The analysis of the
rainfall pattern is therefore considered important in context of the present study for effective
scheduling of both drilling and testing operations.
No rainfall was recorded during the primary monitoring period. The micrometeorological
values recorded for rainfall have been provided in Annexure 3.2 for reference.
Wind Speed and Wind Direction

Hourly micro-meteorological data collected during primary monitoring has been analyzed to
generate the winter season wind rose. The predominant wind direction was observed to be
from north west for the study period. The average wind speed for the study period was 3.66
km/hr. About 35.2 % of Calm frequency was recorded.
The wind rose diagram generated for the primary monitoring study period has been presented
in Figure 3.2 and wind speed & wind direction data have been provided as Annexure 3.2 for
reference
SENES 85 HOEC
FIGURE 3-2: WIND ROSE DIAGRAM FOR WINTER SEASON
Meteorological monitoring at Golai
3.2.2 Ambient Air Quality
Primary monitoring of the ambient air quality was undertaken in the study area to establish
baseline levels of air pollutants in the area. Location of the proposed wells, GGS, GPP,
access routes, predominant wind direction etc. are important in selection of the ambient air
quality sampling stations as any gaseous and particulate emissions from the project activities
SENES 86 HOEC
will disperse based on the wind directions and affect the receptors. Thus the analyzed values
for the pre project environment can be compared during and after the project activities.
Ambient air quality monitoring was conducted at 8 representative stations during November-
December 2014. Ambient air quality stations were selected at upwind; downwind and cross
wind for the well cluster, upwind and downwind for proposed GPP area and also at the
Kusijan area in Balijan village near Kusijan GGS. The locations are Khagaripothar, Namtok,
Dirok Likhajan, Dirok Factory, Dirok 15, Golai II, Golai III and Kusijan. The stations are
selected keeping in mind the pre-dominant wind direction in the area, location of receptors,
accessibility to the monitoring locations and security concerns of machine and personnel.
The number of monitoring stations and parameters (PM10, PM 2.5, SO2, NO2, methane
hydrocarbon, non methane hydrocarbon, VOC) for monitoring were based on the approved
ToR obtained from MoEF. The ambient air quality locations are shown in Figure 3.9. Air
quality monitoring was carried out during 24 hours a day twice a week for PM10, Sulphur
Dioxide (SO2), Nitrogen di oxide (NO2), once a week for PM 2.5, Volatile Organic Carbon
(VOCs), methane and non methane hydrocarbon. A respiratory dust sampler was used for
sampling of PM10, PM 2.5, SO2 and NO2. Benzene sampler was used for sampling of VOC,
methane and non-methane hydrocarbon. A summary of ambient air quality results is presented
in Table 3.1.
Interpretation of Air Quality Results

Particulate Matter (PM 10): Average of 24 hourly PM10 at the monitoring locations ranged
between 68.50- 93.50 μg/m3 (Figure 3.3). Average PM10 concentrations were observed to be
in compliance to the NAAQS (100 μg/m3) at all air quality monitoring locations. Lowest
average value was recorded for Namtok while the highest value was recorded for Dirok
Factory. The lower values recorded at Khagaripothar, Namtok line and Lekhajan as the
stations were located within the tea garden areas. Comparatively higher results recorded at
few stations (Golai II, Golai III etc.) were primarily due to the proximity of the sites to NH-
38. The average results of PM10 levels at the monitoring stations have been represented in
Table 3.1.
SENES 87 HOEC
FIGURE 3-3: AVERAGE PM10 VALUES AT THE MONITORING LOCATIONS
Particulate Matter (PM2.5): The average of 24 hourly PM 2.5 at the monitoring locations ranged
between 34.67-57.50 μg/m3 (Figure 3.4). The average PM2.5concentrations were observed to
be in compliance to the NAAQS (60 μg/m3) at all air quality monitoring locations. Lowest
average values were recorded for Khagaripothar and Namtok while the highest value was
recorded for Dirok Tea Estate Factory. The average of PM2.5 levels at the monitoring stations
has been represented in Table 3.1.
FIGURE 3-4: AVERAGE PM2.5 VALUES AT THE MONITORING LOCATIONS
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2): The average NO2 values at the monitoring locations were observed in
the range of 31.99-44.16 μg/m3 (Refer Figure 3.5). The average values complied with the
NAAQS (80 μg/m3) specified for NO2. The average concentration values of NO2 representative
of each sampling station have been provided in Table 3.1.
SENES 88 HOEC
FIGURE 3-5: AVERAGE NO2 VALUES AT THE MONITORING LOCATIONS
Sulfur dioxide (SO2): Mean values of SO2 concentrations ranges between 5.86-9.03 μg/m3
(Refer Figure 3.6).Lowest SO2 concentrations were recorded at Kusijan while the highest
value was observed at Golai II. The average concentration values of SO2 representative of each
sampling station have been provided in Table 3.1.
FIGURE 3-6: AVERAGE SO2 VALUES AT THE MONITORING LOCATIONS
Methane and Non- Methane Hydrocarbon: Mean values for methane hydrocarbons at the
sampling stations varied between 0.74-0.90 ppm. Highest methane hydrocarbon values
recorded at Dirok Factory. Values of non-methane hydrocarbon at all the monitoring stations
are below detectable limit (less than 0.5 ppm).
The concentration values of methane and non-methane hydrocarbon representative of each
sampling station have been provided in Table 3.1.
SENES 89 HOEC
Volatile Organic Carbon (VOCs): Values of VOCs at all the monitoring stations were below
detectable limit (less than 2.08 μg/m3). The concentration values of VOCs representative of
each sampling station have been provided in Table 3.1.
Air Monitoring at Golai-II Air Monitoring at Dirok Tea Estate Factory
Air Monitoring at Kusijan Air Monitoring at Golai III
TABLE 3-1: AMBIENT AIR QUALITY RESULTS

Khagaripathar
Dirok Factory
Dirok 15 Line
Lekhajan
Golai III
Sl.
Namtok
Kusijan
Golai II
Name of
N
Pollutants
o.
Particulate matter
1 (<10 µm) in 69.67 68.50 71.92 93.50 82.42 79.67 84.42 76.67
µg/m3
Particulate matter
2 (<2.5µm) in 34.67 34.67 38.00 57.50 40.17 43.50 42.50 44.50
µg/m3
Sulphur dioxide
3 6.11 6.18 6.37 7.18 6.64 9.03 6.37 5.86
as SO2 in µg/m3
SENES 90 HOEC
Khagaripathar
Dirok Factory
Dirok 15 Line
Lekhajan
Golai III
Sl.
Namtok
Kusijan
Golai II
Name of
N
Pollutants
o.
Nitrogen dioxide
4 35.51 32.36 31.99 44.16 36.65 37.14 34.53 33.95
as NO2 in µg/m3
Hydrocarbon as
5 0.88 0.86 0.77 0.90 0.86 0.84 0.74 0.87
Methane in ppm
Hydrocarbon as
6 Non methane in <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
ppm
7 VOCs in μg/m3 <2.08 <2.08 <2.08 <2.08 <2.08 <2.08 <2.08 <2.08
Details of ambient air quality results are presented in Annexure 3.3.
3.2.3 Ambient Noise Quality
Ambient noise monitoring was conducted during December 2014 at 8 locations near the well
locations, GGS, GPP. Noise stations were selected to understand the baseline noise levels that
could be impacted upon by the proposed activities in the study area. Sound pressure level
(SPL) measurements in dB (A) were recorded for every hour continuously for 24 hours at 15
minutes interval for the monitoring stations and equivalent noise levels in the form of Leq
day and Leq night was computed. The results obtained were compared with the standard
specified in Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control), Rules 2000, (as amended).
Interpretation of Noise Quality Results

The day time and nighttime equivalent noise levels varied between 47.8-62.9 dBA and 40.1-
59.5 dBA respectively. The daytime and nighttime equivalent noise levels at Golai III
revealed higher values when compared to the daytime and nighttime noise standards (55 dBA
and 45 dBA respectively) for residential areas (Refer Figure 3.7). Higher daytime and
nighttime equivalent noise levels recorded at Golai III were probably due noise generated
from plying of vehicles at NH 38.
Higher daytime (60.2 dBA) and nighttime (59.2 dBA) equivalent noise levels recorded at
Dirok Tea Estate factory is due to noise generated from operation of machines and plying of
vehicles. However, the noise levels are in compliance to the limits for industrial areas (75
dBA for daytime and 70 dBA for nighttime)
The detailed noise monitoring results are presented in Annexure 3.4.
SENES 91 HOEC
FIGURE 3-7: DAY AND NIGHT TIME EQUIVALENT NOISE LEVELS
SENES 92 HOEC
FIGURE 3-8: LOCATION OF AIR, NOISE MONITORING LOCATIONS WITHIN THE DIROK DEVELOPMENT FIELD AND SURROUNDING AREAS
SENES 93 HOEC
3.2.4 Topography
Dirok Development Field has a more or less flat topography with elevations ranging between
120-160 m msl. The area gradually slopes towards the north with lower elevations toward the
Burhi Dihing River and upper elevations at the south towards the foothills of Arunachal
Pradesh. At the north of Burhi Dihing River along the pipeline route from Margherita town
the elevation raises towards north upto Digboi town. The elevations within the study area at
the north of Burhi Dihing River range between 120-200 m. The topography map is shown in
Figure 3.9.
3.2.5 Physiography and Geology
The Block AAP-ON-94/1 lies mainly at the foothills (south) of the first thrust (Naga Thrust)
of the Assam-Arakan Foldbelt and contains Naga, Margherita and Disang thrust zones. A
relatively small part of the Block only occurs within the Assam Shelf or Foreland trend, and
this exists below and adjacent to the Naga Thrust, and is essentially a continuation of the
‘Nahorkatiya/Jorajan oil fields’ or ‘Nahorkatiya dome’ trend that plunges beneath the Naga
Thrust. This Assam Shelf structural trend is broadly termed the Brahmaputra Arch and is
bounded to the north by the Himalayan and to the south by the Assam-Arakan Foldbelt.
The area developed as a passive margin on the Indian craton from Mesozoic to Oligocene
times, facies becoming progressively more marginally marine as the collision of India and
Asia developed during the Paleogene. The base Tipam/top Barail Oligocene unconformity
divides the stratigraphy into two mega-sequences that correlate with the two tectonic
episodes of extension and compression. The Paleogene mega-sequence was deposited during
continental rift and drift, and the Neogene sequence is dominated by sediments (fluvial and
ultimately molasse) deposited during continental collision.
This extensional system (now inverted to some degree) consists of older basement faulting
that reactivated along existing Pre-Girujan (Miocene) extensional trends. In the
Nahorkatiya/Jorajan fields, the sequence up to Tipam exhibits normal faulting that is clearly
seen on sections oriented normal to the basin axis. The Foothills thrust-front progressively
encroached northwards during the uplift phase, the Naga Thrust being the most northerly
thrust sheet. Coincident with the thrust faulting and compression, inversion has also taken
place in the un-thrusted autochthonous foreland to the northwest.
The stratigraphy of the area is presented in Figure 3.10 and the geological formations are
presented in Figure 3.11
SENES 94 HOEC
FIGURE 3-9: TOPOGRAPHY MAP
SENES 95 HOEC
FIGURE 3-10: REGIONAL STATIGRAPHY OF THE AREA
SENES 96 HOEC
FIGURE 3-11: REGIONAL GEOLOGICAL SETTING OF THE AREA
Dirok
Source: USGS Report
SENES 97 HOEC
Regional Tectonic Setting

From a tectonic point of view, Assam-Arakan basin is classified as Foreland basin. The Block
AAP-ON-94/1 lies mainly in the
foothills side of the first thrust
(Naga Thrust) of the Assam-
Arakan foldbelt and contains
Naga, Margherita & Disang thrust
zones. Only a small part of the
Block occurs within the foreland
trend and this exists below and
adjacent to the Naga Thrust.
Between the Himalayas and the
Naga-Disang thrust complex
occurs an autochthonous zone, the
Foreland Spar containing
sediments ranging in age from
Eocene to Pleistocene. These are
intersected by a number of gravity
faults. Further east in the Patkai
Range Tertiary sedimentation took
place under deeper water
conditions punctuated by slight
emergence at some places. Oligo-
Miocene was also the time when FIGURE 3-12: MAJOR TECTONIC FEATURES IN THE
the deposits of Assam-Arakan NORTH-EAST INDIAN REGION
basin were over thrusted towards
the northwest over the northeastern extension of the Indian Shield. The outermost of this
thrust, the Naga thrust belt consist of a succession of six thrust sheets. The whole northeast
India is a tectonically active zone due to presence of active thrusts, fault planes and very
fragile loose sediments, steep slope angle leading to frequent landslides in the hilly areas. The
courses of rivers are also influenced by these active tectonic lineaments. The regional tectonic
setting of the northeast Indian region is presented in the Figure 3.12.
3.2.6 Hydrogeology
The study area is made up of weathered sediment of sand (stone) with pebbles of Pliocene to
Pleistocene age and in the west, Surma group of rock sandstone, siltstone and mudstone of
early to middle Miocene. The weathered rock occurring in upland area act as very good
recharge zone, have a very good water holding and water yielding capabilities. These
unconfined aquifers does not get dried up during the dry period and also contribute water to
the surface water bodies and the nearby streams. The base flow which is the stream flow
originating from the ground water discharge is the cause of perennial nature of nalas.
SENES 98 HOEC
Ground Water Resources

The estimated net annual groundwater availability as per Central Ground Water Board
estimate (on 2009) of the Tinsukia district is 27.81 billion cubic metre (bcm). The stage of
ground water development is 22%. As per CGWB records depth to groundwater levels in pre-
monsoon and post-monsoon at Dirok Development Field are 2-5 metre below ground level
(mbgl) and <2 mbgl respectively (Figures 3.13 and 3.14).
FIGURE 3-13: DEPTH TO WATER LEVEL DURING PRE-MONSOON IN DIROK DEVELOPMENT

FIELD
Dirok
Development Field
FIGURE 3-14: DEPTH TO WATER LEVEL DURING POST-MONSOON IN DIROK DEVELOPMENT

FIELD
Dirok
Development Field
SENES 99 HOEC
3.2.7 Ground Water Quality
Groundwater in the study area is tapped with bore wells, dug wells or tube well. Primary
monitoring of ground water quality is considered important in order to understand the quality
of groundwater prevalent in the area and assess potential impacts of the proposed project
activities on the water used by the locals for drinking and other purposes. Potential pollution
of subsurface and unconfined aquifers may occur due to improper casing and cementing of
well leading to infiltration or seeping of drilling chemicals or mud into nearby aquifer.
Contamination of aquifers may also occur from disposal of drilling waste and mud, waste
from GGS and GPP sites. A monitoring network consisting of 6 locations for ground water
was selected and representative sampling was carried out at each of the locations (Refer
Figure 3.15) and the detailed results of ground water analysis are presented in Table 3.2.
Ground water Sampling Points

A total of six ground water samples collected from settlements within the study area and its
surrounding areas. Three locations were selected within the Dirok Tea Estate in proximity to
the well cluster and GGS (at colonies of Lekhajan, Dirok Gateline and Khagaripothar); one
location at Segunbari Bazaar in Margherita (along the pipeline route); one location at Golai II
village (in proximity to proposed GPP location) and one location at Balijan-Kusijan area
(near Kusijan GGS of Oil India Limited). Samples were analyzed for physicochemical and
bacteriological parameters and results compared with IS: 10500: 2012 drinking water
standards to identify and interpret any deviation in the statutory limits set for parameters
under this standard.
Interpretation of Ground water Quality Results

Turbidity
Turbidity values for ground water collected from all the sampling locations (ranging between
1.1-4.6 NTU) exceeded the acceptable limit as per standard i.e. 1 NTU excepting the Golai II
water sample (<1.0 NTU). Water collected from Balijan-Kusijan village showed very high
turbidity values of 50 NTU which exceeded the permissible limit of 5 NTU. High turbidity
values in the samples could be due to some local geological features. High iron content in the
water sample collected from Balijan-Kusijan could also be responsible for the high turbid
water.
Chlorides and Total Dissolved Solids
With respect to IS:10500 standards, acceptable limit of chloride is 250 mg/l while the
permissible limit of the said parameter (in absence of alternate source) is 1000 mg/l. At
concentration above 250 mg/l chlorides renders a salty taste to water. The chloride
concentration in the ground water samples of the study area villages have been found to be
well within the stipulated standards ranging from 3.75 mg/l at Balijan-Kusijan to 43.33 mg/l
at Lekhajan.
SENES 100 HOEC

The concentration of total dissolved solids (TDS) in ground water is a measure of its
suitability for domestic use. TDS values at 500 mg/l or below is considered to be acceptable
for drinking as specified under IS:10500. TDS values for ground water samples varied in the
range of 67 mg/l (Dirok Gateline) to 228 mg/l (Segunbari Bazaar) thereby conforming to the
acceptable limit as per the standard.
Total Hardness
Hardness of water is considered to be an important parameter in determining the suitability of
water for domestic uses particularly washing. Hardness of water is correlated to the presence
of bivalent metallic ions viz. calcium and magnesium. Total hardness values for the ground
water samples ranged between 34.56 mg/l (Dirok Gateline) to 134.4 mg/l (Segunbari Bazaar)
and were found to be within the stipulated standard of 200 mg/l specified under IS: 10500.
Further as discussed above, hardness values recorded at each ground water monitoring station
was found to be in correlation with the calcium and magnesium ions analyzed for such
samples. The concentration of calcium and magnesium ions was also found to be within
acceptable limits specified for the aforesaid parameters as per IS:10500.
Iron and Fluoride
Iron is considered to be an important ground water parameter since at higher concentration it
interferes with laundering operations and imparts objectionable stains. Iron concentration in
groundwater samples collected from Balijan-Kusijan (1.96 mg/l) exceeded the acceptable
limit i.e. 0.3 mg/l of IS:10500. High iron content recorded in the groundwater is probably due
to local geological features of the area. Fluoride contents in the ground water samples were
found to be in compliance to the acceptable limit of the IS:10500 of 1.0 mg/l.
Heavy Metals
The monitoring results showed that the concentration of heavy metals (hexavalent chromium,
copper, zinc, mercury, cadmium, lead, selenium etc.) is within acceptable limit as per IS:
10500 standards.
Coliform
Coliform are indicators of contamination from sewage and faecal matter. Total coliform were
present in water samples collected from Lekhajan (2 MPN/100 ml), Dirok Gateline (2
MPN/100 ml) and Segunbari Bazaar (4 MPM/100 ml). However, the other three samples
reveal total coliform values below 2 MPN/100ml. Faecal coliform was not detected in any of
the samples collected. Low values of total coliform and absence of faecal coliform in the
samples reveal absence of biological contamination in the water samples.
SENES 101 HOEC

Ground water sampling at Lekhajan Ground water sampling at Dirok Gateline
Ground water sampling at Khagaripothar Ground water sampling Golai II
SENES 102 HOEC

TABLE 3-2: GROUND WATER MONITORING RESULTS
Sl. Dirok Gate Segunbari Balijan-

Parameters Unit Lekhajan Khagaripothar Golai-ll
No. Line Bazaar Kusijan
1. pH at 260C 6.9 6.4 6.52 7.62 6.43 5.99
2. Colour Hazen <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 5.0 <1.0
3. Odour ---- Unobjectionable Unobjectionable Unobjectionable Unobjectionable Unobjectionable Unobjectionable
4. Turbidity NTU 4.6 1.1 1.3 1.9 50.0 <1.0
Total Hardness as
5. mg/l 92.16 34.56 134.4 107.52 119.04 49.92
CaCO3
6. Calcium as Ca mg/l 24.58 4.61 15.36 13.82 19.97 10.75
7. Magnesium as Mg mg/l 7.37 5.53 23.04 17.51 16.59 5.53
8. Alkalinity mg/l 24.2 14.52 150.04 91.96 154.88 62.92
9. Chlorides as Cl mg/l 43.23 22.55 33.83 9.40 3.75 5.64
10. Sulphate as SO4 mg/l 3.80 <1.0 28 13 <1.0 <1.0
11. Nitrate as NO3 mg/l 44.04 20.37 15.30 <0.5 <0.5 2.46
12. Copper as Cu mg/l <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
13. Manganese as Mn mg/l 0.07 0.1 1.11 <0.02 0.26 <0.02
0.08
14. Iron as Fe mg/l <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 1.96 <0.05
15. Fluoride as F mg/l 0.74 0.73 0.77 0.63 0.66 0.17

16. Zinc as Zn mg/l 0.96 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.1 <0.02
Phenolic Compound
17. mg/l <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
as C6H5OH
18. Aluminum as Al mg/l <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
SENES 103 HOEC

Sl. Dirok Gate Segunbari Balijan-

Parameters Unit Lekhajan Khagaripothar Golai-ll
No. Line Bazaar Kusijan
19. Mercury as Hg mg/l <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
20. Cadmium as Cd mg/l <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
21. Selenium as Se mg/l <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
22. Arsenic as As mg/l <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
23. Cyanide as CN mg/l <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
24. Lead as Pb mg/l <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
Hexavalent
25. mg/l <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Chromium as Cr+6
26. Boron as B mg/l <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Total Dissolved
27. mg/l 136 67 228 124 160 71
Solids
Total Coliform
28. (MPN/100ml) 2 2 4 <2 <2 <2
Organism
29. Faecal Coliform / 100ml Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent
SENES 104 HOEC

FIGURE 3-15: LOCATION OF GROUNDWATER, SURFACE WATER AND SOIL MONITORING LOCATIONS WITHIN THE DIROK DEVELOPMENT
FIELD AND SURROUNDING AREAS
SENES 105 HOEC

3.2.8 Drainage
The study area falls within the catchment of the Burhi Dihing River. The river system
originates in the hilly terrain of the Singphome range extending up to Myanmar border on the
south east and the Patkai range of hills of Tirap district of Arunachal Pradesh. The total area
of the Burhi Dihing basin is 8730 sq. kms. Out of the total catchment area, an area of 2465
sq. km. is in district of Dibrugarh and Tinsukia in the State of Assam while the rest 6265 sq
km in the district of Tirap, Changlang and Lohit in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. The major
tributaries of Burhi Dihing are Tirap, Digboi, Tipling, Sessa, Dirak, Namsang and Disam.
Apart from these tributaries, there are number perennial and seasonal streams within the
study area (viz. Lekhajan nala, Powai nala, Ongchap Jang nala, Namdang nala, Janglu nala,
Garumara Jan etc.) that drains into the Burhi Dihing River.
The drainage pattern in this region is dendritic. The drainage density is moderately high
indicating more runoff than infiltration. The average annual rainfall in the basin is about 2400
mm. The major amount of rains spread out during the monsoon months from June to
September.
The natural slopes in proximity to the drill sites, GGS, GPP etc. are crucial to determine the
course of surface water drainage at a micro-scale level and may assume significance with
respect to the run-off laden with contamination (if any). All the minor drainage channels in
the area flow towards Burhi Dihing River. The small ephemeral drainage channels near the
well cluster and GGS flowing within the Dirok garden discharge to perennial Ongchap Jang
and Namphai Jang nala which flow north to meet the Burhi Dihing River. The northern
tributaries of the Burhi Dihing River within the study area are Powai nala, Janglu nala,
Garumara Jan and Tarakashi Jan. Powai nala is the drainage channel that receives the small
drains near Golai and run-off from the proposed GPP location is expected to flow south and
reach the Powai nala before finally entering the Burhi Dihing River. Few ox-box lakes are
also discernable within the study area viz. Mota Bil, Burhi Bil etc. which represent the old
course of the Burhi Dihing River.
The drainage map of the Dirok Development Field is shown in the Figure 3.16.
SENES 106 HOEC

FIGURE 3-16: DRAINAGE MAP OF DIROK DEVELOPMENT FIELD
SENES 107 HOEC

3.2.9 Surface water quality
Primary monitoring of surface water quality was given importance during the EIA study as
the effluent generated during the well drilling, gas processing operations are likely to be
discharged to nearby surface water bodies/natural drainage channels/rivers after meeting
prescribed norms of CPCB. Sampling stations were selected at surface water channel those
are likely to be impacted from the discharge that may occur from proposed well sites, GGS,
GPP and pipeline. Water sampling and analysis1 was conducted following CPCB standard
guidelines for physical, chemical and bacteriological parameters. The monitoring locations
are shown in Figure 3.14.
Surface Water Sampling Points

Surface water samples were collected from three surface water sampling locations. As well
sites, GGS, GPP and pipeline are located within the watersheds of Burhi Dihing River. Two
surface water sampling locations were selected at Burhi Dihing River upstream and
downstream of the field location. In addition, a sample from the Ongchap Jang nala (Dirok
nala) was also collected which is expected to receive the run-off from areas of proposed drill
site and GGS. Surface water quality was finally assessed against water quality criteria as per
CPCB guidelines for water resources. Results of surface water samples have been discussed
below.
Interpretation of Surface Water Quality Results
The pH of the surface water samples varied from 6.95-7.62. DO levels at all the locations
exhibited values ranging between 7.4-7.6 mg/l indicating favorable conditions for the growth
and reproduction of normal population of fish and other aquatic organisms in the these water
bodies. BOD values in all the surface water samples were recorded below 2.00 mg/l. Such
low BOD values confirmed the presence of very low concentrations of biologically
oxidizable organic matter in the receiving water bodies. Electrical conductivity values of the
samples ranged between 101-228 microsiemens/cm, Sodium Absorption Ratio varied
between 0.33-0.77. Free ammonia and boron contents of all the samples were found to be less
than 0.1 mg/l and 0.5 mg/l respectively.
Total coliform was recorded very low (<2 MPN/100ml) at Burhi Dihing River downstream
sample. Samples collected from Burhi Dihing River upstream near Margherita and Ongchap
Jang nala recorded total coliform concentration of 6 MPN/100ml and 34 MPN/100 ml
respectively.
The presence of contaminants in the form of oil and grease in all surface water sources was
found to be negligible (<1.4 mg/l). Iron content in the surface water sample varied from
<0.05mg/l to 0.49 mg/l whereas chromium, mercury and lead contents were found to be
1
http://www.cpcb.nic.in/latest/guidelines-water.doc
SENES 108 HOEC

below detection limits. The toxic organic component, phenolic compounds was also found be
below detectable limit (<0.001 mg/l) in all the surface water samples.
Detailed surface water analysis results have been provided at Table 3.3.
As discussed in the previous sections, the channels from which samples were taken and
analyzed were primarily used for bathing, cleaning and for catching fish (refer CPCB Water
use criteria at Annexure 3.5). Water from Burhi Dihing River is used for drinking after
conventional treatment. The analyzed values conform to CPCB Class A water quality
criterion.
TABLE 3-3: SURFACE WATER QUALITY RESULTS
Burhi Ongchap
Sl Burhi Dihing
Test Parameters Unit Dihing Jang Nala
No. Upstream
Downstream (Dirok Nala)
0
1 Temperature C 22 21 23
2. Free Ammonia as NH3 mg/l <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
3. pH at 26⁰C ---- 6.74 7.62 6.95
4. Dissolved Oxygen mg/l 7.5 7.6 7.4
5. BOD ( 3 days at 27⁰C ) mg/l <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
6. COD mg/l <4.0 <4.0 7.91
7. Electrical Conductivity
µs/cm 122 228 101
at 25⁰C
8. Sodium Adsorption
---- 0.77 0.33 0.68
Ratio
9. Boron as B mg/l <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
10. Oil & Grease mg/l <1.4 <1.4 <1.4
11. Total Dissolved Solids
mg/l 72.0 119 59.0
as TDS
12. Total Suspended Solids
mg/l <2.5 6.8 15.4
as TSS
13. Dissolved Phosphate as
mg/l <0.15 <0.15 0.17
PO4
14. Nitrate as NO3 mg/l 5.6 <0.5 0.83
15. Chloride as Cl mg/l 9.40 7.52 11.28
16. Sulphate as SO4 mg/l <1.0 22 <1.0
17. Iron as Fe mg/l 0.49 <0.05 <0.05
18 Mercury as Hg mg/l <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
19 Lead as Pb mg/l <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
20 Total Chromium as Cr mg/l <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
SENES 109 HOEC

Burhi Ongchap
Sl Burhi Dihing
Test Parameters Unit Dihing Jang Nala
No. Upstream
Downstream (Dirok Nala)
21 Hexavalent Chromium
mg/l <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
as Cr+6
22 Copper as Cu mg/l 0.05 <0.02 <0.02
23 Nickel as Ni mg/l 0.08 0.04 0.05
24 Phenolic Compound as
mg/l <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
C6H5OH
25 Cyanide as CN mg/l <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
26 Fluoride as F mg/l 0.39 0.39 0.32
27 Total Coliform
(MPN/100ml) 6 <2 34
Organism
Surface water sampling from Ongchap Jang Nala Surface water sampling from Burhi Dihing
downstream
Surface water sampling from Burhi Dihing upstream
SENES 110 HOEC

3.2.10 Land-Use and Land Cover
The land-use and land-cover of the study area has been interpreted from the satellite data
(LANDSAT Imagery), toposheet of the area, and subsequently by ground truthing during
field surveys.
Land Use & Land Cover within 10km of the Well Cluster
Major part of the land within 10km of the well cluster is covered by unclassified forest
(36.9%), in addition about 13.2% of the land is covered by dense forest of Dehing Patkai
Wildlife Sanctuary and 10.9% of the land is covered by forest of Upper Dehing (West Block)
reserve forest. All these above mentioned types of forests covers about 61% of the 10km
around well cluster. Second largest land use is tea garden areas (14%). Agricultural land
covers about 11.5% land. About 8.2% of land is used for human settlement. Major river
within 10km of the well cluster is Burhi Dihing. Burhi Dihing along with other streams
covers about 3% land area. Waterbodies cover about 1.2% of the land, that includes two large
ox-bow lakes and few fisheries pond of Powai tea estate. Industrial land, roads & rail line
covers 0.4%, 0.6% & 0.1% respectively.
Land Use & Land Cover of 500m on Either Side of the Pipeline Alignment
Land use and land cover mapping was done within 500m of land on either side of the pipeline
alignment. About 32% of land was used for settlement, mostly within Margherita & Digboi
town. About 29.9% of land is covered by tea garden. Agricultural activity covers about 15%
of land. 12% of land around 500m of the pipeline belongs to reserve forest and 2.3% is
covered by unclassified forest. About 4% of land is industrial land. Burhi Dining River and
other streams covers about 1% land. Road and rail way covers about 2.2% and 0.5% of land
respectively.
The percentage distribution land use categories have been shown in Figure 3.17 and 3.18
and the land use maps are presented in Figure 3.19 and 3.20.
SENES 111 HOEC

FIGURE 3-17: PERCENTAGE LAND USE LAND COVER DISTRIBUTION OF WELL CLUSTER
STUDY AREA
FIGURE 3-18: PERCENTAGE LAND USE LAND COVER DISTRIBUTION OF PIPELINE STUDY
AREA
SENES 112 HOEC

FIGURE 3-19: LAND USE LAND COVER MAP OF WELL CLUSTER STUDY AREA
SENES 113 HOEC

FIGURE 3-20: LAND USE LAND COVER MAP OF PIPELINE STUDY AREA
SENES 114 HOEC

3.2.11 Soil Quality
Tinsukia District is situated in the extreme northeastern part of Assam. The district is situated
in the Upper Brahmaputra Valley in an alluvial plain surrounded all sides by hills except in
the west. Major soil types of Tinsukia district are red soil, sandy soil, sandy loamy soil and
sandy clayey soil2. The soil character of cultivable land in Tinsukia is mainly alluvial and
composed of mixture of sand (coarse to fine) and clay in varying proportions. The general
geochemical characteristic of the soil is moderate to slightly acidic. The alluvial soils of the
Brahmaputra valley are highly fertile and are very much suitable for farming of varieties of
crops round the year such as cereals, pulses, oilseeds, plantation crops etc. The well drained,
deep, acidic alluvial soils of upper Assam with good proportion of phosphoric content are
mostly suitable for the paddy plantation. The new alluvial soils formed due to inundation of
land by river at intervals contain high percentage of fine sand fine silt and are less acidic.
Such soils are often neutral and even alkaline. Large expanses of low-lying land are
characterized by heavy clayish soil with a high percentage of nitrogen and organic matter
which is appropriate for rice cultivation.
The predominant soil types in the study area are the following
• Older Alluvial Soil: The old alluvial soil occurs in major portion of the Tinsukia
district. The entire block area consists of older alluvial soil. Generally the old alluvial
soil is very deep, brownish to yellowish brown with texture of fine loams to coarse
loams and is slightly to moderately acidic. The older alluvial soil covers the entire
study area excepting some areas at the south where red loamy soil is present.
• Red Loamy Soil: The soils have red colour, which has been attributed to the
presence of hematite or anhydrous ferric oxides. These soils are essentially kaolinitic
in nature, acidic in reaction, highly porous and friable. They are low in organic matter
content as well as in all the essential plant nutrients.
Soil quality of the site assumes significance as it will be returned to land owners after the
completion of the project activities. The soil is presently being used to for tea plantation or
paddy cultivation and it will be crucial that the soil does not loose it texture and fertility when
handed over after the expiry of the lease.
Primary Soil Sampling and Analysis

Five soil samples were collected as specified in ToR issued MOEF. The soil characteristics
within the study area, especially the physical quality and fertility of the soil have been
characterized by analyzing these five soil samples representing prominent land use and land
cover in the study area. Out of these five representative soil samples, three were collected
from Dirok Tea Estate from tea plantation areas near Dirok1, Dirok 6 and Dirok 4
2
http://agricoop.nic.in/Agriculture%20Contingency%20Plan/Assam/Assam4-Tinsukia-5.6.2012.pdf
SENES 115 HOEC

respectively. Other two soil samples were collected from forest land near Kusijan off take
point and agricultural land near Golai II respectively. The soil collected was analysed for
heavy metals with the objective of establishing baseline values for such contaminants. The
soil sampling location points are shown in Figure 3.15.
Interpretation of Soil Analysis Results

Soil quality of Tea Garden
The texture of soil samples collected from tea garden near Dirok 1, 6 and 4 were found to be
sandy clayey, sandy loam and clayey respectively. Sand percentage in these samples was
varied from 13% (near Dirok 4) to 72.40% (near Dirok 6) where as clay percentage was
ranged between 19.5% (near Dirok 6) to 52.1 % (Dirok 1). On the other hand silt percentage
was varied in the range of 8.1 % (Dirok 6) to 34.9 % (Dirok 4). The pH values of soil
samples were ranged from 3.62 to 4.82. It indicates extremely acidic nature of soil as per
standard soil classification. The EC values were ranged from 62 - 181 microsiemens/cm. The
available nitrogen contents were lowest i.e. 91.7 mg/kg and highest i.e. 419.31 mg/kg in
sample taken from Dirok 1 and Dirok 4 adjacent areas respectively. The samples taken from
tea gardens showed organic materials content percentage between 0.72 (in Dirok 1) and 3.91
(in Dirok 4). The micronutrient levels of iron varied between 12.19 to 74.20 mg/kg, copper
varied between 8.61 to 16.71 mg/kg, zinc varied between 10.09 to 25.84 mg/kg and
manganese varied between 30.52 to 163.71mg/kg observed in the soil sample. The
concentrations of micronutrients do not indicate any extraordinary enrichment of metals or
contamination from any external sources and the concentrations agree to the general natural
composition of soils. The SAR value in the soil samples collected was 0.17 to 0.42. Further,
soil analysis results exhibited higher concentration of calcium (varied between 115.16 to
230.37 mg/kg) ions compared to sodium (varied between 20 to 60 mg/kg).
Soil quality of agricultural lands

The texture of soil samples collected from paddy cultivation land near Golai- II was found to
be clayey loam in nature with 33.5% of clay content. Soil was found to extremely acidic with
pH of 4.72. Electrical conductivity is used to estimate the soluble salt concentration in soil,
and is commonly used as a measure of salinity. The EC value for soil was found to be 50
microsiemens/cm. This soil samples also contained organic carbon content of 1%. The soil
samples revealed high available nitrogen content (340.55 mg/kg). Iron, copper, zinc and
manganese are important soil micronutrients considered essential for normal growth of crops.
Deficiencies of micronutrient drastically affect the plant growth and metabolism. The levels
of iron (78.37 mg/kg), copper (9.74 mg/kg), zinc (10.46 mg/kg) and manganese (112.37
mg/kg) do not indicate any extraordinary enrichment of metals or contamination from any
external sources and the concentrations agree to the general natural composition of soils.
Sodium hazard of soil usually is expressed as the Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR). The SAR
value in the soil sample was found to be 0.15. Soils with high levels of exchangeable sodium
may cause dispersion of soil particles leading to the replacement of major cations (calcium
and magnesium) adsorbed on the soil. This could possibly to lead to deterioration of soil
SENES 116 HOEC

structures and water infiltration problems. Soil analysis result exhibits higher concentration of
calcium ions (449.15 mg/kg) compared to sodium (30 mg/kg). Higher Ca2+ values observed
in the samples are indicative of good soil permeability and structure.
Soil quality of forest land

Texture of soil sample collected from forest land near Kusijan off take point was found to be
clayey loam in nature. Sand percentage of the sample was found to be 72.71%, whereas silt
and clay percentages of the sample collected from forest land were found to be 8.3% and
19%. The pH level in soil sample collected was recorded as 4.55 indicating slightly acidic n.
The EC value of the soil sample was 40 microsiemens/cm. The sample revealed high
available nitrogen content i.e. 393.01 mg/kg. The soil also contained organic carbon content
of 1.47%. Levels of iron (14.98 mg/kg), copper (4.5 mg/kg), zinc (6.83 mg/kg) and
manganese (90.95 mg/kg) do not indicate any extraordinary enrichment of metals or
contamination from any external sources and the concentrations agree to the general natural
composition of soils. The SAR values of the sample collected was 0.08.
The detailed soil analysis results have been provided at Table 3.4.
TABLE 3-4: SOIL ANALYSIS RESULTS
Tea
Tea Tea Agricultur
plantatio Forest
plantation plantation al land
Parameter Unit n area land near
area near area near near
near Kusijan
Dirok 1 Dirok 6 Golai-ll
Dirok 4
Sandy Clay Sandy Sandy
Texture Clay Clay loam
loam Loam Loam
Moisture % (w/w) 15.83 18.78 19.16 14.58 24.31
Sand % (w/w) 52.1 72.4 13 72.7 35.4
Silt % (w/w) 16 8.1 34.9 8.3 31.1
Clay % (w/w) 31.9 19.5 52.1 19 33.5
Organic Matter % 0.72 1.36 3.91 1.47 1
Alkalinity mg/kg 23.4 46.8 <10 23.4 46.8
Acidity mg/kg <10 <10 20.4 <10 <10
Specific Gravity 2.44 2.33 2.07 2.32 2.31
Bulk Density gm/cc 1.33 1.11 1 1.08 1.11
Porosity % 45.49 52.36 51.69 53.45 51.95
Void ratio -- 0.83 1.1 1.07 1.15 1.08
pH(1:2.5) at 25
4.51 4.82 3.62 4.55 4.72
deg c
EC(1:2.5) at 25
us/cm 175 62 181 40 50
deg C
Available mg/kg 91.7 209.63 419.31 393.01 340.55
SENES 117 HOEC

Tea
Tea Tea Agricultur
plantatio Forest
plantation plantation al land
Parameter Unit n area land near
area near area near near
near Kusijan
Dirok 1 Dirok 6 Golai-ll
Dirok 4
Nitrogen
Available
mg/kg <3 <3 11.45 <3 16.05
Phosphorus
Available
mg/kg 260 10 140 40 30
Potassium
Ca mg/kg 230.37 115.16 153.56 191.94 449.15
Mg mg/kg 92.15 69.1 69.1 69.1 184.3
Chloride mg/kg 28.19 28.19 37.58 18.79 18.79
SO4 mg/kg 226.18 <15 <15 <15 <15
TOC % 0.42 0.79 2.27 0.85 0.58
Fe mg/kg 43.74 12.19 74.2 14.98 78.37
Copper mg/kg 8.61 9.04 16.71 4.5 9.74
Zn mg/kg 14.73 25.84 10.09 6.83 10.46
Pb mg/kg 6.39 <5 <5 <5 <5
Mn mg/kg 30.52 88.78 163.71 90.95 112.37
B mg/kg <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25
Na mg/kg 60 20 20 10 30
NaCl mg/kg 46.48 46.48 50.83 25.41 30.98
Sodium
mg/kg Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil
Carbonate
SAR 0.42 0.18 0.17 0.08 0.15
Soil sampling from near Dirok 1 well site
SENES 118 HOEC

3.2.12 Natural Hazards
A natural disaster during the life cycle of a

project can have significant effect on the
functioning of the project. Such disasters also
create difficulties in access through disruption of
transportation links.
Seismicity & Earthquakes

The study area is located in Zone V as shown in
the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) 2000
seismic zone map for India (refer Figure 3.21).
Zone V is defined as region which might
encounter earthquakes of maximum intensity.
Earthquake on 15th August 1950 in north-
eastern India was the 6th largest earthquake of
20th century, which killed 1500 people and the
drainage of several rivers was blocked because FIGURE 3-21: SEISMIC ZONE MAP OF
of induced landslides triggering in hills. INDIA
Subsequently, the consequential floods due to
blocking of rivers were the cause of many deaths and other damages in the region. Very
recently, three moderate earthquakes of 5.6, 4.9, and 5.3 magnitudes on August 11th , 19th
and 31st were recorded, respectively in 2009 along with a major quake of 6.2 magnitude on
21st September 2009.
[Source : Amateur Seismic Centre www.asc-india.org]
Floods
Burhi Dihing has history of floods since long time and embankments had been constructed
even before independence. The major cause of flooding is due to over flow above the bank.
The flood of 1988 was the biggest observation in recent times. It occurred towards the end of
August due to excessive rainfall. During the 1988 floods, tributaries (Digboi, Tipling and
Tingrai) failed to discharge into Burhi Dihing due to prevailing high flood level and
consequently inundated a vast area. It may be noted that none of the drill sites, GGS or GPP
are located in the flood prone area.
3.3 ECOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT

Tinsukia district is rich in biodiversity and has a number of sensitive ecosystems comprising
both terrestrial and aquatic components. Biogeographically this area exhibits the properties of
both the Indian and Malayan Sub-regions so International Union for Conservation of Nature
& Natural Resources (IUCN) delineated this area within Indo Burma Hotspot (Refer Box
SENES 119 HOEC

3.1). Under the classification of Wild Life Institute, Dehradun this area falls within North
Eastern India-Brahmaputra valley Bio-geographical province (9A).
The primary objectives of the biological environment study are:
• To assess the vegetation types

• To identify common flora & fauna in the study area
• To find out rare and endangered floral and faunal species
• To evaluate wildlife habitat in the area and assess impact of the proposed project on
wildlife & their habitats.
3.3.1 Methodology
Study Area
An area of 10 km from the proposed wells, 500m on either side of the pipeline and 2 km
around the proposed GPP were considered as study areas for ecological survey.
Desktop Review and Reconnaissance Survey

A desktop review (forest working plan, wildlife management plan and other published
document etc.) was conducted to determine the forest area (toposheet and satellite imagery),
vegetation type (Champion and Seth, 1962), floral and faunal assemblage in the study area. A
site reconnaissance visit was conducted during July, 2014 to identify different ecological
habitats, sensitive ecological habitat and also to identify the targeted study area for baseline
survey.
Baseline Survey
Baseline survey was carried out to determine the existing ecological conditions and was
designed to fill any data gaps, and to facilitate an adequate assessment of the project’s
impacts upon ecology and the development of appropriate mitigation measures. Baseline
survey was conducted from October - November, 2014. Baseline survey has two parts- (i)
Secondary data collection and (ii) Primary Survey.
Secondary Data Collection
Secondary baseline data regarding sensitive ecological habitat (national park, sanctuary,
ecological sensitive area, migratory corridor, etc.), flora & fauna in the study area, forest
cover was collected for forest department’s website; management plan of protected areas and
other publish and unpublished documents. Stakeholder consultations (forest department, local
People, panchayat etc) were also carried out to understand the major flora & fauna in the
study area, pressure on forest resources, presence of any Schedule I species.
SENES 120 HOEC

Primary Survey
Primary survey was carried out the targeted study area for habitat (terrestrial and aquatic),
flora and faunal survey (terrestrial and aquatic). Special attention was paid to those areas,
which will be directly impacted by proposed drilling, gas processing and transportation.
Box 3.1: Biodiversity of Indo-Burma Hotspot
The proposed oil field falls under Indo- Burma hotspot, one of the
twenty-five richest biodiversity hotspots of the world. The Indo-
Burma hotspot comprises of about 2 million square kilometers of
tropical Asia, east of the Indian sub-continent. The region includes
all of Cambodia, Laos, nearly the entire territories of Thailand,
Myanmar and Bhutan, parts of Nepal, far eastern India and extreme
south China, Hainan Islands in South China sea and the Andaman
Islands. The region is still revealing its biological treasurers.
A wide diversity of ecosystem is represented in this hotspot
including mixed wet evergreen, dry evergreen, deciduous, and
montane forests. There are also patches of shrub lands some coastal
areas. In addition, a wide variety of distinctive localized vegetation
formations occur in Indo-Burma, including lowland floodplain swamps, mangroves, and seasonally
inundated grasslands.
A conservative estimate of total plant diversity in the hotspot
reveals about 13,500 vascular plant species, of which about, 7,000
(52 percent) are endemic. Among the flora of the Indo-Burma
Hotspot are a wide array of orchid and ginger species and many
tropical hardwood trees, including commercially valuable
dipterocarp species and teak (Tectona grandis).
There are about 430 mammal species in the hotspot; more than 70
species and seven genera are endemic. Six large mammal species
have been discovered in the last 12 years.
Nearly 520 reptile species are found in the hotspot; 12 genera and
over 200 species are endemic. Nine of the endemic genera are
represented by a single species. Indo-Burma also supports probably
the highest diversity of freshwater turtles in the world: 53 species,
representing one-fifth of the world's species
There are more than 280 amphibian species in the Indo-Burma
hotspot, over 150 of which are endemic. However, high endemism
does not extend to the genus level; only three of 46 genera are
restricted to the hotspot.
Indo-Burma has a remarkable freshwater fish fauna, with more than 1,260 documented species, or about 10
percent of the world’s freshwater fishes. More than 560 of these species are endemic. The Hoolock Gibbon
(Hylobytes hoolock) is the only ape species in India, is the western most of the nine species of lesser apes in
South-east Asia. Its distribution is restricted to the monsoon and evergreen rain forests of Northeast India south
of Brahmaputra River, Bangladesh, Southern Yunnan and Myanmar up to the river Chindwin. Gibbons inhabit
primary evergreen and less seasonal parts of semi-evergreen rain forest, and very rarely semi- deciduous forests.
SENES 121 HOEC

3.3.2 Terrestrial Ecosystem
Forest & Flora

Forest Resources: Tinsukia district has 1536 sq. km under the forest cover, i.e. 40.53% of its
total geographical area (State of Forest Report 2011, FSI). Forest cover of the district
comprises of 106 sq. km (6.9%) very dense forest, 699 sq. km (45.5%) moderately dense
forest and 731 sq. km (47.6%) of open forest. In the northern part of the study area reserve
forests of Upper Dehing East and West block falls along with a stretch of unclassified forest.
In the southern part of the study area a part of the forested land falls within Dehing Patkai
Wildlife Sanctuary, where as major forested lands are within unclassified forests.
None of the existing as well as proposed wells as well as GGS, GPP is located within the
forest land. Distance of the existing and proposed drill sites and other facilities from the
Dehing Patkai Wildlife Sanctuary are given in Table 3.5.
TABLE 3-5: DISTANCE OF THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED FACILITY FROM WLS
Sl. Location (Geographical Approximate Distance from
Facility
No. Coordinates) WLS (km)
1. DRK-1 950 36/ 35.70//E; 270 16/ 01.4//N 0.24
0 / // 0 / //
2. DRK-2 95 36 34.30 E; 27 16 01.70 N 0.24
0 / // 0 / //
3. DRK-4 95 37 41.06 E; 27 15 45.42 N 1.26
4. DRK-5 950 37/ 03.74//E; 270 16/ 12.14//N 1.1
5. DRK-6 950 37/ 27.57//E; 270 16/ 13.85//N 1.5
0 / // 0 / //
6. DRK-7 95 37 48.18 E; 27 16 13.85 N 2.0
0 / // 0 / //
7. GGS 95 37 41.06 E; 27 15 45.42 N 1.26
The proposed GPP is also not located within forest land and it is also located more the 10 km
from the Dehing Patkai Wild Life Sanctuary. In the northern part of the study area, a section
of the pipeline of about 5 km will pass through the RoU of Digboi Duliajan road. A part of
this pipeline falls within the west block of Upper Dehing reserve forest. Though the land is
designated as forest land, but presently the area has a rural setup, having no forest cover.
Forest Types
Owing to the huge amount of annual rainfall, forest types occurring in this region are
primarily of Tropical Evergreen Forest and Tropical Semi-Evergreen Forest. (Champion and
Seth Forest classification).
1/1/1B/C1 Assam valley Tropical wet evergreen forest: This type of forest can be found in
Upper Dehing Reserve forest, the Dehing Patkai Wildlife Sanctuary and unclassified forests
within the study area. The forest is characterized by several layers of canopy. The top canopy
is dominated almost entirely by Dipterocarpus macrocarpus and Shorea assamica which
occurs in patches, attaining girth of 7m and height up to 50 Meters. They stand over a closed
SENES 122 HOEC

evergreen middle canopy of about 30m, which is mostly dominated by Mesua ferrea and
Vatica lanceaefolia tend to predominate among a large number of other species. There is also
undergrowth and a shrub layer but the ground remains practically bare. Climbers are
abundant as also epiphytes. Palms and canes are generally present.
Flora
There are different varieties of flora and fauna in the forests of the state of Assam. The north-
east including Assam has 6000-7000 plant species identified so far. Plant resources of Assam
are concentrated mainly in the tropical and semi-evergreen forests, grasslands, wet deciduous
and riverside forests. There are at least 100 varieties of orchids available in Assam.
Floral Composition of Upper Dehing Reserve Forest and Dehing Patkai Wild Life Sanctuary:
The Upper Dehing Reserved forest is famous and is also known as rain forest. The entire
forest of the Dehing-Patkai region houses many endemic species and the forest are of
multistoried types with five canopy layers. The first canopy is covered with luxuriant growth
of Hollong, Titasopa and Borpat etc. The second canopy consists of Nahar with Sam, Mekai,
Amari, Kadam, Bhomora, Barhomthuri, Bhelkor, Bogipoma and Bhola. The third canopy is
mainly dominated by Morhal, Ajar, Mej, Owtenga, Bajiow etc. The fourth canopy is mainly
covered by woody shrubs like Kaupat, Tora, Bogitora etc. Palms like Geruga, Tamul,
Tokopat, tree ferns, cranes, woody climbers like oblonga are also common. The ground flora
consists of various shrubs like Bon Moduriam, Bon posola, Dhopat tita, Digholti etc.
Approximately 160 species (114 species of trees, 38 species of shrubs/herbs and 8 species of
climbers) of plants was reported from the Dehing Patkai Wild Life Sanctuary (source:
Management Plan for Dehing Patkai Wildlife Sanctuary 2011-12 to 2015-16).
Non-Forest Vegetation: A large number of plant species also recorded in the non-forest area.
Tree species in these sites are mostly planted and few are natural. Block plantation and tea
garden with shade trees, village woodlot are also recorded in the study area, these are as
follows:
Tea bushes and shed trees: These are mostly nitrogen fixing plant species, viz. Albizzia sp.
Cassia siamea, Gmelina arborea, Artocarpus heterophyllus.
Road side Plantation: Trees planted along the side of NH-38 include Alistonia scholaris,
Zizyphus jujube, Anthrocephalus sinensis, Azadirachta indica, Acacia auriculoformis,
Artocarpus heterophyllus, Delonix regia, Phyllanthus embilica, Ficus religiosa, Mangifera
indica, Lagerstroemia speciosa etc.
Village Woodlot: Naturally or plated trees on community or private land. Bamboo and timber
woods are planted in this area. Some important tree species are Mangifera indica, Aegle
marmelos, Delonix regia, Vitex negundo, etc
Riparian Vegetation: Naturally or plated trees along the canals and rivers. Some important
tree species are Dalbergia sisso, Ficus religiosa, Ficus bengalensis, Gmelina arborea.
SENES 123 HOEC

Floral Diversity: Due to the presence of rainforest of Dehing Patkai Wildlife Sanctuary and
Upper Dehing reserve forest within the study area, floral diversity in the study area is fairly
rich. Other than the forested region of the block, rest of the areas within the study area has
low floral density. The checklist of floral species in the study area is provided in Annexure
3.6.
Detailed floral diversity of different development sites in the study area is discussed below:
Dirok 1 & Dirok 2 Existing Well- Both of these two wells were drilled from same drill site,
which is about 2 ha. (20000sqm) in size. As previous drilling activity had been commenced
in this site, the site was already developed and devoid of any vegetation. So for proposed
development activity, no tree felling or vegetation removing activity will be required. Major
area within 1km of the project site is covered with tea garden. Dominating vegetation in the
tea garden area is tea bushes, along with shade trees like Albizzia sp. Cassia siamea, Gmelina
arborea. Within the human settlements trees like Mangifera indica, Aegle marmelos, Delonix
regia, Vitex negundo is found. Another tree very commonly found in the human settlement of
this region is Areca catechu (betel nut). The Dehing Patkai Wildlife Sanctuary is situated
about 250 m south west of the drill site. The floral diversity within the sanctuary is expected
to be high. Detailed species composition is discussed in “Floral Composition of Upper
Dehing Reserve Forest and Dehing Patkai Wild Life Sanctuary” section.
Dirok 4 Existing well and Proposed GGS – Like Dirok 1 &2 drill site, previous drilling
activity was commenced in the Dirok 4 drill site, so no tree felling or clearing activity will be
required. It is also 2 ha. in area and is located within tea garden. As the proposed GGS will be
constructed within the drill site of Dirok 4, no additional land acquisition as well as tree
felling or vegetation clearing will be required for the proposed GGS construction. Major area
within 1km of the project site is covered with tea garden. Dominating vegetation in the tea
garden area is tea bushes, along with shade trees like Albizzia sp. Cassia siamea, Gmelina
arborea. Within the human settlements trees like Mangifera indica, Aegle marmelos, Delonix
regia, Vitex negundo, Areca catechu etc. is found.
Dirok 5, Dirok 6 & Dirok 7 Proposed Well Locations – All of these wells are proposed wells,
and no development activity had occurred previously in the proposed well sites. As all of
these well locations were located within tea garden area, tree bush will be cleared and shed
tree will be felled during development of the site. On an average, about 20000 tea bush and
20 to 25 shed trees will be cleared in each of these sites during development of the well site.
No tree felling or vegetation clearance will be required outside the tea garden as the flow
lines will follow the roads within the tea garden. Floral diversity within 1km of all these
proposed wells is same as floral diversity of Dirok 4 well site. No natural forest falls within
1km of these well sites.
Proposed GPP – Agricultural land will be acquired for the GPP. Other than agricultural plant
(paddy) no vegetation is present in the proposed site. As a result no tree cutting will be
required for the development of GPP. Most of the area within 2km of the proposed GPP is
covered by agricultural field and human settlement. Trees like Mangifera indica, Aegle
SENES 124 HOEC

marmelos, Delonix regia, Vitex negundo are mostly found in the human settlement. Tea
Garden area also comes within 2km of the proposed GGP. Tea bushes mostly dominate the
tea garden landscape along with shade trees like Albizzia sp. Cassia siamea. Within 2 km of
this proposed GGP a small part of Upper Dehing (west block) reserve forest as well as
unclassified forest of Digboi falls. As these forests are tropical wet evergreen in nature, floral
diversity is rich, with Hollong dominating the top canopy. Other species that can be found in
these forests are discussed in “Floral Composition of Upper Dehing Reserve Forest and
Dehing Patkai Wild Life Sanctuary” section.
Proposed Pipeline – Total length of the proposed pipeline is about 25km. Throughout the
entire stretch of the pipeline vegetation along the RoU is very low. Few road side plantation
trees like Artocarpus heterophyllus, Delonix regia, Phyllanthus embilica, Ficus religiosa etc.
are found.
Out of 25 km, about 1.8 km of the pipeline, near Kusijan GSS, passes through forest land of
Upper Dehing (West Block) Reserve Forest. Though in this 1.8 km stretch the land is forest
land, but there is presently no forest cover in this area. Consultation with local people and
forest department revealed that forest cover was lost in this area for more than 40 years.
Presently the area has a rural setup with agricultural field and human settlement. The
vegetation in this area is also typical of village woodlot, comprising of Mangifera indica,
Aegle marmelos, Delonix regia, Vitex negundo etc..
Endemic, Threatened & Endangered Floral Species

The Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 prohibits picking, uprooting, damaging, destroying,
acquiring or collecting six species of plants from forest land and any area specified, by
notification, by the Central Government [Clause 17A of Chapter IIIA (Protection of Specified
Plants), page 346 of Handbook Vol. 1]. The six species are, Beddome’s cycad (Cycas
beddomei), Blue Vanda (Vanda coerulea), Kuth (Sassurea lappa), Ladies slipper orchids
(Paphiopedilum spp.), Pitcher plant (Nepenthes khasiana), Red Vanda (Rananthera
imshootiana). None of these species is reported or recorded in the study area.
Wildlife Habitat
Assam is home to a number of charismatic mammalian fauna Rhino, Elephant, Tiger, Pygmy
hog, Hispid hare, Golden langur, Leopard, Golden Cat, Clouded leopard, Himalaya palm
civet, Binturong, Himalayan black bear, Sloth bear, Gaur, Water buffalo, Sambar, Hog deer,
Barking deer, Swamp deer etc. Wildlife in Assam is given protection through a network of 5
National Parks, 20 Wildlife Sanctuaries, three Tiger Reserves and five Elephant Reserves.
A habitat survey was carried out at the study area. Dehing Patkai Wild Life Sanctuary (WLS)
is located within 2 km of the wells and GGS. Distances of wells from the WLS are presented
in Table 3.5. Due to the close proximity of WLS a considerable part of the study area is
included under the Ecological Sensitive Area of the WLS. Glimpse of flora and fauna
reported from Dehing Patkai WLS is presented at Box 3,2. Ecological sensitivity of the area
is presented in Figure 3.12.
SENES 125 HOEC

Box 3.2: Dehing Patkai Wildlife Sanctuary
Out of about 500sqkm of tropical rainforest stretching from Upper Dihing to Joypur in Dibrugarh and
Tinsukia District bordering Arunachal Pradesh, 111.19 sq. km is declared as Dehing Patkai Wildlife
Sanctuary. The Dehing Patkai forms the largest stretch of tropical low-land rainforests in India. The
forest is often referred as "The Amazon of the east" owing to its large area and thick forests. The
Sanctuary is a part of the Dehing-Patkai Elephant Reserve. The climate of the region is mostly
tropical wet, with rainfall more than 4,000 mm. 9 out of 12 months it rains. It is mostly hot and humid
during summers with heavy rainfall almost every day, while it is cool during the winters.
The different trees of this Four layered rainforest are laden with many exotic species of orchids. There
is an abundance of ferns, epiphytes, Wild Banana, orchids, Arums, climbers and linas in this humid
forest habitat. Some of the importance tree species found in this forest area are – Hollang, Mekai,
Dhuna, Udiyam, Nahar, Samkothal, Bheer, Hollock, Nahor, Au – tenga (elephant apple), different
species of Dimoru etc. The towering Hollong tree which is also the state tree of Assam dominates the
emergent layer of this rainforest. The forests are wet tropical evergreen Assam valley forests. The
important species of overwood are Dipterocarpus mncrocarpus, Mesua ferrea, Castanopsis indica,
Shorea assamica, Vatica lanceaefolia, Amoora wallichii, Dysoxylum hinectiferum etc. The other
species found in under storey are Garcinia lanceaefolia, Michelia muni, Baccaureu supida, Bischqfia
javanica, Myristica limifolia etc. The shrub and herb layer has Glochidion spp., Alpinia spp., Mallotus
philippinensis, Wild Banana, Tree fern, Pepper etc. The ground cover mainly has Melanstoma, Leea
and other species. So far, 101 species of orchids within 45 genera have been recorded there. Of these,
79 are epiphytic, 21 are terrestrial and 1 species is a saprophyte. Eight of the species found here are
critically endangered, 15 species are endangered, 5 species are near threatened and 28 species are in
the vulnerable category.
Huge diversity of Mammals of Oriental as well as Malayan origin can be found in this WLS, like
Chinese pangolin, Flying fox, Slow loris, Stump-tailed macaque, Assamese macaque, Rhesus
macaque, Capped langur, Hoolock gibbon, Malayan Sun bear, Hog –badger Wild pig, Sambar,
Barking deer, Gaur, Serow, Malayan giant squirrels, Porcupine, Pig-tailed macaque 3etc. More over
recent camera trapping in Dehing Patkai WLS have confirmed the co existence of seven wild cats in
the forest of this region, namely clouded leopard (Neofelis nebulosa), marbled cat (Pardofelis
marmorata), and golden cat (Catopuma temminckii), tiger (Panthera tigris), leopard (Panthera
pardus), leopard cat (Prionailurus bengalensis), and jungle cat (Felis chaus).
Birds like Lesser Adjutant Stork, White Winged Wood duck, White-backed Vulture, Slender-billed
Vulture, White cheeked Hill Partridge, Khaleej Pheasant, Grey Peacock-Pheasant, Rufus necked
Hornbill, Wreathed Hornbill, Great Pied Hornbill, Beautiful Nuthatch, Black-browed Leaf Warbler,
Green Imperial Pigeon, Purple wood or Pale capped Pigeon etc can be found in this forest..
3
Dehing Patkai Wildlife Sanctuary, Department of Environment & Forests, Govt. of Assam
SENES 126 HOEC

FIGURE 3-22: ECOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY MAP
SENES 127 HOEC

The different animal habitats observed at the study area are described below:
Primate Habitat:
The tropical wet evergreen forests of the area provide an ideal habitat for primate species. Six
species of primates are reported from this landscape (wildlife sanctuary and adjacent Reserve
Forest). The different species of primates, which have been recorded from this area,
preferentially occupy different niches.
TABLE 3-6: PRIMATE AND PRIMATE HABITAT
Habitat
Primates Habitat in the Study area
Preference
Hoolock Upper Not reported in the existing and proposed drill sites, GGS or GPP,
gibbon canopy of the however, reported in the nearby sanctuary area, which is
forest approximately 0.25 km to 2.0 km. Also reported from the reserve
forests of the study area.
Assamese Middle Capped langur not reported in the existing and proposed drill sites,
macaque & canopy GGS or GPP, however, reported in the nearby sanctuary area,
Capped which is approximately 0. 25 km to 2.0 km.. Assamese macaque
langur reported from the tea gardens, homestead plantation areas and also
within the WLS area. Also reported from the reserve forests of the
study area.
Stump-tailed Lower Not reported in the existing and proposed drill sites, GGS or GPP,
macaque & canopy however, reported in the nearby sanctuary area, which is
Slow loris approximately 0. 25 km to 2.0 km. Also reported from the reserve
Pig-tailed Lower & Not reported in the existing and proposed drill sites, GGS or GPP,
macaque middle however, reported in the nearby sanctuary area, which is
canopy approximately 0. 25 km to 2.0 km. Also reported from the reserve
Rhesus Generally Reported in tea garden, where all the wells, GPP are located. Also
macaque terrestrial reported from the WLS and reserve forests of the study area.
The Hoolock Gibbon, preferred roosting trees of the gibbon are Hollong (Dipterocarpus
macrocarpus), Nahor (Mesua ferrae) and Hingori (Castonopsis indica). The gibbon’s main
food plant is the fig tree (Ficus spp.). The estimation of primates within the sanctuary has not
been done yet. However, Mrs. Kashmira Kakoty, wildlife biologist, had conducted a survey
of Hoolock Gibbon in the year 2002 in Digboi division; who found 21 groups of Hoolock
Gibbon in Upper Dihing RF, West Block, each group consist of 3 to 5 member4.
The only other primate species that were sighted during the present study were the Assamese
macaque and the Rhesus macaque.
4
Management Plan of Dehing Patkai Wildlife Sanctuary, 2011-12- 2015-16
SENES 128 HOEC

Carnivores
Large Carnivores - Forest records and local information maintain the presence of at least
three species of large carnivores in the area. These are tiger (Panthera tigris), leopard
(Panthera pardus) and the clouded leopard (Neofelis nebulosa). The tiger census was
conducted with pugmark method and 5 tigers (2 males and 3 females) were reported in this
division (March 1997).
The tiger mostly hunt deer, sambar, etc in the forest. Tiger ranging pattern and large home
range size makes connectivity with suitable forested habitats necessary for its survival. The
Soraipong and Joypur RF provides excellent connectivity for tigers. The Soraipong is located
towards the north and north-west, while Joypur RF is located south-west of Dirok RF. The
drill sites, GGS, GPP and pipeline alignment shall have little bearing on animal movement as
they are located in an area which has low probability of being used as migratory route.
The leopard, which is highly adapted species and is known to adopt tea gardens as their
second home. All the proposed drill sites are located within the tea garden, which is adjacent
to the sanctuary. Therefore, leopard can inhabit in this area. However, information elicited
from human habitation around the reserve forest areas did not reveal any major instance of
man - animal conflict.
The clouded leopard is a highly shy and nocturnal animal, which is unlikely to venture out of
the sanctuary. Being an arboreal species, the lack of tree cover in the adjoining tea gardens of
Dirok Tea Estate, clouded leopard may not have entered in this area.
Lesser Carnivores- The lesser carnivores that have been recorded from the area include,
leopard cat (Felis bengalensis), jungle cat (Felis chaus) large Indian civet (Viverra zibetha),
small Indian civet (Viverricula indica), Indian fox (Vulpes bengalensis), common mongoose
(Herpestes edwardsi), small Indian mongoose (Herpestes auropunctatus). The present study
recorded the presence of civets, the Indian fox, small Indian mongoose in the tea garden area.
Herbivores: Asiatic Elephant (Elephas maximus) is the most prominent wild herbivore in the
study area. They favor bamboo, berries, mangoes, bananas, shrubs, fruits etc. They prefer
thick forests with abundant food and shade. They also like muddy areas and swamps. The
WLS and it surrounding reserve forest areas have a substantial population of the Elephant.
The estimated elephant population as per 2011 census is 204. Apart from elephant other
herbivore like sambar deer, barking deer, Malayan giant squirrel, northern giant flying
squirrel etc can be found in the forested landscape
Elephant Reserve and Elephant Corridor: The Dehing Patkai Elephant Reserve has an area
of 609.55 sq. km. and a total of 160 wild elephants. The established elephant corridors in the
Digboi Forest division are described below (Source: Right of Passage: Elephant Corridor of
India; WTI, 2004).
Kotha-Burhidihing: This corridor connects the Kotha Reserve Forest (Digboi Forest
Division) and adjacent elephant populations of Changlang district of Arunachal Pradesh with
SENES 129 HOEC

the Burhidihing Reserve Forest (Doom Dooma Forest Division) thereby maintaining the
linkage with Terai R.F., Kakojan R.F. and Nalani R.F.
Upper Dihing East-Upper Dihing West Block at Bogapani: This corridor lies between the
Upper Dihing East and West block of forestland and passes through Bogapani tea estate and a
few settlements. Tea gardens, heavy traffic of NH-38 and a railway line (Digboi-Tinsukia)
are the major impediments for elephant movement.
Upper Dihing East-Upper Dihing West Block between Golai-Powai: This corridor facilitates
elephant movement between the Upper Dihing East and West blocks.
The proposed pipeline will pass through the Golai-Powai Elephant Corridor near Golai III
village. The Golai-Powai elephant corridor is located in proximity (about 0.1 km) to the
proposed GPP, in southern direction. But the existing and proposed wells are around 9.0 km
Upper Dihing East-Upper Dihing West Block at Bogapani Elephant Corridor.
As observed during field survey that there are approximately 110 structures including one
two storied hotel, commercial building and automobile showroom within the corridor. A part
of terminal of IOCL being constructed would also be within the elephant corridor. All such
structures are made up of brick, asbestos and tin sheds and mainly used for living.
Consultations with local peoples have revealed that no elephant movement noticed in this
area for last three years. Consultation also revealed that elephant movement between Upper
Dehing West-Upper Dehing East block is reported further south from present corridor
location, near Powai Tea Estate, where less construction activity has occurred along the NH-
38 providing comparatively uninterrupted passage to elephants.
Elephants being a ranging species will tend to cover vast areas which area suitable habitat. As
stated earlier for the tiger, there is a high probability of elephants moving to Soraipung and
Joypur RFs but are unlikely to move through the proposed drill sites area (tea garden) as it
does not offer suitable forested ‘stepping stones’. Also movement through the site area does
not offer connectivity to any forest patch making it unsuitable for elephants to move in search
of food as per theory of optimal foraging. The all the proposed drill sites and GGS are not
falling in the established elephant corridors. However, the proposed pipeline is passing
through one elephant corridor, i.e. Upper Dihing East-Upper Dihing West Block at Bogapani.
Birds - The wildlife management plan for Dehing Patkai WLS shows that 150 bird species
have been reported from this area, which include the Critically Endangered Long billed
vulture (Gyps indicus), and endangered White winged wood duck and greater adjutant Stork.
Five species of hornbills are found here- Great hornbill, Oriental Pied hornbill, Brown
hornbill, Rufous-necked hornbill and Wreathed hornbill. All these protected species are
predominantly frugivores; they are unlikely to venture out canopy cover and expose
themselves to risk. The remaining species too are predominantly resident, forest dwelling
species; however, some common species are likely to be visited in the tea garden area.
SENES 130 HOEC

Faunal Diversity
Mammal
Altogether 230 forms including species and subspecies have been recorded or are likely to be
found in Assam. This is one of the highest diversity of mammals in any of the Indian states
i.e. 60% of the total mammalian species found in India.
A study on gibbon (2002) and another on the carnivores (2007-2009) by Dr. Kashmira
Kakoti, wild life biologist, have revealed the forested landscape within the study area is a
hotbed of biodiversity with the best tropical rainforest sites in Asia. A total of 43 mammals
had been recorded in this landscape; 17 carnivore species have been camera-trapped, the
highest of any site in India. It is, in fact, the first site in the world where photographs have
confirmed 7 species of cats like the tiger, clouded leopard, Indian leopard, Asiatic golden cat,
marbled cat, jungle cat & leopard cat co-existing within one landscape. Apart from the large
carnivores, the presence of a number of lesser carnivores was recorded by the forest
department from the area. These include the jungle cat, jackal, small Indian civet, large
Indian civet, small Asian mongoose, Indian grey Mongoose, Chinese pangolin and
Himalayan crestless porcupine. About six species of primates can be found study area, such
as western hoolock gibbon, capped langur, Assamese macaque, northern pigtailed macaque,
rhesus macaque and the slow loris. Among these primates western hoolock gibbon and slow
loris are strict forest dwellers. The most prominent herbivore in the study region is elephant.
Apart from elephant other herbivores found in the area are barking deer, sambar deer,
northern giant flying squirrel etc.
Detailed checklist of mammalian species found in the study area is given in Annexure 3.7.
Avifauna: About 958 species and subspecies of birds have so far been reported or likely to
occur in Assam. This is the highest diversity of birds in any of the Indian states. Arunachal
Pradesh comes next with more than 750 species.
The wildlife management plan for Dehing Patkai WLS shows that 150 bird species have been
reported from this area, which include the Critically Endangered Long billed vulture (Gyps
indicus), and endangered White winged wood duck and greater adjutant stork. Five species of
hornbills are found here- Great hornbill, Oriental Pied hornbill, Brown hornbill, Rufous-
necked hornbill and Wreathed hornbill. The detailed avian checklist has been provided at
Annexure 3.8.
Reptilian Species: At least 187 species have been reported or likely to be found in Assam.
This includes two species of crocodiles, 21 turtles and tortoise, 46 lizards and 118 snakes
(including three species of monitors). The presence of diverse reptilian species in Assam is
highest in any of the Indian states.
Reptilian fauna in the study area is represented by 23 species of snakes including Burmese
Rock Python, Eastern Cat Snake, Indo-Chinese Rat Snake, King Cobra, White-lipped Pit
Viper etc. The detailed checklist of reptilian species has been presented in Annexure 3.9.
SENES 131 HOEC

Endemic, Endangered & Threatened Fauna

The non- forest area and forest area form the habitat of some endangered and threatened
species which are listed in the Schedule I of the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and
amendment in 1991. Secondary information revealed presence of nineteen species of
Schedule I animals. Out of nineteen one Schedule I species, nine species belong to mammals;
seven species belong to birds and three are reptiles. (Refer Table 3.7).
TABLE 3-7: SCHEDULED ANIMAL SPECIES IN THE STUDY AREA
Wildlife Sl.
Scientific Name Common Name IUCN Category
Schedule No.
A. Schedule I
A.1 : Mammals
A.1.1 Elephas maximus Elephant Endangered
A.1.2 Prionailurus bengalensis Leopard Cat Least Concern
A.1.3 Hylobates hoolock Hoolock Gibbon Endangered
A 1.4 Panthera pardus Leopard Near Threatened
A 1.5 Nycticebus coucang Slow Loris Vulnerable
A 1.6 Neophelis nebulosa Clouded Leopard Vulnerable
A.1.7 Trachypithecus pileatus Capper langur Endangered
A 1.8 Panthera tigris Tiger Endangered
A 1.9 Manis crassiaudata Indian Pangolin Endangered
A.2 : Birds
A.2.1 Anthracoceros albirostris Oriental pied hornbill Least Concern
A.2.2 Bucerus bicornis Great pied hornbill Near Threatened
White-ramped Critically
A 2.3 Gyps bengalensis
Vulture Endangered
Slender-billed Critically
A 2.5 Gyps tenvirostris
Vulture Endangered
White-winged Wood Endangered
A 2.6 Cairina scutalata
duck
A 2.7 Gracula religiosa Common Hill Myna Least Concern
A.3: Reptiles
Python molurus bivittatus Burmese Rock Near Threatened
A 3.1
Python
Varanus bengalensis Indian Monitor Least Concern
A 3.2
Lizard
A 3.3 Pangshura sulhetensis Assam Roofed Turtle Endangered
SENES 132 HOEC

3.3.3 Aquatic Ecosystem
Riverine Habitat: The major river in the study area is Burhi Dihing. There are also numbers
of seasonal rivers and nalas in the study area. All these rivers and nalas are forming the
riverine ecosystem. At the banks of these rivers and streams is riparian vegetation is also
noted. The riverine ecosystem is also suitable habitat for fresh water fishes.
Wetland Habitat: The district has three different types of wetland viz. lake/pond, seasonally
inundated flood plains and ox-Bow lake. Major wetlands in the area are Mota bil and
Toplong bil. These wetlands are suitable habitat for the common fresh water fishes and few
residential and local migratory birds.
Again the above described aquatic habitats in the region have no recognized sensitive habitat
for the aquatic animals. Moreover, the proposed drill sites, GGS, GPP would not be
constructed by blocking the flow of streams.
Following aquatic ecological parameters has been studied.
Macrophytes: Seasonal wetlands and marshy lands are suitable habitat for aquatic
macrophytes. The most dominant macrophytes are Phragmites karka, Arundo donax,
Alternantha sessilis, Cyperus iria, Hydrilla verticillata and Nymphoides cristrat. A total of 18
species of aquatic macrophytes were recorded from these aquatic ecosystems (Annexure
3.10).
Fishes & Fisheries: Freshwater fish species in the wetlands of Assam is well represented.
The main abundant species include catla, rohu, mrigala, bata, calbous, titpunti, maurala,
chela, folui, boal, pabda, lata, shole, kholse, pancal, baan, tangra, singi, techoka, magur, koi,
bele, kuchia etc., are among the major fish fauna of fresh water bodies. Wilderness fishes like
chanda, ghute etc., are now rare due to the indiscriminate use of organochlorine pesticides
which contaminate the run-off from agricultural fields and flow into the wetlands from their
catchments areas.
Survey was done in local fish market to estimate the biodiversity of fish fauna. A total of 27
species of fishes species were recorded from these aquatic ecosystems. (Annexure 3.11).
Amphibia: Of the 206 amphibians species known from India, only five common species were
recorded from this area during the study period (Annexure 3.12) Out of the five species, two
species are common, three species are sporadic in local distribution.
Aquatic Reptilia: Aquatic reptiles found in this area were common Indian monitor (Varanus
bengalensis) and common pond snake (Xenochrophis piscator). Details list of reptiles are
provided in Annexure 3.13.
Aquatic Birds: The survey results show 13 species of aquatic birds in the study area
(Annexure 3.14) Out of 13 species, five species are common, five species are sporadic and
two species are rarely distributed in this area.
SENES 133 HOEC

Aquatic Mammals: The survey recorded one species of aquatic mammals, Common Otter
(Lutra lutra) from the Burhi Dihing River.
3.3.4 Agricultural Diversity
Agriculture is the main economic activity in this district. The major crop in the district is
paddy. Other important crops are maize, rape and mustard, sesamum, sugarcane, pineapple
and plantation crops like rubber, coffee & tea. Most of the cultivable land remains fallow in
winter due to lack of irrigation facilities.
The district has an estimated 156230 ha (15.12% of the total district area) net cropped area.
The area under high yielding variety is 87545 ha (56% of the total cropped area). The area
under tea plantation is 5920 ha (13.4% of the total district area). The entire district has an
estimated 27170 ha irrigated area which is low in percentage terms. Consequently, no
irrigation facilities were observed in the vicinity of the site.
The proposed drilling activity will be carried out in the agricultural land. The site
development work like tripping of top soil, filling up of land and compaction may have some
negative impact on ecological productivity of the land. It also proposed to carry out the site
reclamation and rehabilitation, which may improve the ecological productivity of the land.
3.4 SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

A socio economic assessment of the positive and negative impacts on the people likely to be
directly and indirectly affected by the project was conducted along with other studies during
the EIA. The assessment facilitated an understanding of the needs, demands, preferences,
capacities and constraints of the people in the vicinity of the project operation. It was
undertaken primarily to enhance the understanding of other relevant factors such as social
organizations and networks, livelihood patterns, social infrastructure etc. The assessment
attempts to predict and evaluate future impacts of project upon people, their physical and
psychological health and well-being, their economic facilities, cultural heritage, lifestyle and
other value system and also helped in prioritizing HOEC’s commitment towards the CSR
initiatives. Inputs from the social assessment into the design phase facilitated in:
• Tracking potential adverse socioeconomic effects over different time frames and
different activities
• Reviewing options to eliminate such negative impacts through design changes or
mitigate them through specific social protection or mitigation measures
• Reviewing options to extend or enhance benefits for the population in the vicinity of
the project site.
This section deals with the baseline socio-economic environment of the Dirok Development
Field. The following section discusses the methodology used for the socio-economic
assessment. The subsequent sections discuss the baseline profile of the district and the
villages within the study area. The information provided has been primarily derived from the
SENES 134 HOEC

secondary sources (Census of India). In addition primary information was also collected
during the discussions at the villages with the local community members. The village-wise
secondary data (obtained from Census, 2011) has been taken into consideration for analyzing
the socio-economic profile of the study area.
3.5 AREA OF IMPACT

The study area for whole EIA is defined as area within 10 km radius around the proposed
well cluster, 2 km radius around the proposed GPP and 500 meter for proposed gas pipeline.
Total 86 villages (67 in Assam and 19 in Arunachal Pradesh) are located within the 10 km
radius around the proposed well cluster and total 4 villages are located within the 2 km radius
around the proposed GPP.
But area of impact for socio economic assessment was defined as area within 2 km radius
around the proposed well cluster and GPP as per the initial survey, the understanding of the
project and professional judgment. As per abovementioned consideration this assessment
was focussed on 12 villages located around proposed the well cluster and 4 villages around
the proposed GPP. This assessment also considered one village located in close proximity to
the Kusijan GGS. The location details of these villages are provided in Table 3-8
TABLE 3-8: LIST OF THE STUDY AREA VILLAGES IN DIROK DEVELOPMENT FIELD IN TINSUKIA
DISTRICT
Distance
from Direction from
District RD Block Facility Census Village
Nearest Well
Nearest Well
Tinsukia Margherita Well Lekhajan Grant No.21 1.89 km North East
Cluster
Dirak No.1 1.93 km North East
Lama Gaon 1.96 km South East
112/109/Nla Grant 2 1.92 km West
Makum Tea Co.
112/109/Nla Grant.1 1.71 km South West
Makum Tea Co.
112/109 Makum Assam 1.97 km West
T.C.No.3
Namdang Tea Co.Kabula 1.86 km West
Darkhast
Makum Assam Tea 1.72 km South West
Co.Darkhast-2
Namdang Tea Co.Nlr 1.82 km North West
Grant (A) No.277
Namdang Tea Co.Nlr 1.89 km North West
Grant (B) No.277
Namdang Tea 1.85 km North West
Co.Nlr.Grant 277(C)
SENES 135 HOEC

Distance
from Direction from
District RD Block Facility Census Village
Nearest Well
Nearest Well
Namdang Tea Co.Nlr 1.72 km West
No.277(F)
GPP Golai Gaon No.5 1.24 km North West
Golai Gaon No.3 1.14 km North East
Golai Gaon No.2 0.35 km North West
Golai Gaon No.1 North West
Powai Forest Village 1.92 km South East
Pipeline Balijan 1.73 North West
near
Kusijan
GGS
3.6 METHODOLOGY
The social assessment was primarily based on the analysis of the secondary data obtained
from the census survey 2011 and from primary community consultations. Following tools
were used for gathering information and validating secondary data after considering nature of
project operation and understanding the demographic characteristic of the area:
Secondary Data Analysis

To evaluate socio-economic environment in the study area, secondary information from the
2011 Census handbook has been referred to and details pertaining to habitations in the study
area have been extracted and assessed.
Stakeholder Consultation
Stakeholder Identification: At the beginning of the EIA process, the SENES team conducted
a preliminary identification of probable stakeholders. An inventory of actual / potential
stakeholders, including local groups and individuals, local institutions like the panchayats
which may be directly or indirectly affected by the project or with interest in the development
activities of the region was made at preliminary. This inventory was arrived through
discussions with HOEC personnel and members of the local community.
Consultations: Consultations with community are a continuous process that was carried in the
EIA process and would be continued during the construction and operation phases of the
project. Issues like land and resource damage, social disturbance, severance and increased
congestion, noise and air pollution, employment opportunities, need for development of basic
infrastructure, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities in the villages located in 1-2 Km
periphery were discussed during the consultations so that they can be adequately addressed
through the environment management plans. The consultations also helped in developing
preliminary understanding of the requirement of social development initiatives, which are
SENES 136 HOEC

required in the project affected village and may be undertaken as part of the HOEC’s CSR
activity.
3.7 GENERAL SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE

This EIA deals with six development wells (3 existing wells and 3 new wells), GGS, GPP,
and pipeline in Dirok Development Field located in Tinsukia District of state of Assam.
The demographic profile in terms of total population, household size, sex-ratio of the above
mentioned selected villages in the study area have been summarized in the sections below,
while the detailed demographic profile of the study area villages has been provided in Table
3.9.
Population and Household Size

Among above mentioned 12 villages located in 2 km periphery of the proposed well location
Dirak No 1 has the highest population (3996) with in 827 households and the lowest
populations were recorded in Makum Block No 2 (443) and total household no is 94. The
household size of above mention 12 villages generally ranged within 4.43 to 5.23 with an
average household size of 4.80.
In case of five villages located in 2 km periphery of the proposed GPP, highest no of
population (3996) lived in 896 household in Golai Gaon No 1 and lowest population (743)
found in Golai Gaon No 3 and total household no is 160. Household size in this five villages
various from 4.55 to 5.40 with an average household of 4.82.
Population and household of selected villages summarized in the Table 3-9
Sex Ratio
The average sex ratio of 980 and 935were recorded in villages located near to the well cluster
and village located near to the GPP respectively. Average sex ratio of the well cluster villages
is higher than the district (952), state (957) and country average (943) but the sex ratio of the
villages located near to the GPP is lower than district, state or country average. The highest
sex ratio among well cluster villages is recorded in 112/109/Nla Grant. 1 Makum Tea Co.
(1083) and Golai Gaon No 2 has highest sex ratio of 1000 among the five villages located
near to the GPP. Of all the villages within this two area of impact study, 80% of the villages
have a sex-ratio of more than 900 and the lowest sex-ratio was been recorded at Namdang
Tea Co. Nlr. Grant 277(C) (839). Distribution of male and female population in the study
area villages is represented in Figure 3.23.
SENES 137 HOEC

FIGURE 3-23: DISTRIBUTION OF MALE AND FEMALE POPULATION IN SELECTED VILLAGES IN

DIROK DEVELOPMENT FIELD
Scheduled Caste (SC) & Scheduled Tribes (ST)

The overall demographic data of all 18 selected villages shows that the ST and SC population
in these villages is very less. Highest schedule tribe population (only 4.90%) and schedule
cast population (9.23%) were recorded in Golai Gaon No 1 village. Details of SC and ST
population are given in the Table 3.9.
Education & Literacy

The study of the education and literacy profile in the region is relevant in order to have an
understanding whether the proposed project can utilize skilled human resources available
within the area. According to 2011 census data, the literacy rate in Tinsukia district is 60.11%
and the average literacy rate of all 18 selected villages of observed as 46.13% which is below
the district literacy rate. The highest literacy rate was observed in Makum Assam Tea Co.
Drakhast 2 (76.08%) and the lowest in Namdang Tea Co. Nlr Grant (A) No. 277 (31.55%).
Average male and female literacy rate in the study area was recorded at 53.78% and 38.25%
which lower than the state average of 66.30 % and 56.39 % respectively. Details of male and
female literacy rates are given in Figure 3.24.
SENES 138 HOEC

FIGURE 3-24: SEX WISE LITERACY RATE IN SELECTED VILLAGES IN DIROK DEVELOPMENT
FIELD
SENES 139 HOEC

TABLE 3-9: DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE SELECTED VILLAGES NEAR TO PROPOSED WELL LOCATION IN DIROK DEVELOPMENT FIELD
% of Female
% of Male
% Literate
Population
Population
Population
Population
Population
Household
Household
% Female
Sex Ratio
% of ST
Literate
Literate
% Male
No. of
% SC
Total
Size
Well Village
Well Lekhajan Grant No.21 218 1031 4.73 53.64 46.36 864 0.00 3.01 37.73 45.21 29.08
Cluster
Dirak No.1 827 3996 4.83 49.95 50.05 1002 0.10 0.00 37.39 46.29 28.50
Lama Gaon 160 708 4.43 50.85 49.15 967 7.06 0.00 56.78 63.89 49.43
112/109/Nla Grant 2
701 3333 4.75 49.77 50.23 1009 0.75 0.03 36.30 44.73 27.96
Makum Tea Co.
112/109/Nla Grant.1
467 2335 5.00 48.01 51.99 1083 0.00 0.00 39.40 46.39 32.95
Makum Tea Co.
112/109 Makum Assam
450 2353 5.23 50.79 49.21 969 0.21 0.00 43.86 50.96 36.53
T.C.No.3
Namdang Tea
169 803 4.75 50.56 49.44 978 0.00 0.00 32.00 46.55 17.13
Co.Kabula Darkhast
Makum Assam Tea
94 443 4.71 49.44 50.56 1023 0.68 0.00 61.85 67.12 56.70
Co.Darkhast-2
Namdang Tea Co.Nlr
244 1160 4.75 48.71 51.29 1053 0.00 0.34 31.55 39.47 24.03
Grant (A) No.277
Namdang Tea Co.Nlr
458 2117 4.62 51.11 48.89 957 0.09 0.00 35.05 44.18 25.51
Grant (B) No.277
Namdang Tea
155 811 5.23 54.38 45.62 839 0.99 1.73 54.13 61.22 45.68
Co.Nlr.Grant 277(C)
Namdang Tea Co.Nlr
274 1264 4.61 49.60 50.40 1016 0.32 0.00 33.70 38.44 29.04
No.277(F)
SENES 140 HOEC

% of Female
% of Male
% Literate
Population
Population
Population
Population
Population
Household
Household
% Female
Sex Ratio
% of ST
Literate
Literate
% Male
No. of
% SC
Total
Size
Well Village
GPP Golai Gaon No.5 223 1014 4.55 54.14 45.86 847 0.59 0.99 40.04 46.63 32.26
Golai Gaon No.3 160 743 4.64 51.55 48.45 940 0.27 0.27 47.24 53.00 41.11
Golai Gaon No.2 358 1814 5.07 50.00 50.00 1000 0.28 0.72 67.03 71.22 62.84
Golai Gaon No.1 896 3996 4.46 51.13 48.87 956 9.23 4.90 76.08 80.62 71.33
Powai Forest Village 319 1723 5.40 51.71 48.29 934 0.00 0.00 60.30 68.69 51.32
Pipeline Balijan 118 582 4.93 48.11 51.89 1079 0.00 0.00 39.86 53.57 27.15
SENES 141 HOEC

Economic Activity & Livelihood Pattern

The relevance of economic activity and livelihood pattern is important in the context of the
study since depending on the existing situation one can predict the impact of the project
activity on the economy of the region.
The total working population in the selected villages varies from 30.53% to 53.30%. Of the
total workforce, Golai III revealed the highest percentage of workforce with 53.30% workers
while Powai Forest Village revealed the lowest workforce percentage (30.53%).
Summary of work force participation in different selected villages in the study area is shown
Table 3-10.. The “Other worker” category contribute highest workforce category constituting
about 89% of the working population of 18 selected villages as major populations in the
selected villages work in tea gardens whereas agriculture contribute only 9% of the working
population. This area mainly comprises of mono cropped land and paddy is the major
agricultural produce.
TABLE 3-10: WORK FORCE PARTICIPATION OF SELECTED VILLAGES NEAR TO PROPOSED WELL
LOCATION IN DIROK DEVELOPMENT FIELD
%
Total %
% Household % Other
Facility Village worker Agricultural
Cultivator Industry Worker
Population Labour
Worker
Well Lekhajan Grant 439 44.42 2.05 0.23 53.30
Cluster No.21
Dirak No.1 1811 5.47 0.55 0.44 93.54
Lama Gaon 327 26.91 2.75 4.89 65.44
112/109/Nla 1627 0.49 0.92 0.43 98.16
Grant 2 Makum
Tea Co.
112/109/Nla 1055 0.95 0.47 0.95 97.63
Grant.1 Makum
Tea Co.
112/109 Makum 1219 0.41 1.23 1.56 96.80
Assam T.C.No.3
Namdang Tea 416 0.72 0.48 0.00 98.80
Co.Kabula
Darkhast
Makum Assam 153 1.96 0.00 0.00 98.04
Tea Co.Darkhast-
2
Namdang Tea 581 0.34 0.86 0.34 98.45
Co.Nlr Grant (A)
No.277
Namdang Tea 1062 1.98 0.66 0.00 97.36
Co.Nlr Grant (B)
SENES 142 HOEC

%
Total %
% Household % Other
Facility Village worker Agricultural
Cultivator Industry Worker
Population Labour
Worker
No.277
Namdang Tea 297 0.67 0.00 1.35 97.98
Co.Nlr.Grant
277(C)
Namdang Tea 468 0.00 0.85 0.43 98.72
Co.Nlr No.277(F)
GPP Golai Gaon No.5 471 5.31 24.84 7.64 62.21
Golai Gaon No.3 396 4.29 1.26 3.28 91.16
Golai Gaon No.2 586 4.44 5.29 1.71 88.57
Golai Gaon No.1 1339 4.33 3.29 2.76 89.62
Powai Forest 526 60.84 4.56 1.90 32.70
Village
Pipeline Balijan 249 26.10 1.20 0.40 72.29
FIGURE 3-25: WORK CLASS DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED VILLAGES IN DIROK

DEVELOPMENT FIELD
SENES 143 HOEC

3.8 BASIC AMENITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Drinking Water facilities

Ground water is the main source of drinking water. Community consultation revealed that
adequacy and quality is not a problem in case for drinking water. Good quality water is
available to the villagers around the year. Villages where river or stream present, people also
use this for their domestic purpose.
Medical Facilities
Medical facilities are one of the basic service indicators which need to be studied so as to
know the quality of life in the area. All study area villages considered for the study have
health sub center in panchayat level. Free medical facility also available in tea garden
premises for tea garden workers. Primary Health centre is present only at Block. Other than
that villagers have to go to Digboi and Margherita to avail the medical facility.
Educational Facilities
The study area possesses necessary educational infrastructure to cater to the educational
needs of the both rural and urban population. Among the study area villages more than one
primary school and one high school is present. ICDS is present in all the villages. For higher
education student have to go to Digboi or Margherita.
Transport & Communication

NH-38 is the major road connecting the study area with Digboi and Margherita is being used
by the local people as a route of transportation. Margherita-Deomaliroad and some other
major district roads connect the study area with NH-38 and nearest town. Pucca paved road is
present in almost every village.
Market Facilities
The study on availability of market place not only tells the buying power of the common
people but also gives an inner sight of services it provide for the attainment of a better living.
All the sampled villages do not have market facility. For market place, villages solely depend
on urban places or towns or of adjacent areas namely Digboi, Margherita etc. There are only
some shops present within the villages.
Power Supply
Electricity is available in all study area villages through a stable 220V electricity supply
adequate for domestic, agricultural and other purposes. In case tea gardens labour line,
dedicated power supply line from tea estate is available. Frequent power cut is problem for
this area.
SENES 144 HOEC

Post and Telecommunication

In this era of telecommunication, access to mobile phone is within every bodies reach. All
villages from sample study area have the access to post- office and other private courier
services.
Festivals
Like other places in Assam Bihu is the main festival of this area. Other than that since
Hinduism is predominant in this region, common festivals of Hindu’s like Holi, Rath yatra,
Durga puja, Kali puja – Diwali are quite common. Apart from these, many tribal festivals are
celebrated in this region.
Community Consultation
Community consultation was carried out with the objective of finding out about people's
views and opinion on issues relating to the project, its operations and also to the peripheral
development. In this backdrop, extensive consultations were conducted during the socio
economic assessment as part of EIA study. Suggestions were also received from participants
on managing of project functions so that it does not have any adverse impacts on the
community living in the area adjoining the project, better targeting community development
programs, ensuring community involvement and cooperation in the operation of the project.
The feedback from the continued consultation will facilitate the project in developing
strategies to address these issues in consensus with the communities residing around the
project.
Community consultations in this project are mainly carried out the village hamlets like
Khagoripathar, Balijan, Golai Gaon Likahjan etc. located in 1-2 km periphery of proposed
wells, GGS, GPP and pipeline locations in the study area.
The summary findings of the consultations carried out have been discussed below:
• Majority of the people in the area are tea garden worker. Some people also involved
in agriculture and paddy is main agriculture produce
• Water requirement is catered through household borewell/tube well facility in the
village areas. Good quality drinking water is available to them trough out the year.
• It was reported during consultations that majority of the parents send their children to
the primary school. Almost every village has a primary school; however, percentage
of students pursuing higher education is comparatively less.
• The medical facilities in the area are also not satisfactory. During the public
consultations the household members expressed their concern about the health
facilities. According to them although there exists primary health centers, doctors are
infrequent and moreover since transportation facilities are poor, sometimes they find
it hard to mobilize serious patients to Tinsukia and Margherita.
SENES 145 HOEC

• The local communities at the tea garden mentioned about the facilities they receive
from the tea estates like hospitals and ambulance services, incentives during
marriages for the family members and other infrastructure like utensils etc,
• Community consultation revels that wild life mainly elephant is a major problem in
this area. Village hamlet like Khagoripathar Golai III, Golai II located just beside the
Dehing Patkai wildlife sanctuary faced problem of the man animal conflict mainly
with the elephant to the maximum. As per the villages, last year one villager lost his
life due to man animal conflict.
• Details of consultations conducted in the area are provided in Annexure 3.15.
3.9 CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL SITES

There is no designated archaeological site within Tinsukia district of Assam. As is typical of
rural India settlements, each village in the study area has some cultural sites or sites of
religious significance, like temples, mosques, graveyards etc. Some of them are of
significance for the community. Sometimes their significance is related during specific
seasons/or time of the year.
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION IN SELECTED VILLAGES IN DIROK DEVELOPMENT FIELD
Consultation In Golai Gaon No 2 Consultation In Lekhajan
Consultation In Balijan Village Consultation In Khagoripathar
SENES 146 HOEC

4 Anticipated Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
Measures
The impact assessment section of the EIA study systematically identifies, characterizes and
evaluates the potential impacts arising out of the project and prioritizes them through a semi-
quantitative system so that they can be effectively addressed by Environment Management
Plans. Potential environmental impacts may arise out of various sequential activities (as
discussed in section 2.6 of this report) to be undertaken as part of proposed well drilling, gas
processing and transportation in Dirok Development Field.
4.1 IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

An environmental impact identification matrix has been developed to present an overview of
possible interactions between project aspects and components of the environment which may
get impacted. The matrix structure takes into account physical, biological and socioeconomic
components of the environment on one axis (X axis) and activities / aspects of the proposed
project activities on the other side (Y axis). Aspects and impacts on environmental
components that have been taken into consideration were in line with standard environment
management system terminology. Environmental and socioeconomic components were
identified based on reviewing of applicable legislation and baseline environment, site
reconnaissance visits, discussions with stakeholders and SENES’ professional judgment.
Potential environmental and socio-economic impacts that may result from any of the
identified project aspects has been identified in a matrix based on activity-component
interaction and has subsequently been used to develop an impact evaluation matrix that list
evaluation scores based on significance criteria delineated in section 4.1.2.
4.1.1 Impact Criteria and Ranking
Once all project environmental aspects were comprehensively identified for the different
activities of the project, the level of impact that may result from each of the activity-
component interactions has been assessed based on subjective criteria.
For this, three key elements have been taken into consideration based on standard
environmental assessment methodologies:
Severity of Impact: Degree of damage that may be caused to the environmental components
concerned;
Extent of Impact: Geographical spread of impact around project location and corridors of
activities; and
SENES 147 HOEC

Duration of Impact: Time for which impact lasts taking project lifecycle into account.
These elements have been ranked in three levels viz. 1 (low), 2 (moderate) and 3 (high) based
on the following criteria provided in Table 4.1 below:
Table 4-1: Impact Prediction Criteria
Impact
Criteria Ranking
Elements
Severity • Impact resulting in long term and/ or medium damage to the natural 3
environment
• Major impact on community and occupational health (e.g. serious
injury, loss of life) on account of accidental events viz. well blow-
outs and related operational activities
• Loss of natural habitat for Schedule I fauna & threatened flora
• Adverse national media attention
• Permanent loss of land/livelihood
• Impact resulting in short term change and / or damage to the natural 2
environment
• Temporary loss of land, livelihood source of affected communities
• Loss of natural habitat for Schedule II fauna
• Moderate impact on occupation and community health & well being
(e.g. noise, light, odour, dust, injuries to individuals)
• Complaints from the public, authorities and possible local media
attention
• Limited impact causing temporary loss of some species etc. 1
• Loss of natural habitat for Schedule III & IV fauna
• Limited impact on human health and well-being (e.g. occasional
dust, odour, light, and traffic noise).
• Public Perception/Concern
Extent • Regional scale impact and including impacts to physical, biological 3
and socio-economic environment of Dirok Development Area
• Largely local level impact limited to a kilometer of the drilling site; 2
GGS, GPP or pipeline
• Impact discernible within 200m in the immediate vicinity of the 1
drilling site, GGS, GPP or pipeline
Duration • The impact is likely to occur during the entire project life cycle and 3
beyond
• The impact is likely to occur in some phases of project life under 2
normal operating conditions
• The impact is unlikely to occur at any time during project life cycle 1
but may occur in exceptional circumstances
A positive or beneficial impact that may result from this project has not been ranked and has
been depicted in the form of ++.
SENES 148 HOEC

4.1.2 Impact Significance
The significance of impact has been adjudged based on a multiplicative factor of three
element rankings. The Table 4.2 (below) depicts impact significance in a scale of LOW-
MEDIUM-HIGH and will be used for delineation of preventive actions, if any, and
management plans for mitigation of impacts.
Impact significance has been determined taking into account measures which have been
factored in the design and planning phase of the project. Additionally, the results of
quantitative impact prediction exercise, wherever undertaken, have also been fed into the
process.
TABLE 4-2: CRITERIA BASED SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS
Severity of Impact Extent of Impact Duration of Impact Impact Significance

(A) (B) (C) (A X B X C)
1 1 1 1
1 1 2 2
1 2 1 2
Low
1 1 2 2
2 1 2 4
1 2 2 4
3 1 2 6
1 3 2 6
2 2 2 8
Medium
3 2 2 12
2 3 2 12
2 2 3 12
3 3 2 18
3 2 3 18
High
2 3 3 18
3 3 3 27
- Beneficial Impact - ++
To assist in determining and presenting significance of an impact, an impact evaluation

matrix (Table 4.3) has been developed based on the one developed for the impact
identification exercise. In case an environmental component is impacted by more than one
project activity, higher impact significance ranking has been taken as the significance ranking
for subject receptor. Impacts that have been determined to be having high significance
ranking of “>18” are considered significant and hence require examination in terms of
preventive actions and/or additional mitigation to reduce level of the potential impact.
SENES 149 HOEC

Recommended additional mitigation measures and management plans are presented in

Chapter 6.
The identified impacts are further discussed in detail in the following section with discussion
focusing on impacts of higher significance. This is followed by a point wise outline of
mitigation measures recommended.
SENES 150 HOEC

TABLE 4-3: IMPACT IDENTIFICATION MATRIX

Physical Environment Biological Environment Socio-economic Environment
Environment
Threatened & Endangered species
Loss of Agricultural Productivity

Aquatic habitat Flora & Fauna
Occupational Health & Safety

Job & Economic Opportunity
Common Property Resources
Community Health & Safety

Conflict on Job opportunity
Disruption of Infrastructure
Migratory corridor & rout
Dust & Noise Discomfort

Fauna and faunal habitat
Flora & Floral Habitat
Drainage and Topography
Aesthetics & Visuals
Surface Water Resources
Influx of Population
Loss of Livelihood
Surface water quality
Ground water quality

Noise Quality
Soil Quality
Air Quality
Activity
A. Construction Activities for well sites, GGS, GPP

Site selection and land procurement X X X
Site clearance and top soil removal X X X X X X X X X + X
Approach road construction X X X X X X X + X X
Sourcing & transportation of burrow material etc X X X X X + X X
Storage and handling of construction debris X X X
Transportation of drilling rig and ancillaries X X X X X X
Operation of DG set X X X X
Workforce engagement & accommodation at construction site X X +
Consumption of water for construction & domestic use for labourer X X
Generation of domestic solid waste & disposal X X X X X
Generation of waste water & discharge from construction activity & labour camp X X X X X
Surface run-off from construction site X X X X
B. Well Drilling X
Physical Presence of drill site X X
Operation of DG sets and machinery X X X X X X X X
Operation of drilling rig X X X X x
Storage and disposal of drill cuttings and mud X X X X X X
Generation of process waste water & discharge X X X X X
Surface run-off from drill site X X X X
Generation of domestic waste water & discharge X X X X X
Generation of Municipal waste & disposal X X X X
Workforce engagement & accommodation at drill site X X + X
Flaring during production testing and process upset X X X X
C. Decommissioning and Reinstatement of Wells
Dismantling of rig and associated facilities X X X
Transportation of drilling rig and ancillaries X X X X X
Removal of well site construction materials & disposal X +
Site Restoration + +
SENES 151 HOEC


Environment




Loss of Livelihood

Noise Quality
Soil Quality
Air Quality
Activity
D. Operation of GGS/ GPP

Physical Presence of GGS/GPP X
Operation of DG sets and machinery X X X X X X
Generation of waste & disposal
Produced water disposal X X X X X X X
Souring of Water X
Flaring X X X
E. Construction of Pipeline
Site selection and land procurement X X
Site clearance and top soil removal X X X X X X X X X X X + X
Trenching X X X X X X X + X X
Sourcing & transportation of burrow material etc X X X X + X X
Storage and handling of construction debris X X X
Transfer of pipes to construction site X X X X X X
Operation of DG set X X X
Workforce engagement & accommodation at construction site X X X + X
Consumption of water for construction & domestic use for labourer X X
Generation of domestic solid waste & disposal X X X X X
Surface run-off from construction site X X X X X X
SENES 152 HOEC

4.2 IMPACT ASSESSMENT

This section discusses the impacts of the project activities on the environmental receptors that
stand to get affected by the project. It discusses probable impacts during various phases of the
project lifecycle on the environmental and socioeconomic components. Rankings for every
activity–component interaction is based on the criterion set earlier and resulting
environmental significance with necessary justification that has been recorded below for
every set of impacts and the same has been represented in evaluation matrices. In broader
context, it is however important to remember that operations related to well drilling, gas
processing and transportation also include positive socioeconomic impacts in terms of
increase in local business opportunities and on a larger perspective, by providing potential
energy security at a national level.
4.2.1 Visual Impacts & Aesthetics
Development wells
Visual impacts during proposed drilling operations is anticipated from site clearance and well
site preparation, vehicles involved in transportation of raw materials and personnel, material
stockpiles and physical presence and operation of drilling rig and associated facilities.
During drilling site preparation nearly 2.0 ha land will be cleared for construction of drill site
for newly proposed wells Dirok 5, Dirok 6 and Dirok 7. Vegetation clearance will be required
for Dirok 5, Dirok 6 and Dirok 7 as the drill sites located will be located at the plantation
areas of Dirok Tea Estate. For preparation of the drill sites about 20000 tree bushes and 20-25
shade trees would be cleared.
Again during site construction activities, dust will be generated from transport of
construction material, machinery and personnel, haphazard dumping of construction waste,
domestic waste from labour camp may cause visual and aesthetic impacts. Such impacts are
likely to be particularly experienced by communities residing in villages located in vicinity
(viz. settlements of Lekhajan, Dirok Tea Estate colony etc.) of proposed wells or access
routes. Taking into account the temporary nature of site preparatory activities and necessary
mitigation measures to be implemented by the proponent with respect to the siting of well
locations away from human settlements (in plantation areas of tea gardens etc.) the impact is
not considered to be of major significance.
Visual impact due to the operation of drilling rig and presence of base camp is not considered
major given the temporary nature of drilling activities (about 120 days). Also with drilling
waste and process waste water is likely to be temporary stored in impervious pits no visual
impact to this regard is envisaged.
The construction of drill pad, drilling of wells will involve continuous day and night
activities, hence lighting at night could be a source of visual discomfort to the residents of
nearby settlements (Lekhajan village and Dirok Tea Estate colony). Other than that, light
SENES 153 HOEC

generated from flaring events might also be visually discomforting at night. However, such
activity is likely to be of intermittent in nature, to occur only during process upset and testing.
Mitigation Measures
• All the construction activity will be restricted within the designated site
• Dust nuisance from construction site will be suppressed through periodical water
spraying at disturbance area
• On completion of work all temporary structures, surplus materials and wastes will be
completely removed
• Domestic solid wastes temporarily stored in the collection point within the well site
camps will be transported to designated solid waste disposal sites at Tinsukia at
regular intervals
• Care will be taken to orient the lights downward during the drilling operations to
reduce the effect of residual lighting
• After decommissioning of rig and associated facilities, drill platform will be removed,
pits & garland drains will be filled up, construction material will be removed &
disposed and drill sites will be restored
• Site will be rehabilitated through laying of top soil
Significance without Significance with

Impact criteria
mitigation measures mitigation measures
Severity of Impact 2 1
Extent of Impact 2 2
Duration of Impact 2 2
Total Significance 8 (Medium) 4 (low)
GGS and GPP

GGS, GPP and pipeline will be permanent structures compared to development wells. The
visual impacts associated with the construction of development wells will also be relevant for
the construction of GGS, GPP and pipeline. Approximately 0.06 ha and 6 ha of land will be
required for the construction of GGS and GPP respectively. GGS would be constructed at the
existing Dirok 4 drill site and no land acquisition and vegetation clearance would be required.
The GPP would be constructed at the agricultural lands of Golai II village. The land that is
presently used for paddy cultivation will be used for industrial purposes. Construction of GPP
will add a physical feature that will be an outlier in the majorly agrarian landscape. In
addition to that flaring of natural gas would be conducted at the GPP which will add to
aesthetic impacts during the nighttime. The impact significance will be medium as the visual
impact will be during the construction and operation phase (flaring activities).
SENES 154 HOEC

Mitigation Measures
• Water sprinkling should be done for dust suppression during dust suppression where
the pipeline crosses human habitation
• The pipelines once laid will be covered with burrowed soil and leveled as per the
surrounding land.
• The boundary wall of the GGS, GPP will be covered with creepers to blend with the
surrounding
• A greenbelt would be maintained surrounding the GPP to minimize the visual impacts

Impact Criteria
Total Significance 8 i.e. Medium 4 i.e. Low
Pipeline
Construction of pipeline will require a narrow strip of land (2 m in width) and traverse
through the RoU of roads for about 25 km. Potential landscape and visual impacts resulting
from the construction of the pipeline are broadly those that will result from physical changes
to the landscape through which the pipeline will pass, and those which affect visual amenity
of the residents and others in the project area. Possible visual and aesthetics impact envisaged
from pipeline construction due to presence excavated material stockpile along the pipeline
RoU stretch. However, such landscape and visual impacts identified during construction will
be temporary and will be limited to the period of the construction works. Further, the
pipelines once laid will be covered with burrowed soil and leveled as per the surrounding
land.
Impact Criteria Significance without mitigation measures

Severity of Impact 1
Extent of Impact 2
Duration of Impact 2
Total Significance 4 i.e. Low
4.2.2 Impacts on Air Quality
Well drilling Operation of vehicles and construction machinery

Exhaust emission from operation of construction machinery (bulldosers, excavators, backhoe
etc.) is likely to contribute to air pollutant load (primarily particulate matter, NOx, SO2 etc.)
in the ambient air near well site facilities. However, considering localized nature of impacts,
SENES 155 HOEC

temporary nature of construction along with necessary mitigation measures likely to be

adopted by the proponent (regular maintenance of vehicles and machineries, checking of
vehicular pollutant emission etc.) the impact is considered to be of low significance.

Impact criteria
Total Significance 8 (medium) 4 (low)
Construction material transport, storage and handling

During construction phase it is estimated that about 34 m3 cement, 137.1 m3 sand, 9200 m3
earth/ fill material, 13800 m3 rubble etc. will be required for construction of 1 new well site,
road construction/strengthening and other site preparatory activities for Dirok 5, Dirok 6 and
Dirok 7 wells. Fugitive emission is therefore anticipated from transportation, storage and
handling of construction material by contractor personnel. Generation of such fugitive dust is
likely to be governed by micro-meteorological conditions (wind speed and direction) and
transportation route condition (degraded in patches). However, the construction activity, rig
mobilization and decommissioning activity is temporary and limited movement of project
vehicles and adopting specific mitigation measures (viz. spraying of water, management of
vehicle loadings, using covered trucks for transportation etc.) no significant impact is
therefore envisaged.

Impact criteria
Operation of Diesel Generator (DG) Sets during Drilling Period and test flaring
The proposed project will involve the operation of three diesel driven 670 KW generator for
drilling and 134 KW for lighting. The operation of DG sets will result in the generation of air
pollutants viz. PM, NOx and HC thereby affecting the ambient air quality. The dispersion of
these air pollutants may affect the receptors viz. village settlements located in near vicinity of
the well site only under exceptional combination of meteorological conditions.
In order to predict the Ground Level Concentrations (GLCs) at various distances from the
source, of the above mentioned pollutants, an air modeling exercise ISC-ST3 has been
undertaken. The following input parameters (Refer Table 4.4) have been considered in the
impact prediction modeling undertaken using ISC-ST3.
SENES 156 HOEC

TABLE 4-4: INPUT PARAMETERS CONSIDERED FOR MONITORING

Stack Stack gas Emission Rate (g/sec)
Stack Stack gas
Source Height velocity
Dia(m) temp (K) NOx PM HC
(m) (m/s)
3X 670 KW 6 0.50 790 25.0 1.71 0.558 0.242
1X134 KW 3 0.30 500 17.0 0.342 0.011 0.048
Test Flaring 9 0.5 1273 20.0 0.149 - -
Though, ISC-ST3 is a refined model, the model run was carried out based on micro-
meteorology to predict air quality impacts for an average 24 hr period that may be caused by
peak power utilization at the drill site. The model was run considering two scenarios 1)
operation of 3X670 KW DG and 1X134 KW sets simultaneously and 2) for operation of DG
sets along with test flaring in combination during project activities in Dirok 5. It has been
assumed that the emissions from the different tea factories have already been accounted in the
baseline monitoring result. Maximum GLCs for the pollutants are provided below (Refer
Table 4.5).
TABLE 4-5: PREDICTED GLCS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS
Predicted GLC (μg/m3)
Pollutants Predicted Maximum GLC (μg/m3)
At Lekhajan Colony
Distance
Incremental Baseline Predicted from
Incremental
Direction
Concentration GLC Concentration
Well
(Km)
3x670 KW (837.5KVA) +1x134KW (167.5KVA)DG sets
NO2 South-
24.13 31.99 56.12 47.904 1.98
(μg/m3) East
South-
PM
0.78 71.92 72.7 1.57 1.98 East
(μg/m3)
South-
HC
3.42 NA NA 6.81 1.98 East
(μg/m3)
2x1000 KVA (800KW) +63KVA (50.4KW) DG sets + Flaring

NO2 South-
24.42 31.99 56.41 48.66 1.98
(μg/m3) East
For spatial mapping of pollutants, the GLCs revealing worst case scenarios were
superimposed on an image (5km x 5 km area) with Dirok 5 at the center.
It has been already mentioned in Section 3.1.2 that PM10, and NOx concentrations in ambient
air in Lekhajan is 71.92 and 31.99 μg/m3 i.e. well within the NAAQS specified limits. Table
4-5 shows that the predicted GLC of NO2 at Lekhajan is also below the National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (2009) value given for residential area (80 μg/m3). The maximum impact of
the pollutants will be at approximately 1.98 km south east from the Dirok 5 well site where
there is no settlement. Moreover, considering the temporary nature of drilling phase (approx
SENES 157 HOEC

45- 60 days), wet and humid conditions prevalent in the Block region and provision of
adequate DG set stack height for effective dispersion of air pollutants, no significant impact
to this regard is envisaged. Additionally the proponent also plans to adopt and implement
necessary mitigation measures as discussed in the subsequent section to effectively address
potential air quality impacts from DG set operation.
The incremental GLCs of the pollutants (as discussed above), do not exhibit any appreciable
deterioration of the air quality. The impact on ambient air quality is due to operation of DG
set is thus considered to be of low significance.
FIGURE 4-1: PREDICTED PM CONCENTRATION PLOT (3X670+1X134 KW DG SET)
SENES 158 HOEC

FIGURE 4-2: PREDICTED HC CONCENTRATION PLOT (3X670+1X134 KW DG SET)
SENES 159 HOEC

FIGURE 4-3: PREDICTED NO2 CONCENTRATION PLOT (3X670+1X134 KW DG SET) + TEST

FLARING
Air pollution related impacts on flora and fauna, human communities residing close to the
proposed drill sites have been described at sections 4.2.10 and 4.2.11 respectively.
Occupational health related impacts to workers exposed to high levels of air pollutants have
been described at Section 4.2.12.
The mitigation measures for controlling air pollution from operation of DG sets and
emergency flaring operations have been described below.
SENES 160 HOEC


Impact criteria
GGS, GPP and Pipeline

Fugitive dust emissions, emission from construction machinery and generator sets are evident
during construction phase of GGS, GPP and pipeline. All the issues pertaining to air pollution
during construction phase will be similar in nature for construction of well sites and has been
dealt in above section. Activity related to air pollution during the operation phase is rare for
pipeline. Operation of generator sets and flaring would contribute to air pollution during the
operation of GPP.
Mitigation measures for controlling impacts on air quality

• All vehicles used for transportation of loose and friable materials will not be loaded
over the freeboard limit and will be covered
• Water spraying will be done on the access roads to control re-entrained dust during
dry season
• Equipment, machinery and vehicles having inbuilt pollution control devices will be
considered as a measure for prevention of air pollution at source
• Engines and exhaust systems of all vehicles and equipment used for the project will
be maintained so that exhaust emissions are low and do not breach statutory limits set
for that vehicle/equipment type
• DG set with appropriate stack height will be utilized
• Personnel Protective Equipments (PPEs) like mask will be provided to workers at site
The detailed plans for controlling impacts to ambient air quality due to the proposed activities
have been provided at Chapter 8.
4.2.3 Impact on Noise Quality
Well Drilling
Potential impact on noise quality is anticipated from vehicular movement, operation of
construction machinery, access road strengthening during well site preparation and operation
of drilling rig and ancillary equipments during drilling operation.
SENES 161 HOEC

Operation of construction machinery/equipments

Operation of heavy machinery/equipments (DG sets, bulldozers, excavators, backhoe etc.)
and vehicular movement during site preparatory and road strengthening/construction
activities for wells may result in the generation of increased noise levels as specified in the
Table 2.5. The same can be used as a reference for calculating probable noise pressure levels
arising out of a number of such equipments.
The noise related disturbance could be experienced by communities residing in proximity of

the construction site and along material transportation routes. The settlements located close to
the proposed wells (Dirok Tea Estate Colony, Lekhajan Colony etc.) could face disturbance
due to the proposed construction activities. Considering the construction phase activities to be
of temporary nature, limited daily movement of project vehicles (3-4 nos. vehicle for
transportation of personnel and 8-10 nos. for material transport) and adequate mitigation
measures (viz. equipment maintenance, restriction of work during nighttime etc) to be
implemented by the project proponent, impact is considered to be of low significance.

Impact criteria
Operation of drilling rig and ancillary equipments

Operational phase noise impacts are anticipated from operation of drilling rig and ancillary
equipment viz. shale shakers, mud pumps and diesel generators. Studies indicated that noise
generated from operation of drilling rig generally varies in the range of 88-103 dB(A). The
average equivalent noise levels of drilling rig and ancillary equipment has been provided in
the Table 2.6 for reference.
Further, considering drilling to be a continuous operation, noise generated from aforesaid

equipments has the potential to cause discomfort to the local communities residing in
proximity (within 250m) of the rig facility. Occupational health and safety impacts viz. Noise
Induced Hearing Loss (NIHL) is anticipated for personnel working continuously in proximity
to such noise generating equipment. However, drilling activities will be undertaken for short
duration (approx 45 days for drilling phase) and necessary noise prevention and control
measures viz. use of acoustic barriers, provisions for proper PPEs, regular preventive
maintenance of equipments etc. will reduce the noise impact on the communities residing in
proximity to the well sites.
SENES 162 HOEC

Noise Level Prediction

A noise modeling exercise was undertaken based on standard noise attenuation equations to
predict noise levels from drilling rig (and ancillary equipments) near sensitive receptors
within 200m in presence of a noise barrier. A noise attenuation plot has been developed
considering natural attenuation by distance with noise level predictions.
Noise generated from drilling rig is considered to be about 95.0 dB(A) at a distance of 10m
from the rig location. Noise attenuation equations (without any noise barrier) show that the
normal attenuated noise at any receptor points located at a distance of about 100 m and 200 m
from the fence-line of the rig, will be in the range of about 75.0 dB(A) and 68.9 dB(A)
respectively. In the absence of an acoustic barrier, the predicted noise levels were found to
exceed the day time noise standard (55 dB (A)). However, with the introduction of a noise
barrier (5 m in height) at the fence-line will be enough to decrease noise levels near sensitive
receptors at 200m to about 56.9 dB (A). However a detailed noise modelling exercise to look
at option of noise reductions will be conducted at the design stage to determine the barrier
specifications. The noise attenuation plot with and without acoustic barrier is presented in
Figure 4.4.
FIGURE 4-4: NOISE ATTENUATION PLOT FOR DRILLING PHASE
Impact criteria Significance without Significance with

Total Significance 12 (medium) 6 (Medium)
SENES 163 HOEC

Mitigation Measures
• Installation of sufficient engineering control on equipment and machinery (like
mufflers & noise enclosures for DG sets and mud pumps) to reduce noise levels at
source, carrying out proper maintenance and subjecting them to rigid noise control
procedures
• Providing noise barrier at the fence line of the well site facing the sensitive receptors
• Providing Personnel Protective Equipments (PPEs) like ear plugs/muffs to workers at
site
• Undertaking preventive maintenance of vehicles to reduce noise levels
GGS and GPP

The construction of GGS, GPP and pipeline will involve noisy activities though the scale of
noise will be far lower compared to the drilling activity. The major source of noise during
construction of GGS, GPP and pipeline would be operation of heavy vehicles and
machineries for site construction and operation of generator sets. During operation phase
main noise generating source for GGS and GPP would be operation of generator sets.
Mitigation Measures
mufflers & noise enclosures for DG sets) to reduce noise levels at source, carrying out
proper maintenance and subjecting them to rigid noise control procedures
• Providing PPEs like ear plugs/muffs to workers at site
• Undertaking preventive maintenance of vehicles to reduce noise levels
• A greenbelt would be maintained surrounding the GGS and GPP for attenuation of
noise

Impact Criteria
Pipeline construction and operation

Construction of the pipeline will include the following noise generating activities; RoU
preparation, soil stripping, trenching, pipe stringing, welding and laying, and backfilling.
However such noise generating activities will occur intermittently, primarily during the day.
After pipe laying, the pipeline will be hydrostatically pressure tested leading to noise
SENES 164 HOEC

generation from operation of pumps. Hydrostatic testing will take place on a continuous basis
over a period of several days. Attention will be paid during detailed design to ensure pumps
are appropriately located and if necessary, acoustically screened.
Construction methods and generic plant items have been reviewed to estimate typical worst-
case noise emission levels from both temporary and continuous construction situations.
Assuming noise propagation away from the construction site, it has been possible to calculate
the critical distance5 within which the noise assessment criteria for the two situations are
likely to be exceeded. These critical distances have been presented in Table 4.6. It should be
noted that the critical distances are the worst case ones, i.e. no allowance has been made for
mitigation, use of quieter techniques or the attenuating effects of ground and intervening
terrain. The latter two factors would both be expected to have a considerable attenuating
effect over the greater distances quoted in Table 4.6.
TABLE 4-6:– DISTANCE AT WHICH AMBIENT NOISE STANDARDS ARE MET
Construction Situation Critical Distance (m)

Pipeline Construction - Day
Soil Stripping 230
Trenching 90
Pipe Stringing 40
Bending 90
Welding and Lowering 175
Back Filling 130
Major Works - Day
Excavation 165
6
Blasting (annoyance) 115
Blasting (structural damage) 40
Source: BTC Pipeline – Construction Impacts & Mitigation, June 2002

Impact Criteria
5
It is the distance at which the noise standard value will be exceeded.
6
Based on 1-1.5kg charge and worst-case ground constant for vibration (New, 1990).
SENES 165 HOEC

Mitigation Measures
mufflers & noise enclosures for DG sets) to reduce noise levels at source, carrying out
proper maintenance and subjecting them to rigid noise control procedures
• Providing PPEs like ear plugs/muffs to workers at site
4.2.4 Impact on Soil Quality
Development Wells
Potential impact on soil quality is envisaged in the form of increase in soil erosion and loss of
soil fertility resulting site clearance and top soil stripping due to well site preparation.
Accidental spillage resulting from storage and handling of mud chemicals is potential soil
abuser. Soil quality impacts so identified have been assessed and evaluated in the section
below.
Site clearance and stripping of top soil

Site preparation would entail stripping and removal of the topsoil from the project site. The
topsoil contains most of the nutrients and organisms that give soil a living character and
productivity. This is likely to affect the productivity of the land but since the project design
takes into account the preservation of the top soil and its subsequently reuse for topping up of
the rehabilitated land the impacts are likely to be less pronounced. In spite of this however,
the fertility of the soil stands to be affected. The success of the restoration measures would be
crucial for the extent of damages to the topsoil.
Similarly the setting up of the rig and associated machinery will require a strong base.
Compaction of the soil would be required to take the load of the equipments. This
compaction of the soil within the boundary of the site would result changes in the soil
structure and may result in alteration in percolation rates, changes in micro drainage patterns.
In this case, the success of the rehabilitation measures would determine the extent of residual
impact to the soil structure.
The new well sites are located at the plantation areas of Dirok Tea Estate. It was mentioned in
section 3.1.9 that tea garden soil highly acidic in nature for supporting tea plants. Potential
impacts on the soil resources will be more pronounced during the site preparation as the
potential changes in the soils structure and degradation of the soil quality are more likely
during this stage. Necessary surface run-off control measures will be adopted by HOEC
during construction phase to prevent contamination of adjoining lands from discharge of
surface run-off characterized by increased sediment load. In addition the following top soil
preservation measure to be undertaken by HOEC to preserve the topsoil and use during site
reinstatement after the completion of project activities.
SENES 166 HOEC

The mitigation measures proposed for top soil preservation are as follows
• The top soil will be stored in mound form
• The height of the mound should not be more than 2m
• The slope angle should not be more than 30˚
• A jute mat will be overlayed on the mound to contain the erosion of top soil
• A garland drain will be constructed around the mound to contain the runoff of top soil

Impact Criteria
Total Significance 8 (Medium) 4 ( Low)
Storage and disposal of drill cuttings and drilling mud

It is estimated that nearly about 450-500 m3 of drill cuttings and 10-15 m3/day of drilling
wastewater and waste mud are likely to be generated from each well during drilling
operation. Improper storage and disposal of such process waste on open soil or unlined areas
may therefore lead to the contamination of soil onsite and abutting land if not properly
managed. With the project design planning taking into account construction of HDPE lined
impervious pit of for temporary storage of drill cuttings and their disposal in accordance with
“CPCB Oil & Extraction Industry Standard – Guidelines for Disposal of Solid Wastes” no
significant impact to this regard is envisaged. Further with the proponent planning to use
water based mud, the drill cuttings and waste drilling mud generated are likely to be non-
hazardous in nature (however, will be tested to establish its nature) and is not anticipated to
pose any potential threat to the soil environment. The impact is therefore considered to be of
low significance.

Impact Criteria
Total Significance 8 ( Medium) 4 ( Low)
Storage and handling of fuel and chemicals

Contamination of soil can result from operations like storage of chemicals and diesel, spent
oil and lubricants. Storage of chemicals and fuels, spent lubricants on unpaved surfaces have
SENES 167 HOEC

potential for contamination of soil. However, considering that appropriate spill prevention
and control measures to be implemented (refer below) by the proponent the impact is
considered to be of low significance.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures are proposed for reducing impact on soil quality
• Carrying out adequate restoration of soil, to the extent possible
• Implementing adequate sediment control measures to prevent discharge of untreated
surface run-off characterized by increased sediment load to abutting agricultural land
• Ensuring proper storage of drill cutting (in impervious HDPE lined pits) and
chemicals (paved and bunded areas) to prevent any potential contamination from
spillage
• Implementing appropriate spill prevention and control measures
• Provision of an oil-water separator at the storm water drainage outlet to prevent
discharge of contaminated run-off

Impact Criteria
GGS and GPP

As GGS would be located within the existing Dirok 4 well site; soil contamination may result
at the time of handling of chemicals and fuels. In addition, surface run-off from the area laden
with oil and chemicals may cause soil contamination in the neighbouring areas.
The GPP would be located at the agricultural land of Golai village. It was mentioned in
section 3.1.9 that agricultural soil in the area is clay loam, with high levels of available
nitrogen content suitable for cultivation of paddy. As mentioned during the earlier section,
site clearance and development will lead to loss of nutrient and change in the soil physical
characteristics due to compaction. However, HOEC will strip topsoil before site construction
and preserve as mentioned in earlier section. Produced water would be generated at the GPP
during gas processing. It is estimated that 10 m3/day produced water would be generated
from GPP. The produced water is expected to have high TDS concentrations which if
discharged to the agricultural field could affect soil productivity. The produced water would
be treated in an ETP and discharged after meeting the CPCB discharge standards or reused.
In addition spill prevention and run-off control measures would be implemented by HOEC as
mentioned in earlier section.
SENES 168 HOEC


Impact Criteria
Pipeline
Trenching during pipeline laying associated with potential changes in the soil structure and
degradation of the soil quality resulting from erosion/compaction. In addition, accidental
spillage of fuel/chemicals will also result in degradation of soil quality. However given the
fact that necessary measures will be implemented towards restoration of pipeline RoU no
significant impact to this regard is envisaged. Further appropriate spill prevention and control
measures will be adopted by HOEC to prevent impacts resulting from contamination of soils
due to fuel/chemical spillage. For further details refer to the “Soil Quality Management Plan”
in Chapter 8.
Significance without
Impact Criteria
mitigation measures
Severity of Impact 1
Extent of Impact 2
Duration of Impact 2
Total Significance 4 ( Low)
4.2.5 Impact on Topography & Drainage
Well drilling
Potential impacts on drainage and topography viz. alteration of drainage pattern are
anticipated during well site preparation and widening/strengthening of access roads.
Impacts during road & site development

The strengthening of the tea garden roads for access to new drill sites Dirok 5, Dirok 6 and
Dirok 7 would require some earth works especially at the sharp bends. The existing access
road to the proposed new drill sites has culverts over the channels passing through the road.
During road development all such structure will not be disturbed. Thus no change in the
micro-drainage pattern along the access road is expected.
For drilling operations approximately 2 ha site (including approach road) will be required.
There is no drainage channel within the proposed new drill sites; however, small drains are
located at the vicinity of all the drill sites. The drill site development work will be restricted
SENES 169 HOEC

within the proposed site. Thus no change in the micro-drainage pattern and slope of the areas
in the vicinity of the site is expected. In case of unplanned disposal of soils and other waste
blockage of local drainage channels can happen. Considering the above factors all these
impacts would be temporary (in construction phase only) are largely at local level.
Mitigation Measure
• Leveling and grading operations will be undertaken with minimal disturbance to the
existing contour, thereby maintaining the general slope of site
• Disruption/alteration of micro-watershed drainage pattern will be minimized to the
extent possible
• Loss of micro-watershed drainage, if any, is to be compensated through provision of
alternate drainage
• Garland drains would be constructed and surface run-off would be restricted to plinth
area

Impact Criteria
Total Significance 8 ( Medium) 4 ( low)
GGS and GPP

The GGS would be constructed at the existing Dirok 4 site and thus no impact to the
topography and drainage is envisaged.
The GPP site will be raised to a height determined after studying the height attained by the
maximum flood level of past ten-twenty years. There is no drainage channel within the GPP
site. A storm water drain will be built at the periphery of the GPP to contain the site drainage
during excessive rain. The storm water drain will be led into the small ponds present at the
proposed site after silt and oil and grease trapping. In addition mitigation measures would be
taken as mentioned in the previous section the impact significance would be minimized.
Impact Criteria
SENES 170 HOEC

Pipeline
The construction of pipeline will be across a 25 km stretch of varying landuse and land cover.
The pipeline will cross river like Burhi Dihing. A suitable depth of land will be excavated
beneath the water bodies so that the landcover is undisturbed. As mitigation measures will be
employed (as mentioned in previous sections) and the activities will be of short duration,
hence the impact significance will be low.

Impact Criteria
4.2.6 Impact on Surface Water Quality
Well drilling
Impact on surface water quality of natural drainage channels may arise from discharge of
contaminated surface run-off, sewage and process waste water generated during various
phases of the proposed project.
Surface run-off discharge

As discussed under section 4.2.5, site clearance and stripping of top soil during site
construction will result in an increase in soil erosion potential leading to an increased
sediment load in the surface run-off during monsoon. Also, surface run off from drilling
waste (cuttings and drilling mud), hazardous waste (waste oil, used oil etc) and chemical
storage areas may lead to the pollution of receiving water bodies viz. natural drainage
channels etc. unless precautionary measures are adopted. This situation is likely to be more
pronounced considering high rainfall records of Tinsukia districts (Refer section 3.1.2).
However, taking into account the provision of onsite drainage system, sediment control
measures, provision of oil water separator will aid discharging of surface run off in
compliance with the CPCB Inland Water Discharge Standards, the impact is considered to be
of low significance.

Impact Criteria
SENES 171 HOEC

Discharge of drilling mud and process wash water

It is estimated that nearly about 10-15 m3/day process wastewater and waste mud is likely to
be generated during drilling operation. The drilling waste so generated may be characterized
by the presence of oil & grease, barites and heavy metal which on discharge to nearby natural
drainage channels and/or rivers may lead to possible surface water contamination. However,
considering usage of water based mud for the proposed project, temporarily storage of
drilling waste in an HDPE lined pit to ensure conformance with CPCB Industry Specific
Standards for Oil Drilling & Gas Extraction Industry and guidelines provided by the MoEF
under the Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling & Transboundary Movement) Rules,
2008 the impact is considered to be of low significance.
Mitigation Measures
Following mitigation measures will be implemented for surface water pollution control
• Proper treatment of all wastewater and produced water in an Effluent Treatment Plant
(ETP) and any water discharge from well site to should comply with CPCB Inland
Water Discharge Standards for Oil and Gas Industries
• Waste mud to be stored in the cuttings pit
• Drainage and sediment control systems at the well site will be efficiently designed
• Construction activities viz. stripping, excavation etc during monsoon season will be
restricted to the extent possible
• All chemical and fuel storage areas, process areas will have proper bunds so that
contaminated run-off cannot escape into the storm-water drainage system
• An oil-water separator will be provided at the storm water drainage outlet, to prevent
discharge of contaminated run-off

Impact Criteria
GGS and GPP

Gas processing would not take place at GGS and only surface run-off from the site could
reach the drainage channels affecting their quality.
SENES 172 HOEC

In addition to surface run-off, discharge of untreated produced water to the surface water
bodies after processing of natural gas could cause negative impact on the later. It is estimated
that 10 m3/day produced water would be generated from GPP. The produced water would be
treated in an ETP and discharged after meeting the CPCB discharge standards. In addition,
contaminated surface run-off from the site could also contaminate the water of the drainage
channels. HOEC would take necessary mitigation measures (using garland drains, oil trap and
sediment control measures) as mentioned above to reduce the impact significance.

Impact Criteria
Pipeline
The proposed pipeline stretch traverses through Burhi Dihing River (refer section 2.3.2).
Potential surface water quality impacts are primarily envisaged as increased sediment load
and disruption of natural drainage/flow rate resulting from water and equipment (pipes,
culverts etc) crossings during construction. Uncontrolled discharge of inadequately treated
hydrotest water from pipeline hydrotesting operations will also possibly be leading to surface
water contamination during the construction stage. Potential surface water quality impacts
during operations are envisaged from accidental events like pipeline leaks/failure leading to
crude oil spillage.
With respect to the proposed project the watercourse crossings will be designed to avoid
affecting the stability and long-term performance of riverbanks. In this regard HOEC will be
referring to the OISD standard OISD-STD-141- Design & Construction Requirements of
Cross Country Hydrocarbon Pipelines for the appropriate water crossing technique (open
cut/HDD) and construction considerations to prevent any adverse impacts on surface water
quality and natural drainage as identified above. The pipeline will be installed below the
watercourse bed, at a level such that the gradients on the channel beds are not impaired or
future re-grading does not become more difficult. Construction details for water crossing will
be prepared by the construction contractor in line with the relevant OISD standard and will be
approved by HOEC and established through method statements, which will be prepared for
Burhi Dihing crossing. These plans and procedures will also deal with spills in water
comprising of immediate reporting techniques, deployment of a boom downstream of the
spill source spanning the entire watercourse, angling of the boom to direct pollutant to one of
the banks, use of floating absorbent and/or skimmers to remove the pollutant, and removal of
SENES 173 HOEC

contaminated material from the site to a suitable licensed disposal location. For further details
refer to the “Surface Water Quality Management Plan” in Chapter 8.

Impact Criteria
4.2.7 Impact on Ground Water Quality
Well Drilling
Potential impacts on groundwater resources that could arise as a result of the proposed
drilling activities include the following:
Ground water extraction

Water requirement for drilling would be sourced from surface water sources, thus in this
regard no impact to the groundwater resource is envisaged.
Drilling, storage of drill cuttings and waste drilling mud

The other impact on the groundwater resource could be due to the drilling activity. The
drilling will be to a depth of 2500-3500 m. Though, through the data logging service HOEC
will be aware of the depth where the drill will cut through the aquifer zone, an unquantified
sudden huge gush of water does flow out as the rig cuts across the aquifer zone before
cementing and casing is done. As part of the project activity cementing and casing is done
within few hours to protect the groundwater resource. Moreover, the project area is
demarcated by the Central Ground Water Board (CGWB) as “safe” which do not suffer from
heavy withdrawal of water leading to rapid fall in the aquifer level the impact significance is
envisaged to be low. Possibility of contamination of subsurface and unconfined aquifers may
also exist if the casing and cementing of the well is not carried out properly leading to
infiltration or seeping of drilling chemicals or mud into porous aquifer region. The same is
also valid for disposal of drilling waste and mud in an open/unpaved pit. However, with the
project proponent catering to the use of water based mud and storage of drill cuttings and
waste drilling mud in an HDPE lined pit, impact is considered to be of low significance.
Mitigation Measures
• Proper engineering controls will be used for drilling and cementing operations
• Water based, non hazardous type of drilling mud will be utilized for drilling operation
SENES 174 HOEC

• Drill cuttings & mud will be stored in HDPE lined pits as per S No. 72 C.1.a Schedule
I Standards for emission or discharge of Environmental pollutants from Oil Drilling
and Gas Extraction Industry of CPCB as modified in 2005

Impact Criteria
GGS and GPP

No impact on groundwater quality is expected from construction and operation of GGS/GPP.
Pipeline
As pipeline laying will involve trenching work to be carried out at 1 m depth depending upon
the crossing type it may possibly lead to damage of sub-surface aquifers located at reduced
depths, if not properly managed. Further accidental spillage from pipeline leaks/failure during
operations also has the potential to contaminate ground water. However, taking into fact that
sub-surface aquifers are generally encountered much below in Tinsukia district any possible
ground water impacts is not likely to be of major significance. Additionally necessary
pipeline corrosion control and leak detection system will be implemented by IOCL as
discussed in “Ground Water Quality Management Plan” to prevent any ground water
contamination from accidental events viz. Pipeline leakage/failure.

Impact Criteria
4.2.8 Impact on Biological Environment
The potential impacts on ecological habitat of the Dirok Development Field due to proposed
drilling operations are discussed below:
Loss of flora and floral habitat
All the proposed drill sites and GGS will be located in the tea garden areas. GPP would be
located within agricultural land of Golai. The proposed new drill sites have tea bushes and
SENES 175 HOEC

shed trees, which will be cleared during site development. Necessary permission from the
Forest Department would be undertaken before felling of shed trees and tree bushes. The
agricultural land where the GPP is proposed is also devoid of any tree; therefore, clearance of
vegetation would not be required.

Impact Criteria
Therefore, degradation of flora and floral habitat is not anticipated from the proposed GPP
construction.
Impact of Fauna & Faunal Habitat
All the well sites and GGS are located within 2 km from the Dehing Patkai WLS. Ecological
baseline study reveals that study area and also Dehing Patkai WLS are habitats for tiger,
elephant, hoolock gibbon, leopard, leopard cat, jungle cat, capped langur, slow loris,
hornbills, vulture etc. Some protected wildlife species are also reported in proximity (within 1
km) of the well sites. The sound produced by the drilling operation consists of loud
mechanical noises emitted over a range of frequencies and intensities. Noise generated from
drilling operations and vehicular movement within the drill site is likely to affect the fauna
leading them to move away from the project area and its immediate vicinity. Such
disturbance may be impacted approximately to a distance of 0.5 km. The Dirok 1 and Dirok 2
drill sites are located approximately 0.24 km from WLS boundary. However, the sites would
only be put on production without any major activity.
Noise will be generated from the operation of GGS which is approximately 1.26 km from the
WLS. Noise will be attenuated within 500 m from the GGS. Therefore potential impact of
noise due to operation of GGS is not expected to be significant. The GGS would not involve
any gas processing activity, the gas processing will be conducted at the GPP which will be
located about 11 km from the WLS boundary, hence, noise related impact due to gas
processing on the animals inhabiting the WLS is also not envisaged.
The physical presence of drilling rig is also to be felt at night because of the illuminated at
night by lighting arrangements. Other possible sources of illumination will be flaring
conducted for a short period of time during well testing phase and production phase.
Artificial lighting and well testing flares may result in the attraction of some wildlife leading
to their disorientation and confusion behaviour. The Dirok 1 and Dirok 2 drill sites are
located approximately 0.24 km from WLS boundary and other drill sites are located within 2
km from the WLS boundary. Therefore, impact of illumination from all the drill/production
SENES 176 HOEC

sites on the animals residing at the WLS is anticipated from the proposed drilling and
development activity. The GGS would also be located at about 1.26 km from the WLS
boundary hence impact of illumination of the GGS on the animals residing at the WLS is also
anticipated. No flaring would be conducted at the GGS; however, regular flaring is expected
from GPP which will be located 11km away from WLS and may have some adverse impact
on wildlife on the Upper Dihing Reserve Forest adjacent to GPP.
The project proponent would also take mitigation measures to reduce the impact on the
Scheduled species viz. use of engineering control at high noise generating equipment; use of
noise barrier at fence line of the site, use of directional illumination at drill sites, GGS and
GPP etc. the significance of the impact could be reduced. Considering the nature of project
activity, it may be stated that the existing habitats, except for areas to be cleared will not
undergo any further degradation during site preparation and operational stages of the project.
In view of proposed sensitivities and proximity to the WLS, HOEC will prepare site specific
Wildlife Management Plan in close consultation with the forest department and get it
approved from Standing Committee of the National Board of Wildlife. HOEC will also take
specific measures for implementation of the Wildlife Management Plan.

Impact Criteria
Total Significance 18 (High) 12 (Medium)
Impact on Endangered/Threatened Fauna

Dehing Patkai WLS in proximity to the Dirok Development Field is known habitats of the
endangered/threatened hoolock gibbon, tiger, leopard, elephant, capped langur and few
Schedule I birds and reptile species. In addition to that few endangered and threatened
animals are also reported within 1 km of the proposed drill sites. Noise and light generated
during site construction and drilling can cause disturbance to birds and mammals, draw they
away from their habitat. HOEC would take specific mitigation measures as mentioned in the
previous section to reduce the impact on the endangered/ threatened faunal species.
In view of proposed sensitivities and proximity to the WLS HOEC in close consultation with
the forest department will prepare site specific Wildlife Management Plan and get it approved
from Standing Committee of the National Board of Wildlife. HOEC will also take specific
measures for implementation of the Wildlife Management Plan.

Impact Criteria
SENES 177 HOEC


Impact Criteria
Total Significance 18 (High) 12 (Medium)
Impact on Migratory Corridor & Route

As discussed in Section 3.2 the reserve forests and Dehing Patkai WLS is included under
Dehing Patkai Elephant Reserve. Elephants frequently move from Tinsukia and Digboi areas
to this area and move towards Deomali region of Arunachal Pradesh. However, no migratory
route or corridor of elephant or other wild animals is located within 1 km of the proposed
drill sites. The pipeline from GGS to GPP will cross the Golai-Powai Elephant Corridor,
there is a probability of impact of physical presence and movement of vehicles to the
migrating elephants. In addition the GPP is located at close proximity (approximately 0.1 km)
to the Golai- Powai elephant corridor. However, discussion with the locals reveal due to the
development in the area the elephants do not use the corridor as used earlier. However,
elephants visit the area at the time of harvesting of paddy.
HOEC would take specific mitigation measures as mentioned in the previous sections to
reduce the impact on the proposed migratory animals. In addition, consultation with the forest
department as part will be undertaken while preparation of site specific Wildlife Management
Plan. HOEC will also take specific measures for implementation of the Wildlife Management
Plan.

Impact Criteria
Total Significance 12 (Medium) 8 (Medium)
Aquatic Habitat, Aquatic Flora & Fauna

Burhi Dihing and its tributaries viz. Ongchap Jang, Namphai Jang, Powai nala etc. supports
the aquatic ecosystem in the study area. The surface water bodies support diverse range of
aquatic fauna and flora. Therefore, in case of any discharge of untreated wastewater from
drilling, gas processing and transportation activities may result in the possible contamination
of receiving streams and their ecological habitat. Surface runoff during monsoon from the
construction site of the wells, GPP and pipeline has the potential to contaminate receiving
surface water bodies thereby impacting their aquatic ecology. Again, all such process water
to be discharged offsite will be undergoing adequate treatment to comply with discharge
standards specified by regulatory authorities. Adequate treatment coupled with dilution
SENES 178 HOEC

factor of receiving water bodies will thus significantly contribute in preventing any
deleterious effect on the aquatic ecological habitat.

Impact Criteria
4.2.9 Impact on Socioeconomic Environment
Based on the nature and type of impacts, the assessment has been divided into broad
categories namely (i) Adverse impacts and (ii) Positive impacts.
Adverse Impact
Loss of Livelihood
The proposed well sites will be located at tea garden land of Dirok Tea Estate and nearest
settlement to the well sites are located more than 500 m away. Approximately, 2 ha land per
well will be required for proposed drilling activity. As the lands required for drilling purpose
belong to the Dirok Tea Estate, loss of livelihood of the locals would not be involved. Six
hectares of land will be required for construction of GPP in Golai II village. As this amount
of land will be acquired from local community, loss of livelihood can be anticipated. The
impact will be low if crop compensation and good amount of rent will be provided to affected
family. The pipeline would pass entirely along the RoU of major roads and would not involve
acquisition of private land.

Impact Criteria
Job Opportunity
Conflicts related to opportunity of jobs may arise as the locals would expect employment
generation for them. Local villagers would be involved in the construction works in GPP and
well site, however during drilling skilled personnel would be required and employment
opportunities for the locals would be limited. Involvement of outside workers in proposed
activity may possibly create conflict with the local people, as most of the villagers are tea
SENES 179 HOEC

garden workers, small scale cultivators, daily labours or small businessmen. The impact on
job conflict will be low if more unskilled opportunities are given to the locals during the
construction phase.

Impact Criteria
Disruption on Infrastructure
The widths of the tea garden roads are not wide enough to support the movement of heavy
vehicles to Dirok 5, Dirok 6 and Dirok 7 sites, hence they have to be widened and
strengthened. Transportation of drilling rig and associated facilities to drill site and
decommissioning of rig and associated structure will increase traffic movement. Increase in
vehicular fleet may cause damage to road infrastructure if not properly maintained. The
strengthening and widening of the existing road will reduce the significance of impact from
medium to low.

Impact Criteria
Infrastructure like electricity pole, street light, water pipe line etc. can be affected during
laying of gas pipeline alongside the existing road. Impact will be low if permission from
concerned department will be obtained before the commencement of the work.

Impact Criteria
SENES 180 HOEC

Dust and Noise Discomfort

The proposed well and GPP sites are located away from the settlements. Settlements are
located adjacent to the access roads (Golai II, Golai III, Lekhajan labour colony etc.) to the
sites. Inhabitants residing close to access roads will be affected due to noise and dust
generated from heavy vehicular movement during site preparation, setting up of rig,
decommissioning of rig and. Considering distantly located settlements from the well and GPP
sites and short term activity with proper mitigation measures (construction of pucca approach
roads; sprinkling of water in access roads; using noise barrier at the boundary of the well
sites), the significance of the impact will be reduced from medium to low.

Impact Criteria
Influx of population is anticipated in all stages of the project cycle particularly during
drilling. The drill site will involve the operation of about 50 onsite workers during drilling
phase. Interaction between workers with villagers of nearby areas might give rise to various
issues like conflict of workers with the local population, nuisance caused by workers due to
improper sanitation facilities, etc. However, taking into account that majority of the
workforce during construction phase is likely to be sourced from local villages and adequate
sanitation facilities will be provided chances of such conflicts are negligible.

Impact Criteria
Cultural & Heritage Site

Impact on cultural environment may occur due to site preparation, operation of drilling rig
and also during vehicular movement with respect to the proposed drilling activities. There are
no designated historical or cultural spots close to the well sites or access roads hence; no
impact in this regard is envisaged.
SENES 181 HOEC

Employment opportunities
Project will benefit people living in the neighboring villages temporarily by giving preference
to them in relation to direct & indirect employment associated with the various project
activities during development drilling phase. Site preparation phase will involve certain
number of laborers and there is a possibility that local people can be engaged for this
purpose. Drilling process will involve a number of skilled and unskilled workers. Generation
of short time employment opportunities during the project phase would improve the
employment scenario of the area.
However, most jobs will comprise technical involvement. Hence villagers can possibly be
employed only in certain non-technical or casual labor jobs and that too for a limited
duration.
Impact Significance = ++ i.e. POSITIVE
4.2.10 Impact on Occupational Health and Safety
Occupational injuries and ill-health have huge socio-economic implications on individuals,

their families and communities. They also have economic impacts in form of direct and
indirect costs for society as a whole. Major occupational health risks encountered in proposed
activity include noise from rig, operation of pumps, generator sets, operation of heavy
vehicles and machinery, handing of chemicals. However, the proponent will adopt necessary
control measures through implementation of mitigation measures and provision of proper
PPEs to workers operating in aforesaid area to prevent and/or mitigate adverse health related
impacts. Hence any possible occupational health impact from exposure to such fugitive dust
is not likely to be of major significance.

Impact Criteria
4.2.11 Community Health & Safety
Community health and safety of inhabitants residing close to the well site, GGS, GPP and
pipeline stand to get affected from frequent heavy vehicular movement along village access
roads and due to noise from drilling rig operations, gas processing and transportation. Health
and safety impact arising from technological emergencies viz. well blow outs, explosions,
pipeline rupture will be dealt separately in the Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) section.
Although the aforesaid activities are temporary in nature it may not adversely affect
SENES 182 HOEC

community health and safety in the long term. Mitigation measures will be taken as outlined
Section 6.1.1 A-E to reduce the impacts arising out of project activities and hence
significance will reduce from medium to low significance.
Few mitigation measures would be adopted to protect the community are as follows
• Drilling, gas processing activities should be under proper fencing
• Proper hoardings in English and Assamese should be displayed during construction
and operation phase to prevent people from encroaching the fenced area or to make
them aware of the danger associated with the construction

Impact Criteria
SENES 183 HOEC

TABLE 4-7: IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE MATRIX (WITHOUT MITIGATION)

Environment





Loss of Livelihood
Noise Quality
Soil Quality
Air Quality
Activity

Site selection and land procurement M M M
Site clearance and top soil removal L M M M M M L M M + M
Approach road construction L M M M M M M + M M
Sourcing & transportation of burrow material etc L M M M M + M M
Storage and handling of construction debris L M M
Transportation of drilling rig and ancillaries M M M M M M
Operation of DG set L M M L
Workforce engagement & accommodation at construction site M M +
Consumption of water for construction & domestic use for labourer L M
Generation of domestic solid waste & disposal L L L L M
Generation of waste water & discharge from construction activity & labour camp L L L L M
Surface run-off from construction site L M L M
B. Well Drilling M
Physical Presence of drill site M M
Operation of DG sets and machinery M M M H H M M M
Operation of drilling rig M H H M x
Storage and disposal of drill cuttings and mud L M M M M M
Generation of process waste water & discharge M M M M M
Surface run-off from drill site M M M M
Generation of domestic waste water & discharge M L M M M
Generation of Municipal waste & disposal L M M M
Workforce engagement & accommodation at drill site M M + M
Flaring during production testing and process upset M M M M
Dismantling of rig and associated facilities M M M
Transportation of drilling rig and ancillaries M M M M M
Removal of well site construction materials & disposal M +
SENES 184 HOEC


Environment





Loss of Livelihood
Noise Quality
Soil Quality
Air Quality
Activity

Physical Presence of GGS/GPP M
Operation of DG sets and machinery M M H H M M
Produced water disposal M M M M M M M
Souring of Water L
Flaring M H H
Site selection and land procurement M M
Site clearance and top soil removal L M M L L L M M M M M + M
Trenching L M L L M M M + M M
Sourcing & transportation of burrow material etc L M M M + M M
Storage and handling of construction debris L M M
Transfer of pipes to construction site M M M M M M
Operation of DG set L M M
Workforce engagement & accommodation at construction site M M M + M
Consumption of water for construction & domestic use for labourer L M
Generation of domestic solid waste & disposal L L L L M
Surface run-off from construction site L L L L M M
SENES 185 HOEC

TABLE 4-8: IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE MATRIX (WITH MITIGATION)


Environment




Loss of Livelihood
Noise Quality
Soil Quality
Air Quality
Activity

Site selection and land procurement L L L
Site clearance and top soil removal L L L L L L L L L + L
Approach road construction L L L L L L L + L L
Sourcing & transportation of burrow material etc L L L L L + L L
Storage and handling of construction debris L L L
Transportation of drilling rig and ancillaries L L L L L L
Operation of DG set L L L L
Workforce engagement & accommodation at construction site L L +
Consumption of water for construction & domestic use for labourer L L
Generation of domestic solid waste & disposal L L L L L
Generation of waste water & discharge from construction activity & labour camp L L L L L
Surface run-off from construction site L L L L
B. Well Drilling L
Physical Presence of drill site L L
Operation of DG sets and machinery L L L M M L L L
Operation of drilling rig M M M L x
Storage and disposal of drill cuttings and mud L L L L L L
Generation of process waste water & discharge L L L L L
Surface run-off from drill site L L L L
Generation of domestic waste water & discharge L L L L L
Generation of Municipal waste & disposal L L L L
Workforce engagement & accommodation at drill site L L + L
Flaring during production testing and process upset L L L L
Dismantling of rig and associated facilities L L L
Transportation of drilling rig and ancillaries L L L L L
Removal of well site construction materials & disposal L +
SENES 186 HOEC


Environment




Loss of Livelihood
Noise Quality
Soil Quality
Air Quality
Activity
Physical Presence of GGS/GPP L

Operation of DG sets and machinery L L M M L L
Produced water disposal L L L L L L L
Souring of Water L
Flaring L M M
Site selection and land procurement L L
Site clearance and top soil removal L L L L L L L L L L L + L
Trenching L L L L L L L + L L
Sourcing & transportation of burrow material etc L L L L + L L
Storage and handling of construction debris L L L
Transfer of pipes to construction site L L L L L L
Operation of DG set L L L
Workforce engagement & accommodation at construction site L L L + L
Consumption of water for construction & domestic use for labourer L L
Generation of domestic solid waste & disposal L L L L L
Surface run-off from construction site L L L L L L
SENES 187 HOEC

5 Analysis of Alternatives
Alternatives were considered with respect to selection of GPP location, pipeline alignment at
the time of design and planning for the project. The assessment of the alternatives considered
is provided below
5.1 GPP LOCATION

Two locations were considered for processing of natural gas in a Gas Processing Plant (GPP).
Alternative 1
The GPP is proposed at the area of Dirok- 4 well within Dirok Tea Estate where the current
GGS is proposed. In this case the GPP would be located at a distance of about 1.2 km from
the Dehing Patkai WLS.
Alternative 2
The GPP would be located at agricultural land of Golai at a distance of 11 km from the
Wildlife Sanctuary.
Assessment of the alternatives
Construction of single gas gathering and processing plant at Dirok instead of two separate
units will reduce the cost of construction. However, the ecological implications of Alternative
1 would be much more compared to Alternative 2. Alternative 1 is located within 1.2 km of
the ecologically sensitive Dehing Patkai WLS which is habitat of endangered animals like
western hoolock gibbon, elephant, tiger etc. Processing of hydrocarbon for a prolonged
period of time (about 15 years) in proximity to the WLS with operation of generator sets,
flaring events, continuous movement of vehicles have the potential to affect the threatened
flora and fauna of the WLS. If gas processing is done at a distance of 11 km from the WLS at
Golai (Alternative 2) the long term impact in this regard could be minimized.
Selection of the GPP Location
In view of the ecological footprint that Alternative 1 would bring compared to Alternative 2
on the flora and fauna of the Dehing Patkai Wildlife Sanctuary, Alternative 2 is selected as
location for construction of GPP.
5.2 PIPELINE ALIGNMENT

Two pipeline routes were considered for transfer of processed natural gas from the Gas
Processing Plant (GPP) at Golai to Kusijan (Gas Gathering Station) GGS of Oil India
Limited. Details of the alternative alignments are provided below;
SENES 188 HOEC

Alternative 1
The pipeline alignment from GPP under the RoU of NH 38 from Golai to Digboi and then
follows Digboi-Duliajan Road and then passes Kusijan GGS road to reach Kusijan GGS.
Total length of the pipeline would be about 9 kilometers. About 1.77 km of the pipeline
would be located within reserved forest, however, in that stretch the pipeline would be along
the RoU of Digboi-Duliajan road and Kusijan GGS road. As the construction equipment
could operate from the road itself only a width of 2 metre would be required for clearance.
Forest area proposed for diversion would be 0.354 ha. Entire stretch of pipeline alignment
along the RoU is devoid of any natural vegetation cover and tree felling, if required, would be
minimal.
Alternative 2
The pipeline from the GPP at Golai would be aligned along the agricultural lands of Golai
and then passes through the virgin reserved forest areas to reach Kusijan GGS. Total length
of the pipeline would be about 6.3 kilometres. About 4.34 km of the pipeline would be
located within virgin reserved forest areas with dense vegetation cover. As the alignment
does not follow any road a width of 5 m would be required for operation of the construction
equipments and felling of many trees would be necessary. Forest area proposed for diversion
would be 2.17 ha.
The alternative alignments are shown in Figure 5.1.
Assessment of the alternatives
The total length of the pipeline would be less in Alternative 2 compared to Alternative 1
which will reduce the cost of construction. However, the ecological implications of
Alternative 2 would be much more compared to Alternative 1. In Alternative 2; 2.17 ha of
forest land would be cleared, vegetation clearance would be much more compared to
Alternative 1. Minimum diversion of forestland would be required only in case of Alternative
1. The reserve forests in the area Upper Dihing West Block and Digboi R. F are biologically
very rich with many endemic floral assemblages. The forests are also habitat of endangered
animals like western hoolock gibbon, elephant etc. Vegetation clearance and construction of
pipeline within the reserved forest areas would pose significant impact on the threatened
animal species.
Selection of the alignment
In view of the ecological footprint that Alternative 2 would bring compared to Alternative 1
on the flora and fauna of the reserve forests, Alternative 1 alignment is selected for the Dirok
Development project and Alternative 2 is rejected.
SENES 189 HOEC

FIGURE 5-1: ALTERNATIVE PIPELINE ALIGNMENTS FOR DIROK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
SENES 190 HOEC

6 Additional Studies
6.1 QUANTITATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT
This section on Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) aims to provide a systematic analysis of
the major risks that may arise as a result of HOEC’s Gas Production Program comprising of
drilling of 3 development wells, installation of 1 Gas Gathering Station (GGS), Gas
Processing Plant (GPP), laying of two parallel gas pipelines (dia. 8 inches) for evacuation of
natural gas from GGS to GPP and pipeline (dia. 12 inches) from GPP to Kusijan Off-take
point for transportation of processed gas.
The QRA process outlines rational evaluations of the identified risks based on their
significance and provides the outline for appropriate preventive and risk mitigation measures.
Results of the QRA provides valuable inputs into the overall project planning and the
decision making process for effectively addressing the identified risks. This will ensure that
the project risks stay below As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) levels at all times
during project implementation. In addition, the QRA will also help in assessing risks arising
from potential emergency situations like a blow out, jet fires and develop a structured
Emergency Response Plan (ERP) to restrict damage to personnel, infrastructure and the
environment.
The risk study for the onshore production activities has considered all aspects of operation of
the drilling rig and other associated activities during the production phase. Pipeline rupture
and leaks constitute the major potential hazards that may be associated with the proposed
onshore production activities in AAP-ON-94/1 block.
The following section describes objectives, methodology of the risk assessment study and
then presents the assessment for each of the potential risk separately. This includes
identification of major hazards, hazard screening and ranking, frequency and consequence
analysis for major hazards. The hazards have subsequently been quantitatively evaluated
through a criteria based risk evaluation matrix. Risk mitigation measures to reduce significant
risks to acceptable levels have also been recommended as a part of the risk assessment study.
6.1.1 Objective of the QRA Study
The overall objective of this QRA with respect to the proposed project involves identification
and evaluation of major risks, prioritizing risks identified based on their hazard consequences
and formulating suitable risk reduction/mitigation measures in line with the ALARP
principle. Hence in order to ensure effective management of any emergency situations (with
potential individual and societal risks) that may arise during the development drilling
activities, following specific objectives need to be achieved.
SENES 191 HOEC

• Identify potential risk scenarios that may arise from the proposed development
activities particularly during transportation of natural gas and development drilling.
• Analyze the possible likelihood and frequency of such risk scenarios by reviewing
historical accident related data for the onshore oil and gas industries.
• Predict the consequences of such potential risk scenario’s and if consequences are
high, establish the same by through application of quantitative simulations.
• Recommend feasible preventive and risk mitigation measures as well as provide
inputs for drawing up of Disaster Management Plan (DMP)/Emergency Response
Plan (ERP) for the project.
6.1.2 Risk Assessment Methodology
An overview of the methodology employed is provided here to briefly introduce the study
approach.
A site reconnaissance visit was conducted to identify all hazards, both generic and site
specific. Reviews of literature and accident databases were also undertaken. These formed the
basis for identifying all hazardous scenarios for the QRA Study. The frequencies, or the
likelihood, of the various possible outcomes resulting from natural gas release scenario were
derived from historical accident databases and, where necessary, these were modified to take
into account local factors. For all identified hazards assessed the consequences of each
release were modeled using ALOHA consequence modeling software.
Hazard Identification
Hazards associated with the proposed project have been identified based on site
reconnaissance visit, understanding of existing operations and detailed review of known
incident records worldwide and experience gained from operations at similar facilities.
In addition, based on the discussion with HOEC representative it is understood that natural
gas will be handled both at the well site and pipeline transportation. As the gas disperses, it
mixes with the surrounding air and warms up. The vapour cloud will only ignite if it
encounters an ignition source while concentrated within its flammability range.
Hazard Effects
In the event of an accidental natural gas release (in gaseous phase) from piping or equipment
or during blow outs, the characteristics of the possible hazardous effects are described below.
Jet Fire
Jet fires result from ignited releases of pressurized flammable gas or superheated/pressurized
liquid. The momentum of the release carries the materials forward in a long plume entraining
air to give a flammable mixture. Jet fires only occur where the natural gas is being handled
under pressure or when handled in gas phase and the release are unobstructed. This is
SENES 192 HOEC

considered to be the most credible risk scenario for the proposed project given the pipeline
will be operated at a design pressure of ~50 kg/cm2.
Flash Fire
Following natural gas release under high pressures, a cloud of methane may be formed,
initially located around the release point. If this cloud is not ignited immediately, it will move
with the wind and be diluted as a result of air entrainment. The dispersing vapour cloud may
subsequently come in contact with an ignition source and burn rapidly with a sudden flash. If
the source of material which created the cloud is still present, then the fire will flash back to
the source giving a jet fire. Direct contact with the burning vapours may cause fatalities but
the short duration of the flash fire generally means that thermal radiation effects are not
significant outside the cloud and thus no fatalities are expected outside of the flash fire
envelope.
Fireball
Immediate ignition of releases caused by a rupture in a gas piping may give rise to a fireball
upon ignition. Fireballs have very high thermal radiation, similar to jet fires although the
duration of the event is short.
Vapour Cloud Explosion

A flash fire is the most likely outcome upon ignition of a dispersing vapour cloud from a
natural gas release. If the gas is ignited in areas where there is significant degree of
confinement and congestion an explosion may result. However if the ignition happens in
open (unconfined) areas as in this case, pure methane is not known to generate damaging
overpressures (explode).
To summarize a gas phase release can result in a flash fire, fireball or jet fire. A liquid phase
release is generally associated with flash fire, vapour cloud explosion, pool fire or jet fire.
Scenarios for QRA study

Scenarios for the QRA study were identified based on the hazard identified in the aforesaid
section based on the site visit undertaken and review of incident records. Loss of containment
events have been identified for each section of the pipeline, corresponding to the relevant
process conditions, as listed in Table 6.1.
TABLE 6-1: SCENARIOS FOR QRA STUDY
Sl. Initiating Potential Outcome
Plant Section Risk Scenario
No Event Scenario
8” & 12” pipeline
1 Pipeline Rupture Jet fire, flash fire
rupture
SENES 193 HOEC

Frequency Analysis
6.1.3 Pipeline Failure Frequency Analysis
An effort has also been made to understand the primary failure frequencies of gas pipeline
which is the result of the number of incidents within a period divided by the corresponding
total system exposure. Based on the European Gas Pipeline Incident Data Group (EGIG)
database the evolution of the primary failure frequencies over the entire period and for the
last five years has been provided in Table 6.2 below.
TABLE 6-2: PRIMARY GAS PIPELINE FAILURE FREQUENCY
Primary failure
Total System
Period No. of Incidents frequency
Exposure (km.yr)
(1000 km.yr)
1970-2007 1173 3.15.106 0.372
1970-2010 1249 3.55.106 0.351
6
1971-2010 1222 3.52.10 0.347
1981-2010 860 3.01.106 0.286
1991-2010 460 2.25.106 0.204
6
2001-2010 207 1.24.10 0.167
6
2006-2010 106 0.654.10 0.162
Source: 8h EGIG Report
As referred in the above table the overall failure frequency (0.35) of the entire period (1970-
2010) is slightly lower than the failure frequency of 0.37 reported in the 7th EGIG report
(1970-2007). The failure frequency of the last 5 years was found to be half the primary
failure frequency over the entire period showing the improved performance over the recent
years.
Incident Causes
Natural gas pipeline failure incidents can be attributed to the following major causes viz.
external interference, construction defects, corrosion (internal & external), ground movement
and hot tap. The distribution of incidents with cause has been presented in the Figure 6.1
below.
SENES 194 HOEC

FIGURE 6-1: NATURAL GAS PIPELINE FAILURE – DISTRIBUTION OF INCIDENT & CAUSES
Source: 8th EGIG Report
The interpretation of the aforesaid figure indicated external interference as the major cause of
pipeline failure contributing to about 48.4% of the total failure incidents followed by
construction defects (16.7%) and corrosion related problems (16.1%). Ground movement
resulting from seismic disturbance, landslides, flood etc contributed to only 7.4% of pipeline
failure incident causes.
The pipeline failure frequency viz. leaks or rupture from natural gas transportation pipeline
with respect to the proposed project has been established based on the interpretation of the
database of European Gas Pipeline Incident Data Group (EGIG) representing almost 2
million kilometer year of pipeline operations. The failure rate reported by EGIG for on-shore
gas pipeline with design pressure greater than 15 bar is 4.76 x 10-4 km/year. Full Bore
Rupture (FBR) represents 13% of the cases (6.188 x 10-5 failure /km/yr) and 87% of the
cases represents Leaks (4.14 x 10-4 failure /km/yr).
The frequency of pipeline failure computed for the proposed project based on EGIG failure
frequency is presented in the Table 6.3 below.
TABLE 6-3: NATURAL GAS PIPELINE FAILURE FREQUENCY
EGIG Failure Total Project Pipeline
Sl. No Pipeline Failure Case Frequency Pipeline Failure Frequency
(per km.year) Length (km) (per year)
1 Gas Pipeline Rupture 6.188 x 10-5 25 1.54 x 10-3
2 Gas Pipeline Leak 4.14 x 10-4 25 1.03 x 10-2
SENES 195 HOEC

Pipeline Failure – Ignition Probability

In the period 1970-2010, only 4.4% of the gas releases recorded as incidents in the EGIG
database ignited. Ignition depends on the existence of random ignition sources. The EGIG
database gives the opportunity to evaluate the link between ignition and leak size.
The ignition probability of pipeline failure (rupture & leaks) with respect to the proposed
project is derived based on the following equations as provided in the IGEM/TD/2 standard
• P ign = 0.0555 + 0.0137pd2; for 0≤pd2≤57

(Ignition Probability for pipeline ruptures)
• P ign = 0.81; for pd2>57
• P ign = 0.0555 + 0.0137(0.5pd2);

• for 0≤0.5pd2≤57
(Ignition Probability for pipeline leaks)
• P ign = 0.81; for 0.5pd2>57
• Where:
• P ign = Probability of ignition
• p = Pipeline operating pressure (bar)
• d = Pipeline diameter (m)
The ignition probability of natural gas release from 8” & 12” pipeline leak or rupture is
calculated based on the above equations utilizing the following input parameters as discussed
below.
SENES 196 HOEC

• Pipeline Inlet Pressure (bar) = p= 50 kg/cm2 or 49 bar
• Pipeline diameter = d = 12 inches or 0.304 m
• Pipeline diameter = d = 8 inches or 0.203 m
• For 8” pipeline rupture pd2 = (49) X (0.203)2 = 2.019
• For 8” pipeline leak 0.5 pd2 = 0.5 X (49) X (0. 203)2 = 1.009
• For 12” pipeline rupture pd2 = (49) X (0. 304)2 = 4.528
• For 12” pipeline leak 0.5 pd2 = 0.5 X (49) X (0. 304)2 = 2.264
Based on the aforesaid calculation the probability of jet fire occurring from accidental gas
release from pipeline leak or rupture and subsequent ignition has been presented in Table 6.4
below:
TABLE 6-4: NATURAL GAS CONNECTIVITY - PROBABILITY OF JET FIRE
Sl. Project Pipeline Failure Ignition Jet fire

Pipeline Failure Case
No Frequency (per year) Probability Probability
1 8” Gas Pipeline Rupture 6.683 x 10-4 0.08 5.34 x 10-5
2 8” Gas Pipeline Leak 4.471 x 10-3 0.06 2.68 x 10-4
3 12” Gas Pipeline Rupture 6.683 x 10-4 0.11 7.35 x 10-5
4 12” Gas Pipeline Leak 4.471 x 10-3 0.08 3.57 x 10-4

•
6.1.4 Process Leak – Frequency Analysis
The frequency of process leaks can be estimated directly from analysis of historical data
obtained from E & P Forum hydrocarbon leak database (E&P forum 1992), World Offshore
Accident Database (WOAD) and OREDA. Although onshore data is available for process
leaks, the information is not considered representative of the actual scenario. Under such
SENES 197 HOEC

circumstances historical data available on hydrocarbon leaks in the OGP authenticated

offshore accident databases have been considered for purpose of process leak frequency
analysis. Failure frequencies of process equipment as in this case where leaks have been
considered from valves and flanges of the GCS facility has been presented in Table 6.5
below.
TABLE 6-5: LEAK FREQUENCIES FROM PROCESS EQUIPMENT
Frequency
Equipment Type
(per equipment item year)
Flanges 8.8 X 10-5
Valves 2.3 X 10-4

Source: HSE Hydrocarbon Release Database
6.1.5 Blow Out – Frequency Analysis
Blow out frequency estimates is obtained from a combination of incident experience and
associated exposure in a given area over a given period. For the purpose of calculation of
blow out frequency analysis in context of the present study involving development
operations, blow out frequencies per well drilled have been considered. As comparable data
for onshore operations was not available database for offshore operations of North Sea
Standard7 has been referred which has recorded a blowout frequency of 1.8 X 10-5 per well
per year.
Based on the given frequency and information provided by HOEC for the proposed project
the blow out frequency is calculated as follows:
No of development wells to be drilled = 3 (A)

Blow out frequency for development well drilling = 1.8 X 10-5 per well drilled (B)
Frequency of blow out occurrence for the proposed project = (A X B) = 3 X 1.8 X 10-5
= 5.4 X 10-5 per well drilled
Thus, the blow out frequency for the proposed project is calculated at 5.4 X 10-5 per well
drilled i.e. the likelihood of its occurrence is “Not Likely”
Blow Out – Ignition Probability

Review of SINTEF database indicates that a rounded ignition probability of 0.3 has been
widely used for the purpose of quantitative risk analysis arising from blow outs. As per this
database generally ignition occurred within first 5 minutes in approximately 40% of the
7
http://www.ogp.org.uk/pubs/434-02.pdf
SENES 198 HOEC

blowouts leading to either pool and/or jet fire. Blow out leading to flammable gas release has
a greater probability of ignition compared to liquid releases8
An alternative to the blowout ignition probabilities given by the UKOOA look-up
correlations can be obtained from Scandpowers’s interpretation of the blowout data provided
by SINTEF 2. The most significant category is that for deep blowouts which indicates an
early ignition probability of 0.09. For the purpose of the QRA study this can be taken as
occurring immediately on release and calculation provided below:
No of development wells to be drilled = 3 (A)
Blow out frequency for development drilling = 1.8 X 10-5 per well drilled (B)
Blow out ignition probability = 0.09 (C)
Probability of Blow out ignition for the proposed project = (A X B X C) = 3 X 1.8 X 10-5 X 0.09
= 4.8 X 10-6
Hence based on the aforesaid calculation the probability of ignition of blow out releases of
hydrocarbons for the proposed project will be 4.8X10-6 and has been considered to be as
negligible.
6.1.6 Consequence Analysis
Pipeline generally contains large inventories of oil or gas under high pressure; although
accidental releases from them are remote they have the potential of catastrophic or major
consequences if related risks are not adequately analyzed or controlled. The consequences of
possible pipeline failure is generally predicted based on the hypothetical failure scenario
considered and defining parameters such as meteorological conditions (stability class), leak
hole & rupture size and orientation, pipeline pressure & temperature, physicochemical
properties of chemicals released etc.
As discussed earlier, jet fire have been identified as the possible consequences resulting from
release and is dependent on the ignition time. Taking into account the gas gathering and
processing facilities and pipeline the hypothetical risk scenarios as provided in Table 6.1
have been considered for failure consequence modeling with respect to proposed project. In
addition to the above the following design specifications as presented in Table 6.6 have been
considered for consequence modeling
TABLE 6-6: PIPELINE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
Sl.
Parameters Values
No.
1 Pipeline diameter (inch) 8 inch and 12 inch
2 Pipeline length (km) 16km & 9km
8
Fire and Explosion – Fire Risk Analysis by Daejun Change, Division of Ocean System and Engineering
SENES 199 HOEC

Sl.
Parameters Values
No.
4 Design pressure (bar)* 49
5 Design temperature (in °C) 50
In the present study, we have estimated the consequence of each reference scenarios (as
mentioned in Table 6.1) in terms of fatality only. For each effect type (i.e. radiation,
overpressure and toxic release), a set of threshold values were considered having 1, 5, 10, 20
and 50% fatality (Table 6.7). These threshold values were derived from Probit functions
using the following equations:
Thermal Radiation [1]: Pr = -14.9 + 2.56 x In (Q4/3 x t) ........................................ Eq.
Overpressure [2]: Pr = 1.47 + 1.37 ln (p) ..................................................... Eq.
Toxic release [3]: Pr = a +b x In (Cn x t) ....................................................... Eq.
where,
Pr = Probit
Q = heat radiation (W/m2)
t = exposure time (s)
p = peak overpressure (psig)
a, b, n = constants describing the toxicity of a substance
C = concentration (mg/m3)
t = exposure time (minutes)
TABLE 6-7: THRESHOLD VALUES FOR EACH EFFECT LEVEL
Fatality (%) Radiation (kW/m2) Overpressure (psi)
50 26.50 13.10
20 20.78 7.15
10 18.25 5.20
5 16.42 3.95
1 13.42 2.40
[N. B. The values were derived using the above mentioned Probit equations]
Based on these threshold values, effect distances were calculated to delineate different threat-
zones for each reference scenario. The analysis made use of the ALOHA model, one of the
most commonly used effect models to generate the consequence effects showing the
estimated distances for each scenario considered to a specified hazard end-point. These zones
are displayed on a single Threat Zone plot displayed as red, orange and yellow with red
representing the worst hazard. The threat zone displayed by ALOHA represent thermal
radiation levels and also indicates the effects on people who are exposed to those thermal
radiation levels but are able to seek shelter within one minute.
SENES 200 HOEC

Predominant local meteorological conditions and composition of the natural gas as provided
during discussions with HOEC personnel was also considered for this study. Nearly about 88-
90% of the natural gas is constituted by methane with ethane representing the remaining 2%.
Case I: Release of natural gas from valves/flanges of GGS – hole size (1”dia)
• The jet fire threat zone plot for release and ignition of flammable natural gas from
GGS facility valves/flanges leak of size - diameter 1 inch is represented in Figure 6.2
below.
FIGURE 6-2: THREAT ZONE PLOT FOR JET FIRE – 1” DIA LEAK
THREAT ZONE:
Threat Modeled: Thermal radiation from jet fire
Orange: 11 meters --- (10.0 kW/ (sq m) = potentially lethal within 60 sec
Yellow: 16 meters --- (5.0 kW/ (sq m) = 2nd degree burns within 60 sec
Taking into consideration established probit values that are linked to fatality caused by
thermal radiation from fire, no endpoint distances have been computed below thermal
radiation of 13.42 kW/sq.m.
SENES 201 HOEC

Case II: Ignition of natural gas from complete rupture of 8” pipeline

The complete rupture of 8” pipeline will result in the release of natural gas (in gaseous phase)
the ignition of which is likely to result in jet fire. The threat zone plot of jet fire resulting
from pipeline rupture is derived using ALOHA and represented in Figure 6.3.
FIGURE 6-3: THREAT ZONE PLOT FOR JET FIRE - 8” PIPELINE RUPTURE
THREAT ZONE
Threat Modeled: Thermal radiation from jet fire resulting from full bore rupture
Red : 19 meters --- (26.50 kW/ (sq m) = 50% fatality
Orange: 25 meters --- (18.25 kW/ (sq m) = 10% fatality
Yellow: 30 meters --- (13.42 kW/ (sq m) = 1% fatality
The worst hazard for release and ignition of natural gas from complete rupture of 8” dia
pipeline will be experienced to a maximum radial distance of 19m from the source with 50%
fatality.
SENES 202 HOEC

Case III: Ignition of natural gas from complete rupture of 12” pipeline
The complete rupture of 12” pipeline will result in the release of natural gas (in gaseous
phase) the ignition of which is likely to result in jet fire. The threat zone plot of jet fire
resulting from pipeline rupture is derived using ALOHA and represented in Figure 6.4.
FIGURE 6-4: THREAT ZONE PLOT FOR JET FIRE - 12” PIPELINE RUPTURE
THREAT ZONE
Threat Modeled: Thermal radiation from jet fire resulting from full bore rupture
Red : 29 meters --- (26.50 kW/ (sq m) = 50% fatality
Orange: 38 meters --- (16.42 kW/ (sq m) = 10% fatality
Yellow: 46 meters --- (13.42 kW/ (sq m) = 1% fatality
The worst hazard for release and ignition of natural gas from complete rupture of 12” dia
pipeline will be experienced to a maximum radial distance of 29m from the source with 50%
fatality.
SENES 203 HOEC

For various hypothetical scenarios considered with respect to proposed production project,
the threat zones calculated using ALOHA for defined thermal radiation intensities have been
presented in the Table 6.8 below.
TABLE 6-8: THREAT ZONE DISTANCE FOR HYPOTHETICAL RISK SCENARIOS

Distance to Distance to Distance to
Case Hole Size 26.50 kW/m2 16.42 kW/m2 13.42 kW/m2
Pipeline Failure Case
No (inch) (m) – 50% (m) – 10% (m) – 1%
fatality fatality fatality
I Valves/flanges leak 1.00 <10 <10 <10
II 8” pipeline rupture 8.00 19 25 30
III 12” pipeline rupture 12.00 29 38 46
Modeling Risk of Overpressure from Vapour Cloud Explosion

A flash fire is the most likely outcome upon ignition of a dispersing vapour cloud from a
natural gas release. If ignited in open (unconfined) areas, pure methane is not known to
generate damaging overpressures (explode). However, if the gas is ignited in areas where
there is significant degree of confinement and congestion an explosion may result.
Although an unconfined explosion is considered to be unlikely for the proposed project an
effort has been made to establish the overpressure (blast force zone) that may result from
delayed ignition of vapour cloud generated from any such accidental release from ruptures.
For overpressure risk modeling using ALOHA a delayed ignition time of 15 minutes was
considered of the vapour cloud mass. However the threat modeled revealed that Level of
Concern (LOC) was never exceeded that may possibly lead to loss of life within the blast
radius. This is in agreement with the earlier assessment that no damaging overpressure is
likely to be generated from unconfined ignition of natural gas vapour cloud. The results have
been provided in Figure 6.5 below
FIGURE 6-5: VCE MODELING RESULTS FOR OVERPRESSURE
Blowout Consequence Analysis

Blow out from a hydrocarbon well may lead to the following possible risk consequences:
a. Pool fires and smoke plumes resulting from ignited oil blow outs
b. Jet fires resulting from ignited gas blow outs
SENES 204 HOEC

c. Oil slicks resulting from un-ignited oil pools.

However for the proposed project involving development drilling of gas wells for natural gas
releases leading to jet fire, modeling has been based considering methane which has been
identified as the principal constituent of natural gas.
Ignition of Flammable Gas Release leading to Jet Fire
Jet fires are burning jet of gas or sprays of atomized liquids resulting from gas and
condensate release from high pressure equipment and blow outs. Jet fires may also result in
the release of high pressure liquid containing dissolved gas due to gas flashing off and
turning the liquid into a spray of small droplets. In context of the present study, formation of
jet fires can be attributed by the high pressure release and ignition of natural gas if
encountered during development of block hydrocarbon reserves.
Natural gas as recovered from underground deposits primarily contains methane (CH4) as a
flammable component, but it also contains heavier gaseous hydrocarbons such as ethane
(C2H6), propane (C3H8) and butane (C4H10). Other gases such as CO2, nitrogen and hydrogen
sulfide (H2S) are also often present. Methane is typically 70-90 percent, ethane 5-15 percent,
propane and butane, up to 5 percent. Thus, considering higher percentage of methane in
natural gas, the thermo-chemical properties of the same has been utilized in the jet fire blow
out consequence modeling. The following risk scenario (Table 6.9) has been considered for
nature gas release consequence modeling:
TABLE 6-9: NATURAL GAS RELEASE MODELING SCENARIOS
Scenario Release Rate (kg/s) Release Type
Worst Case 10 Large
For the worst case scenario (10 kg/s release of natural gas) an effort was made to establish the
overpressure (blast force zone) that may result from delayed ignition of vapour cloud
generated from any such accidental release. For overpressure risk modeling using ALOHA a
delayed ignition time of 5 minutes was considered of the vapour cloud mass. However the
threat modeled revealed that Level of Concern (LOC) was never exceeded that may possibly
lead to damage to property or life within the blast radius. The results have been provided in
Figure 6.6 below
SENES 205 HOEC

FIGURE 6-6: WORST CASE – OVERPRESSURE RISK MODELING RESULTS FOR BLOWOUT
Pre Control Measure of Gas Release
1. Rig Safety Engineer, Rig Manager & Drilling Supervisor to create the awareness about the gas
leakage procedure to the crew
2. All the employees to wear appropriate Personal Protective equipments
3. Avoid creating any source of ignition surrounding the rig site
4. Restricted Hot work & Kitchen activities
5. Restricted Vehicle Movements
6. Minimize the Crew moment
7. Medic & HSE Engineer should be Maintain SCPA ready condition
8. Medic should be organize necessary emergency facilities at First Aid Room as well as
Ambulance van
9. Fire Team to be Maintain the Fire Engine, Fire Extinguishers & Water to be control the fire
during the emergency.
10. Before testing inspect the Gas Detectors readily working condition
11. Inspect the Wind sock & it’s Properly fixed necessary place
12. Inspect the HSD Storage area any leakage in surrounding area & reduce the stock
13. Flammable material (LPG, HSD...etc) & Chemicals should not be stored
14. Inspect the rig site & Stop all hot work and shutdown all other sources of ignition
15. Incase any Emergency Raise the Alarm
16. Inform Drilling Supervisor of incident
17. Request assistance from emergency services
18. Shut down and isolate electrical supply & Flow lines to affected area if safe to do so
19. Evacuate any personnel at risk to the Muster Point or to a safe distance upwind from the
incident area and wait until advised otherwise
20. Confirm all personnel are accounted for via Muster Point head count
21. As time permits, maintain log of events for collection at end of incident
6.1.7 Individual Risk
Individual risk is the probability at which an individual may be expected to sustain a given
level of harm from the realization of specified hazards. In simple terms it is a measure to
assess the overall risk of the area concerned thus to protect each individual against hazards
SENES 206 HOEC

involving hazardous chemicals, irrespective of the size of the accident that may occur.
Graphically it represents as iso-risk contour which connects all of the geographical locations
around a hazardous activity with the same probability of fatality.
In order to generate different level of iso-risk curves for the area concerned, it is required to
estimate the respective contribution of each reference scenario. Accordingly, individual risk
of each scenario was estimated by combining the frequency of the initiating event, the
conditional probability of that scenario sequence and the Probit value of the effect footprints.
In particular following expression was used to estimate the Individual Risk (IR) at a given
geographical location for each reference scenario:
………………………………………………………………………………………………
… (Eq. iv)
where:
‐ fi is the frequency of the accident scenario i (year-1); calculated as multiplicative factor of the
frequency of the initiating event and the probability that the sequence of events leading to the
accident scenario i will occur: fi = fincident i . Psequence i
‐ PFi is the probability of fatality that the accident scenario i will result at location (i.e. Probit).
The individual risk so obtained is then compared with the Tolerance Criteria of Individual
Risk as provided in the Figure 6.7 below.
FIGURE 6-7: TOLERANCE CRITERIA FOR INDIVIDUAL RISKS
Hence for the proposed project the individual risk has been considered only for pipeline
rupture as no predicted fatality has been established for the consequence modeling
undertaken for natural gas release ignition from blow outs and/or valves/flanges of the GGS
facility. Based on the above equation the individual risk as calculated including the tolerance
criteria has been presented in the Table 6.10 below.
SENES 207 HOEC

TABLE 6-10: INDIVIDUAL RISK – PIPELINE RUPTURE
Accident Scenario Individual Risk

Fatality Probability Individual Risk
Frequency Criterion
A. 8 inch Pipeline Rupture

5.34 x 10-5 0.50 2 x 10-5 ALARP
5.34 x 10-5 0.10 5 x 10-6 Tolerable
5.34 x 10-5 0.01 5 x 10-7 Tolerable

B. 12 inch Pipeline Rupture
7.35 x 10-5 0.50 3 x 10-5 ALARP
7.35 x 10-5 0.10 7 x 10-6 Tolerable
7.35 x 10-5 0.01 7 x 10-7 Tolerable
The individual risk resulting from proposed project particularly from pipeline operations in
most cases is assessed to be within tolerable limits. The maximum off-site risk is computed to
be 2 x 10-5 and 3 x 10-5 which falls in the ALARP region of the individual risk criterion.
Hence in order to control the potential risk/hazards the following additional mitigation
measures need to be adopted as specified in the section below.
6.1.8 Risk Mitigation Measures
Pipeline Safety Devices & Features

• The natural gas distribution network to be equipped with an emergency shutdown
system to close down all gas delivery system and to de-energize the electrical
facilities located in the vicinity of gas headers in case of leaks.
• Over pressure shut off valves shall be provided upstream and downstream of
controlling regulators along with alarm provision in case of failure of the regulator.
• Any equipment or section of the pipeline containing flammable gas in the form of
trapped volume shall be protected against excessive pressure developed due to rise in
surrounding temperature by installing Thermal Relief Valves (TRVs).
• Pressure safety valves or other devices of sufficient capacity and sensitivity will be
installed to ensure that the normal operating pressure of the system is not exceeded by
more than 10%.
• Vent line shall be designed and installed to exhaust the gas from relief valves to
atmosphere in accordance with OISD-STD-106.
• The pipeline should be monitored and controlled from SCADA system to ensure
effective and reliable control, management and supervision of the pipeline. All remote
SENES 208 HOEC

SV stations, IPS, dispatch & receiving stations will have suitable field signals’
connectivity with SCADA.
Pipeline Corrosion Control

• The natural gas pipeline network will be protected from external corrosion by a
combination of anticorrosion coatings and cathodic protection. The cathodic
protection (CP) system will be designed in accordance with NACE-RP-0169.
• Temporary cathodic protection will be provided during construction phase by
sacrificial anodes.
• Corrosion coupons & corrosion sensing probes will be provided as required for
monitoring internal and external corrosion.
• Safety devices in line with NACE-RP-01-77 shall be installed for preventing the
damage to the CP system of pipeline due to lightning or fault currents when the
pipeline is installed near electric transmission tower footings, ground cables etc
• Pipeline system will be installed so that the below grade or submerged portions are
not in electrical contact with any casing, foreign piping systems or other metallic
structures. This shall not preclude the use of electrical bonds where necessary.
• All pipeline stations, all roads and railway crossing locations, caution signs will be
displayed indicating hazardous area, name of the operating company emergency
telephone contact nos. etc.
Pipeline Operation & Maintenance

• A detailed operation and maintenance procedure for control system and safety
interlocks will be developed comprising of pipeline system description, normal
operations & shut down procedure, temporary operations, emergency shutdown
details and emergency operations.
• Operating instructions, emergency shutdown (ESD), Trip set pressures need to be
displayed in the control room and near all important operating equipments.
• A detailed periodic preventive maintenance procedure and schedule to be developed
for entire mainline system considering the recommendations given by the original
equipment manufacturer. In this regard the work permits system as specified in
OISD-STD-105 will be adhered.
• Pipelines will be inspected with Geometry pig for dent/ ovality and other geometrical
deformities at the time of construction.
• Pipeline valve location access will be properly maintained. Road and highways
crossings will be inspected once in 3 months. Water course crossings shall be
inspected twice in a year i.e. prior and after monsoon or flash flood for sufficiency of
SENES 209 HOEC

cover, accumulation of debris, or for any other condition affecting the safety and
security of the pipeline crossings.
• Inspection of pipes, valves and fittings will be carried out as per OISD-STD-130.
• Periodic inspection and maintenance will be carried out for control and protective
equipment including pressure limiting devices, regulators, controllers, relief valves
and other safety devices in accordance with OEM and OISD standards (Pumps:
OISD-STD-119, Compressors: OISD-STD-120, Pressure Limiting Devices: OISD-
STD-132)
• Periodic monitoring will be undertaken for Cathodic Protection System and internal
corrosion.
• Route markers need to be installed and frequent patrolling will be carried out along
the pipeline route. Special precautions in this regards will be taken near community
settlements and infrastructure (schools, health centers etc) identified within the
potential threat zone leading to ≥ 1% fatality.
• Villagers / public along the right of way will be a made aware of the possible
consequence of pipeline leaks and this shall be included as a part of regular audit
procedure.
Blow Out Preventive Measures

Mitigation measures for prevention of blow out incidents as outlined below is formulated
based on review of specific provisions of Oil Mines Regulation Act 1984
• The following control equipment for the drilling mud system shall be installed and
kept in use during drilling operations:
• A pit level indicator registering increase or reduction in the drilling mud volume and
shall include a visual and audio warning device near the driller’s stand.
• A device to accurately measure the volume of mud required to keep the well filled at
all times;
• A gas detector or explosimeter at the primary shale shaker and connected to audible or
visual alarm near the driller’s stand;
• A device to ensure filling of well with mud when the string is being pulled out;
• A control device near the driller’s stand to stop the mud pump when the well kicks,
• If the control equipment indicates that formation fluids are entering the well,
immediate steps shall be taken to control the well.
• The manager of every mine in which blowout preventor (BOP) assembly is installed,
shall submit to the Regional Inspector standing orders specifying the action to be
SENES 210 HOEC

taken when a well kicks and the duties of each person employed on the rig and such
order persons as may be necessary for blowout drills and actual emergencies.
• Blowout prevention drill shall be conducted for this purpose once in seven days.
• Suitable control valves shall be kept available near the well which can be used in case
of emergency to control the well.
6.1.9 Emergency Management
Objective
The primary objective of the Emergency Response Plan (ERP) is to provide a safe, timely,
effective and coordinated response by the onsite Emergency Response Team (ERT), along
with the other local and government agencies/departments to prevent or minimize any major
emergencies that may arise from possible failures of proposed development drilling project.
The main objectives of this plan are:
• Minimize the risk for human life, environment and common property resources, by
means of an effective and efficient intervention;
• Protection of the environment;
• Protection of public safety;
• Initiate the early and efficient response throughout the utilization of all available
resources.
Purpose
The purpose of the ERP is to effectively manage and control the emergencies occurring
during project operations. This ERP ensures,
• emergency response group is effective & adequate;
• clear roles and responsibilities of key personnel & support groups;
• availability and adequacy of emergency infrastructure & resources; and
• efficient emergency communication
6.1.10 Emergency Response - Organizational Structure
HOEC will constitute emergency response teams to respond to Environmental issues, fire,
accidents and technical emergencies. These teams will be made up from operations
personnel, who can be called upon 24 hours a day, supported by senior management field
personnel as and when required. The emergency response teams will receive specific training
for their roles and exercised on a regular basis.
The emergency response set-up is categorized into
SENES 211 HOEC

• Emergency Response Group (ERG) members

• Emergency Management Team (EMT) members
The Emergency Response Group (ERG) is the field-based team, which activates the
emergency response immediately on realizing the emergency. The ERG is organized as:
• Emergency Response Group (ERG) leader
• Forward Controller (FC)
• Incident Controller (IC)
• Emergency Response Team (ERT) members
• Rig HSE Engineer
• Event logger (to be appointed by Rig Manager as per requirement)
The Drilling Supervisor shall be the Emergency Response Group (ERG) leader located at
drilling Rig site. The Drilling Rig Manager shall presume the role of ‘Forward Controller’
(FC). The Tool Pusher shall presume the role of ‘Incident Controller’ (IC) and shall be at the
scene of the incident along with his team members, to control the emergency. The Forward
Controller shall be located at the Rig control room. He shall direct and advise the Incident
Controller (IC) on the course of action to be taken in consultation with Drilling Supervisor.
The Incident Controller will be present at the scene of emergency and will be the person in
the field responsible to control the emergency. He will report the situation to the Forward
Controller and to the Drilling Supervisor (ERG leader). The Drilling Supervisor and the
Forward Controller (FC) shall constantly update the Drilling Superintendent who in turn
updates the other members of the Emergency Management Team (EMT) at Chennai Head
Quarters.
The Emergency Management Team (EMT) shall comprise of the following members:
• Managing Director (Emergency Response Manager)
• Drilling Manager (EMT Leader)
• Drilling Superintendent
• Logistics In-charge
• Project Office In-Charge Assam
• HSE Manager
• Drilling Administrator
Once the emergency message is received from the Rig, the Drilling Superintendent shall
inform to Drilling Manager who in turn after discussion with the Emergency Response
Manager Managing Director and the team at Chennai (if necessary) will activate the
Emergency Management Teams (EMT) to the Emergency Control Room.
SENES 212 HOEC

The organizational chart for emergency response is presented in Figure 6.8 below.
FIGURE 6-8: EMERGENCY RESPONSE ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
6.1.11 Emergency Classification
Due consideration is given to the severity of potential emergency situation that may arise as a
result of pipeline failure accident events as discussed in the Quantitative Risk Analysis
(QRA) study. Not all emergency situations call for mobilization of same resources or
emergency actions and therefore, the emergencies are classified into three levels depending
on their severity and potential impact, so that appropriate emergency response procedures can
be effectively implemented by the ERG and EMT. The emergency levels/tiers defined with
respect to this project based on their severity have been discussed in the subsequent sections
with 'decision tree' for emergency classification being depicted in Figure 6.9
SENES 213 HOEC

FIGURE 6-9: EMERGENCY CLASSIFICATION “DECISION TREE”
Level 1 - Emergency
An event can be dealt with by personnel and resources available at site; the event does not
have any effect outside the site, external agencies are unlikely to be involved.
There is unlikely to be danger to life, to the environment, or to Company asset or reputation.
The Site Emergency Response Plan and Procedure are activated; the Company base
offices at Digboi and Chennai are notified.
SENES 214 HOEC

Level 2 - Emergency
It is an event which may be dealt locally but requires involvement of wider Company
resources and external support. The initial event may be “on-site”, have some effect outside
the site or be “off-site”, and external services will be involved in handling the emergency.
There is likely to be danger to life, to the environment, or to Company asset or reputation.
The Site Emergency Response Plan and Procedure are activated; the Emergency
Response Plan of HOEC is activated.
Level 3 - Emergency
It is a major where likely to be danger to life, to the environment, or to Company asset or
reputation is involved.
The Site Emergency Response Plan and Procedure are activated; the Emergency
Response Plan of HOEC will be activated.
6.1.12 Emergency Response Procedure
The emergency response plan covers the following risk scenarios viz.
• Fire from ignition of gas leaks from pipeline, GGS etc
• Injury
• Structural Failure
• Well Blow Out during drilling
• Hydrocarbon Leaks During Well Testing
• Bomb Threat
• Extreme Weather
However for the purpose of the present study response procedures has been limited to risk
assessed in aforesaid sections viz. blow outs and fire from pipeline failure. Details of the
response procedures to be adopted to manage the aforesaid risks have been provided below.
SENES 215 HOEC

Fire from Pipeline Failure
SENES 216 HOEC

Well Control Emergency
6.2 COMPLIANCE TO PREVIOUS EC CONDITIONS

As discussed in Section 1.1 the Consortium of HOEC, OIL and IOCL had been granted
Environmental Clearance for 2 exploratory drill sites via File No J-11011/50/2006-1A-II (I)
during 2007. Pursuant to the aforesaid EC Consortium has drilled 2 exploratory wells within
the Block. During 2009 another EC was granted to the Consortium via. File no. No. J-
11011/112/2009-1A-II (I) for drilling of three exploratory wells within the Block and
pursuant to this EC one exploratory and appraisal well was drilled. Six monthly compliance
reports in support of compliance to the EC conditions were submitted to the North Eastern
Regional Office, Shillong regularly. The latest EC compliance reports for both the ECs were
submitted in October, 2014. The EC conditions along with compliance norms for the 2009
EC have been elaborated in Table 6.11.
SENES 217 HOEC

TABLE 6-11: COMPLIANCE REPORT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE FILE NO. J-

11011/112/2009-IA II (I) DATED APRIL 09, 2009 FOR THE PERIOD APRIL TO SEPTEMBER 2014
Sl.
Condition of Environment Clearance Compliance Status
No.
A Specific Conditions
i. Environmental clearance is subject to The Wild life clearance application has
obtaining clearance under the Wildlife submitted to DFO through PCCF. PCCF has
(protection) Act.1972 from the competent recommended our project proposal to State
authority. Board of Wildlife and has been forwarded
to NBWL.
The proposal was discussed by NBWL
standing committee meeting on 4th
September, 2013 and also on 21st January
2015 where it was decided that a site visit
would be conducted by the Committee
members.
ii Environmental clearance is subject to final In keeping with the policy to build proper
order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India safeguards while operating near
in the matter of Goa Foundation Vs Union of Environmental Sensitive Areas (ESAs),
India in Writ petition (Civil) No. 460 of 2004 HOEC has already formulated a wildlife
as may be applicable to this project. management plan and the same had been
approved by the DFO, Digboi and submitted
to Standing Committee of NBWL. The
proposal was discussed by NBWL standing
committee meeting on 4th September, 2013
and also on 21st January 2015 where it was
decided that a site visit would be conducted
by the Committee members.
iii The company shall pay compensation for No resettlement was required for the project.
acquisition of private land as per the Central The land parcel was taken on lease from
Government/ State Government norms. The Dirok Tea Estate and proper compensation
compensation to be paid to the land loser shall was paid to the later.
not be less than the norms/package as per the
Policy on National Resettlement and
Rehabilitation Rules, 2007.
iv The company shall comply with the guidelines Only water based mud was used for the
for disposal of solid waste; drill cutting and drilling operation; the drill cutting was
drilling fluids for onshore drilling operation separated from the mud by shale shakers and
notified vide GSR.546 (E) dated 30th August, the drill cuttings were disposed off at HDPE
2005. lined pits. The drill cuttings were tested for
hazardous constituents and were found to be
non-hazardous. The pits were closed and
sealed with HDPE lining and overlayed with
native soil.
v The surface facilities shall be installed as per The surface facilities were installed as per the
applicable codes and standards, international ASTM codes, OISD codes and applicable
practices and applicable local regulations. local regulations
vi The top soil removed shall be stacked The site is not restored as the same would be
separately for reuse during restoration process. utilized for the development phase.
SENES 218 HOEC

Sl.
No.
vii Monitoring of HC concentration in the High total hydrocarbon and non methane
ambient air and non-methanated HC shall be hydrocarbon were recorded at the Dirok drill
undertaken and data submitted to the Ministry site and Dirok tea estate factory which could
and State Pollution Control Board. be due to the hydrocarbon exploration at the
drill sites and tea processing at the factory.
Hydrocarbon values were also recorded at the
Digboi office area primarily due to the
proximity of the site to the Digboi refinery.
Air quality results monitored at the time of
drilling is presented in Annexure 6.1.
viii M/s HOEC shall upload the status of The monitoring of ambient air quality at &
compliance of the stipulated environmental areas close to the drill site were done at the
clearance conditions, including results of time of drilling, the DG stack emission
monitored data on its website and shall update monitoring were also conducted. The results
the same periodically. It shall simultaneously were submitted to Assam PCB and MoEF
be sent to the Regional office of MOEF, the and were also displayed at HOEC website
and also near the local gate of the drill site at
respective Zonal office of CPCB and state
the time of drilling
Pollution Control Board. The criteria pollution
levels namely; SPM, RSPM, SO2, NOx
(ambient levels as well as stack emissions) or
critical parameters like HC, indicated for the
project shall be monitored and displayed at a
convenient location near the main gate of the
company in the public domain.
ix Drilling waste water including drill cuttings The drill cuttings were disposed at HDPE
wash water shall be collected in disposal pit lined pit along with the process wastewater.
lined with HDPE lining evaporated or treated The cuttings were precipitated and the water
and shall comply with the notified standards was pumped out to another HDPE lined pit.
for on-shore disposal. The membership of The water was treated in an ETP from that pit
common TSDF shall be obtained for the and discharged.
disposal of drill cuttings and hazardous waste.
Otherwise secured land fill shall be created at Common TSDF facility is not available at
the site with the Authorization of the State these parts of Assam. HOEC had covered the
Pollution Control Board. The design of the cutting pits with HDPE liners and put native
secured shall be approved by the State soil on top for restoration of the pits.
Pollution Control Board. The design of the
secured shall be approved by the State
Pollution Control Board.
x The recyclable waste (oily sludge) and spent The recyclable waste (oily sludge) and spent
oil shall be disposed to the authorized oil were sent to authorized waste handlers
recyclers.
xi Only water based drilling mud shall be used. Water based drilling mud was used for
The drilling mud shall be recycled in case of drilling.
use of synthetic oil based mud due to any
problem due to geological formation for
drilling, low toxicity, oil Based Mud (OBM)
having aromatic content, 1% shall be used. If
it is intended to use such OBM/SBM to
mitigate specific hole problem, It should be
SENES 219 HOEC

Sl.
No.
intimated to Ministry of Environment and
Forest/ State pollution Control Board.
xii Quantities of storage and chemicals and At the time of drilling all chemicals were
additives required for drilling mud preparation stored as permitted under the MSIHC rules
shall be below the specific threshold for
specific storage permitted under the MSIHC
Rules.
xiii Pre hire rig inspection, safety meetings, tool At the time of drilling Rig inspections
box meeting, job safety analysis and audits conducted, safety meetings, toolbox meetings
shall be carried out to identify and audits were done on regular basis as per
hidden/potential hazardous. the HOEC Corporate HSE Management
System
xiv The Company shall take necessary measures Necessary measures to prevent fire hazards,
to prevent fire hazards, containing oil spill and containing oil spill were taken at the time of
oil remediation as needed. At place of ground drilling as per the OISD standards and
flaring, the overhead flaring stack with industry best practices.
knockout drums shall be installed to minimize
gaseous emissions during flare
xv The company shall take necessary measures to All DG sets used during drilling were
reduce noise levels at the drill site by provided with acoustic enclosures.
providing mitigation measures such as proper Maintenance of the acoustic enclosures of the
acoustic enclosures to the DG set and meet the DGs was done regularly. The personnel
norms notified by the MoEF. Height of all the working close to the DGs and exposed to this
stacks/vents shall be provided high noise levels were advised to wear ear
plugs.
As the DGs were part of the rig system and

used to power the rig they were shifted from
one drill site to another regularly, hence
construction of long stacks in these sets were
not possible. However, the DGs were under
constant preventive maintenance.
xvi To prevent fire and explosion at Oil and Gas Permit to work system was in place for any
facility, potential ignition sources should be hot work. No ignition source was allowed
kept to a minimum and adequate separation near the rig and ancillary equipments.
distance between potential ignition sources Welding point is located 30 m away from rig
and flammable material should be in place. area.
xvii The company shall develop a contingency Emergency response plan was in place to
plan for H2S release including all necessary counter any abnormal situations like H2S
aspects from evacuation to resumption of release. Self Contained Breathing Apparatus
normal operations. The workers should be (SCBA) kits were made available in drill site.
provided with personal H2S detectors in
locations of risk of exposure along with self
containing breathing apparatus.
xviii To Prevent well blowouts during drilling As per HOEC's internal policy it is pre
operations, Blow Out Preventor (BOP) system requisite to install Blow Out Preventer (BOP)
shall be installed. Blow Out Prevention system prior to drilling activity and the same
measures during drilling shall focus on was done at the time of drilling.
SENES 220 HOEC

Sl.
No.
maintaining well bore hydrostatic pressure by
proper pre-well planning and drilling fluid
logging etc.
xix The company shall take measures after After drilling well plugging measures were
completion of drilling process by well implemented and the rig was
plugging and secured enclosures, decommissioned. As commercial discovery
decommissioning of rig upon abandonment of of hydrocarbon was obtained at the well site
the well and drilling site shall be restored to the site was kept for future development.
near original condition. In the event that no
economic quantity of hydrocarbon is found a
Abandonment plan for the drill site would be
full abandonment plan shall be implemented
developed.
for the drilling site in accordance with the
applicable Indian Petroleum Regulations.
xx Provision shall be made for the housing for Primarily local villagers were employed at
the construction labour within the site with all the time of construction.
necessary infrastructure and facilities such as
fuel for cooking, mobile toilets, mobile
Temporary structures like porta cabins were
sewage treatment plant, safe drinking water,
made available at drill site for this housing of
medical health care, crèche etc. The housing
few technical staff during construction. The
may be in the form of temporary structure to
cabins were provided with drinking dining
be removed after the completion of the
and toilet facilities. The sewage was being
project. All the construction wastes shall be
treated with septic tank and soak pit. The
damages so that there is no impact on the
construction/demolition wastes will be
surrounding environment.
properly managed used for local road
development.
xxi Occupational health surveillance of the All employees go through the occupational
workers shall be carried out as per the health surveillance program as part of the
prevailing Act and Rules. company policy
B General conditions
i The project authorities must strictly adhere to The project authorities obtained prior
the stipulations made by the Assam Pollution approvals from statutory authorities before
Control Board and the State Government. commencement of operations.
ii No further expansion or modification in the No expansion or modification in the project
project shall be carried out without prior was carried out without prior approval from
approval of the Ministry of Environment & MoEF
Forests. In case of deviations or alternations in
the project proposal from those submitted to
this Ministry of clearance, a fresh reference
shall be made to the Ministry to assess the
adequacy of conditions imposed and to add
additional environmental protection measures
required, if any.
iii The emissions of (RSPM, SPM, SO2, NOx, As the DGs were a part of the rig system and
HC & VOC) from DG set and from flare stack being used to power the rig they are shifted
shall conform to the standards prescribed by from one drill site to another regularly, hence
the CPCB guidelines. Stack height attached to construction of long stacks in these sets are
DG sets shall be in-conformance with the not done.
environment protection acts and rules. The DGs are under constant preventive
SENES 221 HOEC

Sl.
No.
maintenance, the monitoring of the emissions
of the DGs was already done and the results
will be provided to the SPCB/MoEF shortly.
The emissions of (RSPM, SPM, SO2, NOx,
HC & VOC) from DG set conform to the
standards prescribed by the CPCB guidelines.
The emission from DG sets at the time of
drilling is provided at Annexure 6.2
iv The project authorities must strictly comply Rules and regulation under MSIHC rules
with the rules and regulation under were complied with at the time of drilling.
manufacture, Storage and import of chemical Approvals from Chief Inspectorate of
rules, 1989 as amended subsequently. Prior Factories, Chief Controller of Explosives,
approvals from Chief Inspectorate of Fire Safety Inspectorate not applicable.
Factories, Chief Controller of Explosives, Fire
Safety Inspectorate etc. must be obtained,
wherever applicable.
v The project authorities must strictly comply Rules and regulation under Hazardous wastes
with the rules and regulation with regard to management and handling rules were
handling and disposal of Hazardous Wastes complied with at the time of drilling.
(Management, Handling and Trans Boundary
Movement) Rules, 1989/2003/2008 wherever
applicable. Authorization form the State
Pollution Control Board must be obtained for
collections/ treatment/ storage/ disposal of
hazardous wastes.
vi The overall noise levels in and around the The interpretation of noise monitoring results
plant area shall be kept well within the during the drilling phases of the project
standards by providing noise control measures revealed that the ambient noise levels higher
including acoustic hoods, silencers, enclosures than the prescribed industrial limits near the
etc. on all sources of noise generation. The DG area (83-84 dBA). However, the noise
ambient noise levels shall conform to the gets attenuated and along the periphery of the
standards prescribed under EPA Rules, 1989 site and were in compliance with the
viz. 75 dBA (daytime) and 70 dBA standards (59-70.4dBA)
(nighttime) Source noise levels monitored for the DGs
were high, approximately 90 dB. But the
noise levels get attenuated with distance. At a
distance about 100 metres from the drill site
at the western side (the direction where the
sanctuary is located) 45-46dB noise was
recorded. Noise levels of 41-43dB was
recorded at the checkpost of the sanctuary
about 500 m from the site.
Results of noise monitoring conducted during
drilling is provided at Annexure 6.3
vii A separate Environmental Management Cell Health, Safety and Environment cell of the
equipped with full fledged laboratory facilities company handles the Environmental
must be set up to carry out the environmental Management function and services of experts
management and monitoring functions. and independent laboratory are called to
perform third party analysis.
SENES 222 HOEC

Sl.
No.
viii The project authorities will provide adequate The provision for Environment Management
funds both recurring and non-recurring to is inherent part of the Budgetary provisions
implement the conditions stipulated by the for drilling activities.
Ministry of Environment and Forest as well as
the State Government along with the
implementation schedule for all the conditions
stipulated herein. The funds so provided shall
not be diverted for any other purposes.
ix The project proponent shall also submit six Six monthly reports submitted regularly to
monthly reports on the status of compliance of the State Pollution Control Board
the stipulated E C conditions including results
of monitored data (both in hard copies as well
as by e-mail) to the respective Regional Office
of MoEF, the respective Zonal Office of
CPCB and the State Pollution Control Board.
The Regional Office of this Ministry at
Shillong/Central Pollution Control
Board/State Pollution Control Board shall
monitor the stipulated conditions.
x A copy of the clearance letter shall be sent by Complied with.
the proponent to concerned Panchayat, Zila
Parisad/Municipal Corporation, Urban local
Body and the local NGO, if any, from whom
suggestions/representations, if any were
received while processing the proposal. The
clearance letter shall also be put on the
website of the company by the proponent.
xi The project Proponent shall inform the public Public had been informed about the
that the project has been accorded accordance of EC from MoEF via.
environmental clearance by the Ministry and publication in Newspaper.
copies of the clearance letter are available
with the State Pollution Control Board/
Committee and may also be seen at Website
of the Ministry and Forest at
http:/www.envfor.nic.in. This shall be
advertised within seven days of the issue of
this letter in at least two local newspapers that
are widely circulated in the region of which
one shall be in the vernacular language of the
locality concerned.
xii The Project Authorities shall inform the Presently the activities are exploratory in
Regional Office as well as the Ministry, the nature and upon commercial discovery; the
date of financial closure and final approval of financial closure & final approval shall be
the project by the concerned authorities and secured.
the date of commencing the land development
work.
Compliance report for Environmental Clearance for EC dated August 06, 2007 is similar in
line with the 2009 EC and has been provided as Annexure 7.1.
SENES 223 HOEC

7 Project Benefits
Natural gas produced from the Block would be utilized for power generation or used for
domestic use and will ultimately cater to fulfill the energy requirement of India. The
dependency of India on other countries will be lessened to an extent. Additionally, the project
will benefit people living in neighboring villages in relation to direct & indirect employment
associated with various project activities and will boost the local economy. The benefits of
the project are listed below;
• Energy security for the country
• Provision of more loyalty to Assam Government and more cess to Govt. of India
• Provision of more employment opportunity to local people
• Increase in business opportunity for the local people
• Programs related to livelihood generation, health improvement as per HOEC’s
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) programmes
Corporate Social Responsibility

From inception of its activities HOEC has taken up various CSR initiatives in and around
HOEC's operational areas for the benefit of the residents as per the CSR Act and Rules, Govt.
of India. HOEC's CSR Vision Statement envisages 2% allocation of its net profit towards
CSR. First of all the proponent would initiate a need assessment study in the area which will
help to find out the infrastructure deficiencies, local demands and in course would help to
delineated the detailed CSR plan.
The broad areas to be focused under the CSR plan would include;
• Health - arranging mobile health camps including eye camps, school health
programmes which includes free dental awareness examination camps and free check-
ups of the students; universal immunization programme etc.
• Education - Providing financial assistance to institutions towards purchasing of
furniture and required amenities to school, libraries, auditoriums, teacher's common
room etc.
• Funding for sports, cultural events etc
SENES 224 HOEC

8 Environmental Management Plan
The Environmental Management Plan (EMP) is a site specific document that has been
developed to ensure that HOEC can implement it during proposed project life-cycle to
execute all the project related activities in an environmentally conscious manner and where
all contractors, understand the potential environmental risks arising out of the proposed
project activities and take appropriate actions to properly manage such risk. This EMP will be
an overview document that will guide environment management of all aspects of HOEC’s
activities within the Dirok Development Field in Tinsukia districts of Assam. This EMP will
be backed up by more specific Environmental Action Plans, Procedures and Bridging
Documents with the progress of the drilling, gas processing and transportation and site
decommissioning activities.
The EMP describes the actions to be adopted in terms of:
• National Policies and Regulations
• Best Practices and guides
• Local Environmental and Social Sensitivities
8.1 ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLANS

Environmental management plan (EMP) includes action to protect environment by using
instruments, adoption of industrial best practices, surveillance and statutory norms. To
mitigate the adverse impacts, if any, caused due to proposed oil & gas development activities
at Dirok area, the EMP has been formulated. The EMP has prescribed environmental
monitoring and implementation of environmental protection measures during all phases of
the proposed development activities. The environmental and socio-economic aspects are dealt
with likely environmental control measures are suggested as under:
• Air Quality Management Plan
• Noise Management Plan
• Soil Quality Management Plan
• Site Closure Plan
• Surface Water Quality Management Plan
• Groundwater Quality Management Plan
• Waste Management Plan
• Flare and illumination Management Plan
• Spill Management Plan
• Greenbelt Plan
• Wildlife Management Plan
SENES 225 HOEC

• Road Safety and Traffic Management Plan

• Occupational Health & Safety Management Plan
• Management of Social Issues and Concerns
HOEC will ensure communication and implementation of the aforesaid management plans
prior to the commencement of site preparation, drilling, gas processing and transportation
operations in the field. In addition, the mitigation measures for social issues and concerns are
also separately presented in this report. An Emergency Response Plan to address
technological emergency situations viz. blow outs, fires etc. that may arise out of drilling
operations has already been discussed in previous Chapter 6. In cases, where there are
possible overlaps, the plans have been cross-referenced to avoid repetition.
8.1.1 Air Quality Management Plan
Scope
The Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is applicable for and encompasses both
construction and operational phase activities for the proposed project which has the potential
to adversely impact ambient air quality of the Dirok Development Field.
Purpose
The AQMP establishes specific measures and guidelines aimed at effectively addressing and
mitigating the air quality impacts that may arise as result of well site preparation and access
road construction/strengthening, drilling operations, gas processing, gas transportation and
decommissioning/site closure. The plan also details out roles and responsibilities of HOEC
and the contractors to ensure effective implementation of the plan.
Mitigation Measures – Construction Phase

Designing, Planning & Procurement
• Vehicles delivering raw materials like fine aggregates will be covered to prevent
fugitive emissions
• Storage and handling of construction material and debris to be carefully managed to
prevent generation of fugitive dust
• All vehicles utilized in transportation of raw material and personnel will have valid
Pollution under Control Certificate (PUC). Vehicular exhaust will be complying with
the CPCB specified emission norms for heavy diesel vehicles
• The top soil generated from site clearance activities will be stored in designated area
and stabilized to prevent fugitive dust emissions
• Adequate stack height to be provided to DG sets in accordance CPCB standards
SENES 226 HOEC

Dust Suppression
• Sprinkling of water on earthworks, material haulage and transportation routes on a
regular basis during construction and decommissioning phase of the new wells, GGS
and GPP site
Monitoring
• Periodic ambient air quality monitoring will be conducted in accordance with the
Environment Monitoring Program
Mitigation Measures- Drilling, Gas Processing, and Gas Transportation

Operation of Machineries, Vehicle & Plants
• Exhausts of diesel generators will be positioned at a sufficient height to ensure
dispersal of exhaust emissions; engines will not be left running unnecessarily
• Vehicles involved in the transportation of project personnel will have valid PUC
Certificate and will be subjected to periodic preventive maintenance.
• Duration of flaring will be minimized by careful planning
• High combustion efficiency, smokeless flare/burner will be used at GPP site
• An efficient test flare burner head equipped with an appropriate combustion
enhancement system will be selected to minimize incomplete combustion, black
smoke, and hydrocarbon fallout
• Volumes of gas flared will be recorded
Regular Maintenance of Machineries and Vehicle
• Preventive maintenance of DG sets will be undertaken as per manufacturers schedule
to ensure compliance with CPCB specified generator exhaust. Flaring will be
undertaken in accordance with the CPCB Guidelines for Discharge of Gaseous
Emissions for Oil & Gas Extraction Industry
• Maintenance of diesel engines which are to be used as prime movers for mainline &
fire water pumps, instrument air compressors and emergency generators will be
carried out in accordance with OISD Standard “OISD-STD-121- Inspection of
Turbines & Diesel Engines”
• Periodic monitoring of DG set stack emission will be carried out in accordance with
the Environmental Monitoring Plan to assess compliance with CPCB DG set exhaust
standards
Dust Suppression Measures
• Greenbelt will be developed in accordance to “Green Belt Development Plan” along
boundary of GGS and GPP to prevent any offsite dispersion of air pollutants. The
SENES 227 HOEC

green belt will also be serving as wind abatement system to prevent any generation of
wind blow dust onsite
Monitoring
• Periodic monitoring of ambient air quality and equipment emission will be conducted
in accordance with the Environment Monitoring Program
Mitigation Measures- Decommissioning/Site Closure

Mitigation measures to address the air quality impacts resulting from vehicular movement,
operation of heavy construction machinery and material handling are similar to those
discussed above.
8.1.2 Noise Management Plan
Scope
The noise control plan is applicable for all the three phases- drilling, gas processing and
transportation. The major noise and vibration will be generated from drilling activities.
Purpose
The noise control plan to ensure specific measures to minimize noise level in the project site
75 dB(A) as per CPCB Noise rules. The plan also outlines roles and responsibilities of both
HOEC and the contractors involved in the implementation of the plan.
Mitigation Measures – Construction Phase
Planning, Designing & Procurement
• Selection and use of low noise generating equipment equipped with engineering
controls viz. mufflers, silencers etc.
• All vehicles utilized in transportation of raw material and personnel will have valid
PUC Certificate
• All high noise generating equipments will be identified and subjected to periodic
preventive maintenance
• No night time operation of vehicles and construction activities will be undertaken
• Site personnel will be trained in the proper use and maintenance of tools and
equipment, including the positioning of machinery on site to reduce noise related to
neighbouring communities.
Maintenance of Machineries & Equipment
• Periodic preventive maintenance of DG sets and vehicles will be carried out as per
manufacturer’s schedule to ensure compliance with noise limits specified by CPCB
for vehicles and DG sets
SENES 228 HOEC

Monitoring
• Periodic monitoring of ambient noise quality will be conducted in accordance with the

Operation and maintenance of machineries
• Installing acoustic enclosures and muffler on engine exhaust of DG sets to ensure
compliance with generator noise limits specified by CPCB
• Undertaking preventive maintenance of the mainline and booster pumping units in
accordance with guidelines and schedule referred to in the OISD Standard- “OISD-
STD-119 –Inspection of Pumps”
• Relevant guidelines/standards viz. API 615--Sound Control of mechanical equipment
etc will be followed in controlling noise generated from mechanical equipments and
machineries
• Noise Abatement
• Provision of peripheral green belt along the GGS and GGP in accordance with “Green
Belt Development Plan” to serve as an acoustic barrier
Monitoring
• Periodic monitoring of ambient noise quality will be conducted in accordance with the

Management measures to address noise impacts with respect to operation of heavy
equipments/machinery and movement of vehicles during decommissioning/site closure phase
are similar to those discussed in the “Construction Phase” of this section
8.1.3 Soil Quality Management Plan
Scope & Purpose

Topsoil is generally defined as the top, fertile layer of material on the land surface which is
capable of supporting plant growth. It contains the seed bank and is therefore an essential
component of the re-vegetation programme. Maintenance of topsoil quality, particularly its
structure and the integrity of its seed bank, is vital to both bio-restoration work and erosion
control.
The Soil Quality Management Plan is applicable during construction, operational and site
closure phases for the proposed project which has the potential to adversely impact the soil
quality.
SENES 229 HOEC

Mitigation Measures-Construction Phase

Stripping of top soil
At the commencement of site preparation activities, the topsoil of the land acquired for the
project will be carefully stripped to its full depth and stored separately. Topsoil will not be
stripped from areas that will only be used for storing topsoil and greenbelt development area
of GPP. Topsoil will be stored where it will not be compacted by vehicles or contaminated
and will be stored in a manner that will minimise its loss and/or degradation. Topsoil will not
be mixed with subsoil or any other inert material during the entire drilling activity.
Subsequently, the topsoil will be stored in a stockpile within the site premises in a heap not
more than 2m high with side slopes < 45°, drained with open ditches. The surface of the
stockpile will be lightly compacted to reduce rainfall penetration but not enough to promote
anaerobic conditions. The stockpiles will be selected away from natural drainage channel.
Vegetation will be grown on the top-soil stacks in the form of grass and herbs to prevent
erosion during monsoon. The stockpiles will have peripheral drains and same will be
connected with sedimentation tank.
Prevention of soil contamination
• Drip trays to be used during vehicular/equipment maintenance and during refueling
operations
• Fuel and lubricant storage areas will be paved and properly bunded. Bunded areas will
be designed to accommodate 110% of the volume of spilled material
• Spill kits will be made available at all fuel and lubricant storage areas. All spills/leaks
contained, reported and cleaned up immediately
• The pipeline to be hydrostatically tested in accordance with requirements of “OISD-
STD-141- Design & Construction Requirements of Cross Country Hydrocarbon
Pipelines” to check for any possible leaks/damages.
• Proper backfilling and reinstatement of the pipeline stretch to be carried out in
accordance with the “Reinstatement Plan” to be developed by IOCL.
Monitoring
Periodic monitoring of soil quality monitoring will be conducted in accordance with the
Environment Monitoring Program.

Prevention of soil contamination
• Corrosion Control by protective coating supplemented with cathodic protection will
be provided in the initial design based on the study of environment and soil condition
along the pipeline route and maintained during the service life of the pipeline system
in accordance with the requirements of “OISD-STD-188 – Corrosion Monitoring of
SENES 230 HOEC

Offshore and Onshore Pipelines”. Further a Cathodic Protection system with

sacrificial anodes shall be installed to ensure adequate protection of pipeline from
external corrosion
• The right of way shall be inspected and maintained periodically to ensure clear
visibility of ROW/ROU, access to maintenance crew along the ROW/ROU, valve
locations and other pipeline facilities. All pipeline markers/kilometer posts and other
signs/specific indication marks shall be maintained properly. API 1109, ANSI B 31.4
& ANSI B 31.8 shall be referred for guidance.
• In case of a spill, the spilled soil is to be removed and stored in hazardous waste
storage area
• Management of drill cuttings, waste drilling mud, waste oil and domestic waste will
be made in accordance with “Waste Management Plan”

Reinstatement
The reinstatement phase includes all activities for preparation of the soil for tea
plantation/agricultural land as all the wells sites are located in the tea garden and the GPP is
located in agricultural land. The following activities would be carried out for reinstatement.
• Decommissioning: The decommissioning phase includes activities dismantling and
removal of surface facilities from the well site and storage in the Material Dumping
Area
• Sub soil preparation: The sub soil would be tilled till a depth of 6” to de-compaction
the soil
• Overlaying of Topsoil: The topsoil would be spread evenly on each of the terraces as
per the thickness specified by the applicable guidelines
• Top soil preparation: The bio manure will be mixed with the top soil to increase its
fertility (if required). Regular water with mulching will be carried out for more
effective soil preparation
• Seeding of Soil: Seeds of Leguminous crops would be sown on the plots to
continuously improve fertility of the soil
Monitoring
The soil would be tested for fertility as per the standard procedure of ICAR and compared to
the fertility values done during the Pre Project Baseline Environment Assessment in
SENES 231 HOEC

8.1.4 Site Closure Plan
The site closure plan for will identify all the activities which would be performed during the
restoration of a particular site after the extraction of hydrocarbons. Along with the well site
the approach road connecting the wells, GGS and GPP will be restored accordingly.
Chronological inventory of activities which would be performed during the closure of the site
are detailed in this section
Well sites
The following activities have been considered in the closure plan for well sites:
• Plugging & Abandonment of well: Close the well head properly to prevent any further
leakage
• Decommissioning Phase : Removal of the materials form the site

• Waste/mud pit closure and reclamation
• Reinstatement Phase: regeneration of the land
• Handover Phase : Returning the land to the original owner
Plugging & Abandonment of well

As and when the well will be declared as non productive, plugging of the well will be
performed to close and abandon the well to prevent any leakage of oil or gas.
Decommissioning
The decommissioning phase includes activities dismantling and removal of surface facilities
from the well site and storage in the Material Dumping Area. The activities which are
envisaged during this phase are:
• Waste Management: clean up the site and remove all waste materials e.g. HDPE
liners, any waste material etc. The waste will be dumped in the designated area as per
the guidelines of local pollution control board
• Road Restoration: The fill materials should be removed and restore the site or it may
be left for further local community use as per the agreement with community
Waste and mud pit closure and reclamation

Following decommissioning and abandonment of the well site the waste and mud pits will be
subject to closure through onsite burial of solids in accordance with lease and landowner
obligations and with local, state and national regulations. Reclamation of closed pits or any
other temporary retaining pits, including reserve pits, will be carried out within a period of
one year from well closure/abandonment. All such reclamation activities will be carried out
SENES 232 HOEC

based on the climatic conditions and will be in accordance with reasonable landowner's
wishes, and/or resemble and contour of the adjoining lands.
Reinstatement
The reinstatement will be done as per reinstatement plan discussed in soil management
section
GGS and GPP

The following activities have been considered in the closure plan for GGS and GPP:
• Decommissioning Phase : Removal of the materials form the site

• Reinstatement Phase: regeneration of the land
• Handover Phase : Returning the land to the original owner
Details of the activities to be performed in each phase would be similar in nature as that of
well site closure plan
8.1.5 Surface Water Quality Management Plan
Scope
The Surface Water Quality Management Plan is applicable during construction, operational
and post closure phase for the proposed project which has the potential to adversely impact
the surface water quality.
Purpose
The surface water is the important resources for the local community, as surface water has
been utilized for drinking and domestic purposes.
The Surface Water Quality Management Plan establishes specific measures and guidelines
aimed at effectively addressing and mitigating the surface water quality impacts that may
arise as result of site construction, drilling of wells and operation GPP. The effective surface
water quality management plan will mitigate the potential impact on surface water quality
from the proposed activity.
Mitigation Measures- Construction Phase

Planning, designing & procurement
• Leveling and grading operations will be undertaken with minimal disturbance to the
existing contour thereby maintaining the general slope of site
• Minimize clearing and construction activities during monsoon season (as far as
practicable)
• Construction work close to the streams will be avoided during monsoon
SENES 233 HOEC

• Surface Runoff Control & treatment Measures

• During site preparation and construction, surface water run-off will be channelized
through integrated drainage system
• Sediment filters and oil-water interceptor will be installed to intercept run-off and
remove sediment before it enters water courses.
• Fuel and lubricant drums will be stored in bunded and lined area equipped with proper
spill control equipment
• Construction of pipeline water crossings is to be governed by relevant considerations
outlined in section 16.10 of “OISD-STD-141- Design & Construction Requirements
of Cross Country Hydrocarbon Pipelines” also as discussed in section 2.8.1 of this
report
• Selection of low toxicity corrosion inhibitors in the preparation of hydrotest water for
tankages and pipeline
• During discharge, care shall be taken to properly dispose the water in order to avoid
pollution, damages to fields under cultivation and/or existing structures and
interference with the traffic. The water will be subjected to adequate treatment (if
required) to ensure compliance with CPCB “General Standards for Discharge of
Environmental Pollutants – Inland Surface & Marine Water” prior to final discharge
• Special planning would be undertaken to mitigate water quality impacts while
crossing the Burhi Dihing River. Spills in water would be managed by deployment of
a boom downstream of the spill source spanning the entire watercourse, angling of the
boom to direct pollutant to one of the banks, use of floating absorbent and/or
skimmers to remove the pollutant, and removal of contaminated material from the site
to a suitable licensed disposal location.
Monitoring
• Periodic monitoring of treated runoff will be conducted in accordance with the
• Regular monitoring of surface water quality will be conducted in accordance with the

Site runoff control & treatment
• Run-off from vehicular wash and chemical storage areas will be channeled through
closed drainage system provided with an oil-water separator prior to silt trap and
sedimentation tank to disposal to nearby drainage channels/surface water bodies
• Drip trays will be used during preventive maintenance of vehicles and machinery
SENES 234 HOEC

• Hazardous chemicals and fuel drum will be stored in bunded and lined area equipped
with proper spill control equipment
• Discharge of collected run-off in the siltation chamber to nearby drainage channels
will be conforming to CPCB Inland Water Discharge Standards
• Effluent treatment
• Waste water generated from the drilling activity will be treated through ETP; part of
the treated water will be utilized in drilling activity and rest of treated water will be
discharged into the local stream, conforming to CPCB Inland Water Discharge
Standards
• Produce water generated from GPP will be treated through ETP and same will be
discharged into the local stream, conforming to CPCB Inland Water Discharge
Standards
• Domestic waste water generated from camp area will be treated through septic tank and
soak pit
Monitoring
• Periodic monitoring of treated runoff and effluent will be conducted in accordance
with the Environment Monitoring Program
• Periodic monitoring of surface water quality will be conducted in accordance with the

No significant impacts to surface water quality can be associated with activities during
decommissioning/site closure phase. Any possible impacts that may arise due to surface run-
off will be mitigated in manner similar to that discussed during construction phase activities.
8.1.6 Ground Water Quality Management Plan
Scope & Purpose

The Ground Water Quality Management Plan is applicable for and encompasses all the
phases of proposed drilling, gas processing and transportation activities which has the
potential to adversely impact the ground water quality.
Mitigation Measures- Construction Phase

No significant impact on the ground water/potable water quality can be associated with the
construction phase activities. However, pipeline laying will be governed by relevant
provisions of OISD-STD-141- Design & Construction Requirements of Cross Country
Hydrocarbon Pipelines to protect sub-surface aquifer damage.
SENES 235 HOEC

Mitigation Measures- Drilling operations, gas processing, and gas transportation

• Water based mud to be used as a drilling fluid for the proposed project
• Selection of low toxicity chemicals/additives in the preparation of water based mud
Prevention of Contamination
• Proper casing and cementing of well will be done to prevent contamination of sub-
surface aquifers
• Drip trays will be used during preventive maintenance of vehicles and machinery
• Hazardous chemicals and fuel drum will be stored in bunded and lined area equipped
with proper spill control equipment
• Storage and disposal of drill cutting and waste mud to be made in accordance with
“Solid & Hazardous Waste Management Plan”
• Fulfillment of mitigation measures with respect to pipeline corrosion protection, leak
detection and periodic supervision in accordance to OISD-STD-188 – Corrosion
Monitoring of Offshore and Onshore Pipelines and OISD-STD-138 – Inspection of
Cross Country Pipelines Onshore
Monitoring
• Periodic monitoring of ground water quality will be conducted in accordance with the
8.1.7 Waste Management Plan
Scope
The Waste Management Plan (WMP) is applicable for all process and non-process waste
streams which are generated during various phases of HOEC’s proposed drilling, gas
processing and transportation activities in Dirok Development Field. The major waste
streams covered under this plan includes drill cuttings, waste drilling mud, drilling wash
water, produced water, kitchen waste and sewage. In addition, waste oil and lead acid
batteries generated from the proposed project operations have also been dealt in this plan.
Purpose
The WMP establishes specific measures to ensure proper collection, storage, treatment and
disposal of the identified process and non-process waste streams in accordance with the
SENES 236 HOEC

applicable national regulations and guidelines9 and also to ensure compliance with HOEC’s
corporate HSE Policy. The plan also outlines roles and responsibilities of both HOEC and the
contractors involved in the implementation of the plan.
Mitigation Measures- Drilling Waste (cuttings, spent mud and wash water)
As discussed in Chapter 2 earlier, the drilling project is likely to generate a considerable
amount (450- 500 m3) of drill cuttings which may be non-hazardous in nature. However,
HOEC has planned to management the drilling waste to minimize the contamination of soil,
surface water and ground water.
• Use of water based mud as the drilling fluid.
• Use of low toxicity chemicals for the preparation of drilling fluid
• Barite used in the preparation of drilling fluid shall not contain Hg>1mg/kg and Cd>3
mg/kg
• Protection of the surrounding environment of a drilling waste (cutting & spent mud)
storage and disposal site can be effectively achieved by using an impermeable liner on
the base and sides to prevent contamination soil and groundwater. As there is no
common TSDF in upper Assam for disposal of hazardous drill cuttings and other
wastes. HOEC has planned to construct the proper storage & disposal facility within
the site.
• The liner system for the proposed waste pit has been designed based on
recommendation of the Ministry of Environment and Forests for construction of a
non-permeable lining system at the base and wall of waste disposal site area. The liner
will have, at a minimum, a composite barrier having 1.5 mm High Density
Polyethylene (HDPE) geo-membrane.
• Design aspects of the impervious waste disposal pit will be communicated/ shared by
HOEC with Assam State Pollution Control Board (ASPCB)
• The drilling cuttings pit will be bunded and kept covered using tarpaulin sheets during
monsoon
Prevention of Contamination during Drilling Period
• Drill cuttings separated from drilling fluid will be adequately washed and temporarily
stored and disposed in an impervious pit lined by HDPE
9
“Guidelines for Disposal of Waste – CPCB Oil & Gas Extraction Industry Standard” – EPA Notification
[GSR 176(E), April 1996]
“Guidelines for disposal of Solid Waste, Drill Cuttings and Drilling Fluids for Offshore & Onshore Drilling
Operation” –MoEF Notification, 30th August 2005
SENES 237 HOEC

• Drilling wastewater will be stored in HDPE lined pit and treated prior disposal
• Recycling of drilling mud will be ensured to the maximum extent possible
• Temporary storage of drilling fluid and wash waste water will be done in an
impervious pit lined with HDPE
• Disposal of drilling wash water will be achieved through necessary treatment through
onsite Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) to comply with the CPCB onshore effluent
discharge standard for oil and gas industry
Disposal of waste
• The waste pit after it is filled up will be covered with impervious liner over which a
thick layer of native top soil with proper top slope will be provided
Monitoring
• Periodic monitoring and analysis of drill cuttings will be undertaken to establish its
nature and characteristics.
Mitigation Measures- Produced water

Produce water will be generated from GPP during processing of gas. The volume of produce
water would be about 10 m3 per day. Produced water of oil & gas reservoir is relatively
warm, contains dissolved and dispersed oils, high salt concentrations, heavy metals,
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), no oxygen and occasional naturally occurring
radioactive material.
Treatment & discharge of Produce Water
• The water will be adequately treated in an ETP to ensure conformance to the CPCB
onshore oil and gas extraction industry effluent standards.
Monitoring of Treated Produce Water
• Periodic monitoring and analysis of treated produce water will be undertaken to
establish its nature and characteristics.
Mitigation Measures- Hazardous Waste (Used oil & Spent Oil and Lead Acid Batteries)
Storage and Disposal of Used oil & Spent Oil
• The hazardous waste (waste and used oil) will be managed in accordance with
Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling & Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008
• The hazardous waste will be stored in properly labeled and covered bins located in
paved and bunded area
• Necessary spill prevention measures viz. spill kit will be made available at the
hazardous material storage area
SENES 238 HOEC

• Storage details of onsite hazardous waste generated will be maintained and

periodically updated.
• Adequate care will be taken during storage and handling of such waste viz. use of
proper PPEs by personnel
• The hazardous waste so stored to be periodically sent to Assam PCB registered used
and/or waste oil recyclers/ facilities.
• Proper manifest as per HWMH rules to be maintained during storage, transportation
and disposal of hazardous waste
Storage and Disposal of Lead Acid Batteries
• Will be recycled through the vendors supplying lead acid batteries as required under
the Batteries (Management & Handling) Rules, 2001 and Batteries (Management &
Handling) Amendment Rules 2010.
• Proper manifest will be maintained as per Batteries (Management & Handling) Rules,
2001.
Mitigation Measures- Domestic Waste (Kitchen Waste, Sewage)

Storage & Disposal of Kitchen Waste
• The waste will be segregated and stored in designated waste bins
• All such waste bins will be properly labeled and covered
• The kitchen waste will be disposed in nearest dumping site available; on a daily basis.
Discussion with the Digboi and Margherita authorities in this aspect would be
conducted
Treatment & Discharge of Domestic Waste Water
• The sewage generated will be treated in a combination of septic tank and soak pit
• Regular supervision will be undertaken for the domestic waste treatment system to
report any overflows, leakage, foul odour etc.
In addition to the management measures specified for the major waste stream, HOEC will
prepare and update periodically a waste management inventory of all waste streams identified
for the proposed project. Necessary measure will also be taken by HOEC to incorporate
appropriate waste management and handling procedures in the contractor work document and
conduct periodic training of personnel involved in waste handling onsite to ensure proper
implementation of the WMP. In this regard, necessary inspection, record keeping, training
program and monitoring procedures will be established by HOEC and made operational to
achieve proper management of all wastes generated on site.
SENES 239 HOEC

8.1.8 Flare & Illumination Management Plan
Scope & Purpose

The glare from the flare and illumination not only cause visual impacts but also causes
ecological impacts. These best practices can be adopted for reducing ecological impacts to
animals especially when operating in the migratory bird habitat.
Enclosed Ground Flaring- designing, planning & procurement

The elevated flare can be replaced by an enclosed ground flare, such as the enclosed ground
flare. This type of flare eliminates much of the visual impacts of burning produced gas in a
processing facility. Also, the enclosed ground flare will decrease the amount of smoke and
noise compared to the elevated flare.
Work Zone Illumination- designing, planning & procurement

An oil exploration facility in Maryland has adopted low height (less than 8 m), low-pressure
sodium lamp that are most energy efficient to reduce the ecological impacts (Fure, 2006).
Further, illumination has been provided only in required locations and has placed UV filters
on lamps. Such UV filtered lights have been found to less distractive to migrating birds
(Wiltschko et al. 199310, Poot et al. 200811).
8.1.9 Spill Management Plan
A number of chemicals and oil (high speed diesel) will be stored on site, improper handling
or accidents are likely to result in spills which have a potential for contaminating the
environment. HOEC would develop and educate the Contractors/personnel working to
prevent such spills and also develop a proper spill response and management plan.
Planning, Designing and Procurement
As best practices to avoid/contain any spill HOEC would ensure:
• All chemicals will be stored in designated area. To an extent possible all such areas
would away from drainage channels.
• The flooring of the area would be impervious (paved or HDPE lining) and bunding to
be provide on all sides of the chemical storage areas
• The chemical storage area to be covered to ensure it has the minimum runoff.
• All transfers of chemicals to be done with proper care and under the supervision of
the Store supervisor
10
Wiltschko, W., U. Munro, H. Ford, and R. Wiltschko. 1993. Red light disrupts magnetic orientation of
migratory birds. Nature. 364:525– 527.
11
Poot, H., B. J. Ens, H. de Vries, M. A. H. Donners, M. R. Wernand, and J. M. Marquenie. 2008. Green light
for nocturnally migrating birds. Ecology and Society 13(2): 47.
SENES 240 HOEC

Preventive and Mitigative Measures

HOEC’s spill management plan would aim to control the spill to a limited area and take
necessary mitigative actions. The following additional measures will be implemented for spill
management:
• Once a spill incident has occurred, identify the chemical involved and check
hazardous property of the chemical from the Material Safety Datasheet (MSDS)
• Person wearing required PPE will apply necessary absorbent like saw dust for a liquid
spill to ensure that the spill does not spread over a wide area or reach any surface
water body or drainage channels
• Thereafter, the substance will be properly collected and stored in a separate labeled
container marked “hazardous waste – do not burn”; and dispose in accordance with
Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling & Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008
8.1.10 Greenbelt Management Plan
Scope & Purpose

Greenbelt will be developed around the proposed GGS and GPP site for effective pollutant
absorbent as well as improving the aesthetics of the site.
During the operational phase of the proposed facility, plantation will be done for following
specific reasons –
• Plantation for beautification of the area
• Plantation to absorb air pollutant
• Plantation to mitigate incremental noise
• Re-plantation, pertaining to the cutting of trees, if any
During the operational phase, air emissions will be from the gas processing plant, flaring
units and operation of the backup DG sets. Based on the location, suitable type of trees and
plants will be recommended as a part of the greenbelt development plan to mitigate the
impact and to restore the damaged habitat of the region.
Guideline for Plantation & Landscaping
Selection of plant species is to be done on the basis of their adaptability to the existing
geographical conditions and the vegetation composition of the topography of the region.
Selection of plant species will be done carefully, as such they are of fast growing variety,
perennial and evergreen with thick canopy cover, large leaf area index (LAI) and a high
pollution attenuation factor (PAF) for effective dry deposition of particles and fibers.
SENES 241 HOEC

Detailed Landscaping Plan

In order to assure proper greenbelt development, following management plan will be
adopted:
• Healthy and established sapling having 1m height should be selected for planting in
greenbelt to avoid mortality
• Pit measurements of 0.6 m x 0.6 m x 0.6 m are to be dug up at desired point in
triangular pattern
• The tall shrubs and dwarf trees with 3 m spacing between plants and rows is sufficient
while medium and tall trees in middle and rear rows are to be planted at a distance of
6-7m and 8-10m apart respectively depending upon the space available.
• Close plantation is recommended for accommodating more number of trees per unit
area resulting in more leaf surface
• The pit should be filled with mixture of cow dung manure and soil in ratio of 1: 4. 10
gm BHC of 10% concentration should be properly mixed with the soil and manure to
kill the termites and insect.
• Close plantation with three tiers system keeping dwarf trees with round canopy
exposed to the source of emission followed by medium and tall trees with cylindrical
canopy is ideal design for the polluted area, because all plants are exposed to the
pollutants.
• Close plantation also result in tall trees with deeper roots and ultimately yield more
bio-mass per unit area and more efficient absorption of pollutants. Plantation of trees
in staging arrangement in multiple rows across the direction of the wind is
recommended for better trapping and absorption of the pollutants
Recommendation of Species for Plantation
Following is a suggestive list of the plants, which could be considered for pollution
abatement:
TABLE 8-1: SUGGESTIVE LIST OF THE SPECIES FOR DUST POLLUTION ABATEMENTS
Sl. No Scientific Name Height Dust collection Index Air Pollution tolerant
1 Albizzia lebbeck Tall Moderate High
2 Azadirachta indica Tall Fair Medium
3 Pithecolobium dulce Tall Moderate High
4 Ficus glomerata Tall Moderate High
5 Ficus infectoria Tall Moderate High
6 Polyalthia longifolia Tall Moderate Medium
7 Tectona grandis Tall Moderate Medium
8 Terminalia arjuna Tall Moderate Medium
SENES 242 HOEC

Sl. No Scientific Name Height Dust collection Index Air Pollution tolerant
9 Bauhinalia purpurea Medium Good Low
10 Cassia fistula Medium Fair High
11 Lagerstroemia flosreginae Medium Fair High
12 Saraca indica Medium Fair Fair
13 Thesperia populrea Medium Moderate Fair
15 Diospyros embryopteris Dwarf Moderate High
16 Parkinson aculeter Dwarf Good low
Greenbelt Area
The greenbelt will be developed along the periphery of the GGS and GPP site, approximate
30% of the total land; 0.18 ha at GGS site and 1.8 ha at GPP site.
8.1.11 Wildlife Management Plan
Scope
The proposed well drilling, gas processing and transportation in Dirok Development Field
may impart potential impact on threatened plant and animal species close to the drill sites,
GGS, GPP, pipeline alignmentr or access roads. The likely impacts of the project activities on
the ecological habitat have been addressed in a Wildlife Management Plan prepared to
safeguard forest areas and their characteristic floral and faunal component.
Purpose
The purpose of Wildlife Management Plan is to minimize the impact on natural habitat
(forest and river ecosystem) and control any adverse impact due to air and noise pollution
from well drilling, gas processing and transportation activities, discharge of untreated waste
water from drilling operation, produced water from GPP, storm water runoff from the well
sites, GGS, GPP and road widening/strengthening activities. The Management Plan details
out the mitigation measures and strategies to be adopted by HOEC and the contractors during
each phase of the project, at the same time establishing a monitoring network to investigate
the effective implementation of the Management Plan.
Wildlife Habitat Protection from Project Operation

• No temporary electric supply connection line from the grid will be laid for the
proposed project activity. All electric requirements will be supplied from the internal
DG sets
• Movement of heavy vehicles will be restricted at night time, especially in access road
within the forest area as most of the mammals movement occurred during night
• Cutting, uprooting of existing plants, especially tress along the proposed pipeline
should be minimized and all other plants within the site shall be minimized
SENES 243 HOEC

• Cutting, uprooting and coppicing of trees present in and around the project site for
cooking, burning or heating purposes by the labourers should be prohibited and
suitable alternatives (fuel like kerosene shall be made available to the labourers by
the contractor) for this purpose should be provided
• Noise Levels at the drill sites, GGS and GPP will be controlled through selection of
low noise generating equipment and installation of sufficient engineering controls viz.
mufflers, silencers etc.
• Care would be taken while disposal drill cutting & other drilling waste and discharge
of waste water from the drilling site
• Spillage of construction material to the adjacent agricultural land and drainage
channels should be restricted
Reduction of Human-Wildlife Conflicts

Fencing
Fencing around the drill sites, GGS and GPP would be provided to prevent accidental fall of
wild animals.
• The drill site will be properly fenced (chain-linked) to avoid straying of any outsider
as well as wildlife
• GGS and GPP will be properly fenced with concrete and brick wall
Anti Depredation Measures

An anti-depredation squad is to be created and stationed at Lekhajan Beat office. The squad
will consist of 2 trackers well versed with the terrain of the locality, behavior of elephants
and their routes of movement.
• Any wild animal species if trapped during site development or operation of drilling
would be released into suitable habitat
• If elephant migrates into the drill site, then with the help of Forest Department
personnel, the animal will be driven back into its suitable habitat
Erection of Signboard
For awareness of public on conservation of wildlife and forests, it is recommended to put /
construct some signboard in and around Dirok site.
Wildlife Awareness Program
All the above measures discussed are acceptable to protect wildlife habitat. But on contrary
the villagers, oil & gas drilling workers even forest personnel working in the vicinity are to
be made aware about the importance of wildlife, wildlife behavior, mode of attack,
application of first-aid; details of information regarding official compensation for loss of
property and lives should be available to the District Forest Administration. Forest officials
may plan to educate the public through preparation of brochures in local language, film show,
street drama and display of information in the board, etc.
SENES 244 HOEC

Management Cell
An Environment Management Cell (EMC) will be developed for implementation of
environmental mitigation & management plan. Forest personnel and veterinary doctor will be
taken into the management cell for implementing the wildlife management plan. The
environment cell would look after the following measures:
• Proper monitoring of indicator species will be carried out and compared to baseline to
understand any negative impacts
• In case of any accidental injuries to any wild animal by any project related activity,
the EMC’s Veterinary Doctor’s help will be taken
• All sightings of sensitive species in and around the project site will be reported and
adequate steps will be taken with the help of forest personnel to reduce conflict
between such animals and project activities or people working at site.
• The Environment Compliance Officer will hold training program for all the HOEC
employees and sub-contractor on the applicable practice and mitigation measures
contained within the Wildlife Management Plan.
In addition, Dirok 1 and 2, Dirok 4 and GGS, Dirok 5, Dirok 6, Dirok 7 will be located within
2 km of the Dehing-Patkai Wildlife Sanctuary. In view of all the existing sensitivities within
the Dirok Development Field, HOEC will prepare Site Specific Wildlife Management Plan
and get approval for the same from Standing Committee of NBWL prior to the
commencement of well site preparation. Recommendations of the Standing Committee would
be implemented on-site for protection of wildlife species and their habitat on the area.
HOEC had already prepared the site specific Wildlife Management Plan and submitted to
MoEF & CC for approval. The copy of the receiving letter is attached. (Annexure 8.1)
8.1.12 Road Safety & Traffic Management Plan
Scope
The Road Safety & Traffic Management Plan is applicable to all operation pertaining to
HOEC and contractor vehicular movement viz. vehicle involved in the transportation of raw
materials, project and contractor personnel, drilling rig and other heavy equipment
transportation to well site and decommissioning.
Purpose
The Road Safety & Traffic Management Plan outlines specific measures to be adopted and
implemented by HOEC to mitigate any potential impact on community health and safety that
may arise out of movement of vehicles and transportation of drilling rig and heavy
equipments during well drilling, gas processing and transportation and decommissioning
activities.
SENES 245 HOEC

Planning & Designing

• Project vehicular movement involved in transportation of construction material,
machineries and equipment for drilling and setting up of GGS and GPP will be
restricted to defined access routes to be identified in consultation with locals and
concerned authorities
• The condition of roads and bridges identified for movement of vehicles and drilling
rig will be assessed by HOEC to ensure their safe movement
• Precautions will be taken by the contractor to avoid damage to the public access
routes including highways during vehicular movement
• Provide safe and convenient passage for vehicles, pedestrians and livestock to and
from side roads and property accesses along defined project routes
• Traffic flows will be scheduled wherever practicable during period of increased
commuter movement
• Movement of vehicles during night time will be restricted. Speed limits will be
maintained by vehicles involved in transportation of construction material and
segregated waste
Signage
• Proper signage will be displayed at important traffic junctions along the predefined
access routes to be used by construction and operational phase traffic. The signage
will serve to prevent any diversion from designated routes and ensure proper speed
limits are maintained near village residential areas
• Clear signs, flagmen & signal will be set up at major traffic junctions and near
sensitive receptors viz. schools, hospital, etc in discussion with Gram Panchayat and
local villagers
Traffic Marshal
• Adequate training on traffic and road safety operations will be imparted to the drivers
of project vehicles. Road safety awareness programs will be organized in coordination
with concerned authorities to sensitize target groups viz. school children, commuters
on traffic safety rules and signage
Supervision
• Regular supervision will be carried out control vehicular traffic movement along
defined traffic routes particularly near identified sensitive receptors
In addition, HOEC will ensure that all vehicles transporting hazardous substances (fuel oil,
chemicals, etc.) will be properly labeled in accordance with the specifications of the Motor
Vehicles Rules. The implementation of the Road Safety & Traffic Management Plan will be
SENES 246 HOEC

monitored which will include keeping track of vehicular densities on the NH 38; Margherita-
Deomali Road etc. and other access and approach roads to the well sites.
8.1.13 Occupational Health & Safety Management Plan
Scope
The Occupation Health & Safety Management Plan (OHSMP) is applicable for all project
operations which have the potential to adversely affect the health and safety of contractors’
workers and onsite HOEC personnel. An Occupational Health Center is established at
Digboi to manage the occupational health issues.
Purpose
The Occupation Health & Safety Management Plan (OHSMP) has been formulated to
address the occupational health and safety related impacts that may arise from proposed
project activities viz. well drilling, gas processing and transportation and
decommissioning/site closure.
Mitigation Measures
Designing, Planning & Procurement
• All machines to be used in the construction will conform to the relevant Indian
Standards (IS) codes, will be kept in good working order, will be regularly inspected
and properly maintained as per IS provisions and to the satisfaction of the site
Engineer
• Hazardous and risky areas, installations, materials, safety measures, emergency exits,
etc. shall be appropriately marked
• All chemicals and hazardous materials storage container will be properly labeled and
marked according to national and internationally recognized requirements and
standards. Materials Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) or equivalent data/information in an
easily understood language must be readily available to exposed workers and first-aid
personnel
• The workplace must be equipped with fire detectors, alarm systems and fire-fighting
equipments. Equipments shall be periodically inspected and maintained to keep good
working condition
PPE & Basic Facilities
• Contractor workers involved in the handling of construction materials viz. borrow
material, cement etc. will be provided with proper PPEs viz. safety boots, nose masks
etc.
SENES 247 HOEC

• No employee will be exposed to a noise level greater than 85 dB(A) for a duration of
more than 8 hours per day. Provision of ear plugs, ear muffs etc. and rotation of
workers operating near high noise generating areas.
Occupational Health Care & Checkup

• Health problems of the workers will be taken care of by providing basic health care
facilities through health centres temporarily set up for base camp
• Adequate sanitation facilities will be provided onsite for the operational workforce
both during construction and operational phase of the project.
• HOEC will also be complying with the relevant provisions of “OISD-GDN-166-
Guidelines for Occupational Health Monitoring for Oil & Gas Industry” to ensure
effective prevention and monitoring occupational health and safety risks of
workforce.
Operation & Maintenance of facility
• The sewage system for the camp must be properly designed, built and operated so that
no health hazard occurs.
• Garbage bins will be provided in the camp and regularly emptied and the garbage
disposed off in a hygienic manner
Training
• Training programs will be organized for the operational workforce regarding proper
usage of PPEs, handling and storage of fuels and chemicals etc.
• Entry of personnel into tank farm for maintenance and related activities is to be
subjected to wearing of approved breathing apparatus and/or written permission from
the concerned supervisor.
8.1.14 Management of Social Issues and Concerns
Mitigation measure have been outlined to address project related social issues and concerns
in order for HOEC to take proactive steps and adopt best practices, which are sensitive to the
socio-cultural setting of the region. The plans will include people residing in proximity to the
proposed well sites, GGS, GPP, pipeline alignment and access routes.
Providing Job Opportunities

During site construction non technical jobs will be generated. Most of the people employed
during this stage would be semi-skilled or unskilled. People from adjoining areas especially
given preference through local contractors according to the skill sets possessed.
SENES 248 HOEC

Ensuring Public Safety

Since the project involves the movement of heavy vehicles and machinery in the area, the
issue of public safety of the villagers, especially children, tea garden workers is an important
concern. During the drilling phase and for the rest of the project activities proper safety
measures will be undertaken both for transportation as well as the other operations. The drill
sites, GGS and GPP would be fenced and gates would be constructed so that the local people
are refrained from straying into the site.
The movement of traffic is also likely to disrupt access conditions of the inhabitants residing
close to the access road. The increase in traffic will have implications on their safety too, as
well as create congestion, potential delays and inconvenience for pedestrians. The mitigative
measures in this regard have been discussed in detail under the Road Safety & Traffic
Management Plan (Section 6.1.5).
Management of Common Property Resources

During the project tenure there might be some sharing of resources viz. land, water, access
routes etc. by the villagers and the contractor workforce. Prior to the commencement of the
proposed activity, a consultation program will be conducted by HOEC with the target groups
and local authorities. The primary objective of such consultation will be to share with the
concerned villagers/stakeholders the objective of the proposed project associated impacts and
their mitigation. The movement of heavy vehicles and machinery might lead to conditions
like disruption of electric wires and telephone wires in the site area and along transportation
routes. These public utilities will be restored back to normal conditions, at the earliest.
Fencing of the site may lead to in some cases the temporary loss of shortest foot track routes
for the villagers to their agricultural fields. Consultation with villagers will be carried out in
such cases to assist them in finding alternative foot track routes.
Corporate Social Responsibility

From inception of its activities HOEC has taken up various CSR initiatives in and around
HOEC's operational areas for the benefit of the residents as per the CSR Act and Rules, Govt.
of India. HOEC's CSR Vision Statement envisages 2% allocation of its net profit towards
CSR. Based on the site specific assessments the CSR plan for this project would be framed. –
The broad areas to be focused under the CSR plan would include;
• Health - arranging mobile health camps including eye camps, School health
programmes which includes free dental awareness examination camps and free check-
ups of the students; universal immunization programme etc.
• Education - Providing financial assistance to institutions towards purchasing of
furniture and required amenities to school, libraries, auditoriums, teacher's common
room etc.
• Funding for sports, cultural events etc.
SENES 249 HOEC

8.2 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND MONITORING

Hindustan Oil Exploration Company Limited (HOEC) recognizes the responsibility to
operate with proper regard for environment and for the health and safety of its employees and
any other persons who at any point of time may be affected by its activities and to conduct its
operations in a manner that provides optimum protection to the environment in which these
operations are conducted. The HSE Policy of HOEC will adequately address the
environmental impacts likely to arise from the proposed development activities in Dirok
Development Field. It is understood that HOEC will try to formulate a local site level policy
taking from the parent corporate policy of HOEC to adequately address the environmental
impacts of the proposed drilling, projects in Dirok Field through the DMS. The Corporate
HSE policy of HOEC in Box 8.1
SENES 250 HOEC

Box 8.1: HOEC HSE Policy
SENES 251 HOEC

8.2.1 HOEC Environment Management Policy and System
The HSE- Management System (HSE-MS) of HOEC is based on the ‘Key Result Areas’
(KRA), which have a direct impact on the HSE performance of industry. Following three
KRA have been identified for HSE-MS and each element in turn has sub-elements that detail
the objectives, methodology and performance standards.
• Safety Management Systems (SMS)
• Occupational Health & Hygiene (OH& H)
• Environmental Management System (EMS)
Safety Management System (SMS) comprises of the following elements;
• Leadership and Commitment
• Induction & Training
• Rules and Permits
• Hazard Identification and Assessment
• Planned Inspections and Preventive Maintenance
• Incident Investigation and Analysis
• HSE Communications
• Emergency Preparedness
• Audits and reviews
• Personal Protective Equipment
• Procurements and Contracts Management
• Change Management
• Promotions and awards
Occupational Health and Hygiene (OH &H) comprises of the following elements
• Management of Health and Medical Examination
• Industrial Hygiene Management
Environmental Management System comprises of the following elements
• Environmental Guidelines
• Environmental Management
• Environmental Regulations and Compliance
• Waste Management
SENES 252 HOEC

• Oil Spill Management
8.2.2 Roles & Responsibility
Roles and responsibilities of HOEC personnel and contractors have been defined for
environment management during different phases of the proposed development activities are
described below.
Objective
To ensure that HSE is integrated into every job profile, thereby ensuring that everyone is
accountable for his/ her HSE performance. To create a profound awareness amongst
employees that safety is a way of life and each employee has a vital role to play to enhance
the Company’s overall HSE performance. The organogram for HSE management is presented
at the figure below;
FIGURE 8-1: ORGANOGRAM FOR HSE MANAGEMENT
The noncompliance reporting and action plan flow chart is provided in Figure 8.2.
SENES 253 HOEC

FIGURE 8-2: NON-COMPLIANCE REPORTING PROTOCOL
Top Management
The Company is aware and believes in principle of Top - Down management system, as the
right way for percolating good industrial practices down the line.
The Management is committed to provide required resources like manpower, budgets,
training, appropriate equipment and support for drilling, gas processing and transportation,
construction and operations.
SENES 254 HOEC

To demonstrate its commitment, the Management has directed that all meetings in the
company, starting from the board level and review of HSE performance.
Human Resources
• Ensure that the selection process incorporates HSE criteria for every job profile
• Induction and HSE training shall be organised and monitored for all new recruits
G&G
• Prioritize and secure clearances from statutory bodies prior to the commencement of
development activities
• Obtain essential details pertaining to ecologically and environmentally sensitive areas,
forests and social aspects of the blocks during the bidding stage
• Formulate proper strategy and systematic approach towards the project, such that the
proposed operations do not hinder or adversely impact the environmental sensitivity
and the local social set-up
• Ensure that all development activities are carried out as per the Company and
regulatory standards
Finance and Accounts
• Prioritising budget allocation and ensuing approvals for HSE requirements. Review
along with various Departmental Heads for completion of pending HSE issues and
approve budgets, carried over from the previous financial year
• Enabling statutory and legal payments in time with due diligence, ensuring that no
penalties arise from delayed payments
• Ensure that no penalties arise from delayed statutory fee payments
Well Construction Department Head
• Provide leadership and demonstrate commitment to the team
• Implement Company’s HSE policy effectively
• Set goals for the drilling team, by involving everyone in identifying the goals
• Ensure that all Health, Safety, Environment and related issues are incorporated and
addressed, while procuring new rigs, vessels, services and chemicals etc.
• Assign responsibility for implementation of safety requirements / recommendation by
statutory authorities / internal and external audits
• Encourage incident reporting and investigate all accidents/ incidents reported on rigs
and other associated facilities
• Appraise drilling contractors on their HSE performance, suggest/ reject future
contracts based on the HSE appraisal
SENES 255 HOEC

• Organize Monthly Contractor’s Safety Meeting for discussing HSE performance and
action plan for corrective measures identified through incident investigations,
inspections and audits
Production Operations- Head
• Implement Company’s HSE policy effectively at the production installations
• Set goals for the production team, by involving everyone in identifying the goals
addressed, while hook-up & commissioning new installations, routine productions,
and regular logistical facilities
• Ensure that all Safe Operating Procedures are in place covering all activities at the
installations
• Encourage incident reporting and ensure investigation of all incidents/ accidents
reported by the installations
statutory authorities like DGH, DGMS, Pollution Control Boards, etc and internal/
external audits
• Ensure Monthly Installation HSE Meetings for discussing HSE performance and
• Audit the installations at least once in a year
Facilities / Projects Department - Head
• Implement Company’s HSE policy effectively at the project and construction sites
• Set goals for the project / facilities team by involving everyone in identifying the
goals
addressed, while hook-up & commissioning new installations, project construction
phases, and regular logistical facilities, for onshore and offshore
• Ensure that HSE criteria are well defined in Project Contractor’s scope and evaluate
the potential contractor’s HSE Performance and Capability during the tendering and
evaluation stage
• Ensure that all Safe Operating Procedures are in place covering all activities at the
installations
SENES 256 HOEC

• Encourage incident reporting and ensure investigation of all incidents/ accidents

reported by the project sites
statutory authorities like DGH, DGMS, Pollution Control Board normss, etc and
internal/ external audits
• Ensure Monthly Installation HSE Meetings for discussing HSE performance and
• Audit the project sites at least once in a year/ during the course of the project activity
Installation Manager
• Demonstrate leadership and delegate responsibility to the teams
• Conduct HSE inspections of the Installation at least once in a month along with the
Production In-charge
• Investigate all incidents/ accidents reported at the installations. Encourage incident
reporting by the teams. Ensure all incident reports are documented and reviewed by
Operations Head
• Identify all operations at the installation, requiring Safe Operating Procedures (SOP)
and review all SOPs with the concerned teams
• Conduct Monthly Installation HSE meetings within the first week of every month and
review the outcome with the ‘Operations Head’
• Ensure ‘Fortnightly Safety Talks’ within groups in the installation and review the
reports
• Develop an action plan to implement the inspections and audit findings by internal
and external sources
• Implement ‘Permit to Work’ systems and review the records daily
Contracts & Procurement
• Ensure HSE clause is an integral part of all contracts. The contract should mention the
requirements of the Company and the minimum expected standard from the
Contractor
• Ensure that all equipment and material procured pertains to industrial standards.
Materials of inferior quality that would adversely impact the safety of employees or
operations shall not be procured
• Develop a HSE questionnaire that would help assess the contractor / service provider
of (for drilling unit charter, process equipment supply, EPC projects, chemical supply
and manpower supply), for their HSE performance and attitude towards safety. The
SENES 257 HOEC

HSE questionnaire would invariably be attached to bid/ tender, and the Service
Requestor and HSE Manager shall evaluate responses
• Ensure while procuring that all chemicals are supplied with relevant information and
test reports and the chemicals are environmental friendly. However all chemical
supply shall invariably come with the MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) and
containers shall be appropriately labeled providing information as per UN standards
for labeling chemicals
• Ensure that the contractor/ supplier meet all related statutory requirements. And
ensure that the contractor/ supplier provides all information regarding any handling,
storage and transportation procedures, while supplying the product
• Ensure that service requestor/ end user evaluates/ apprises & documents the HSE
performance of the contractor/ service provider. The HSE evaluation shall be
reviewed to while awarding future contracts and preference shall be given to the best
performer
HSE
• Render advice to management on policy
• Coordinate implementation of HSE-MS and create awareness. Review PTW and other
systems compliance, review and ensure implementation of inspection and audit
findings
• Review incidents / accidents and advise remedial actions for any substandard
conditions/ situations
• Analyse accident reports and prepare statistics
• Ensure all HSE meetings at conducted regularly
8.2.3 Environmental Monitoring Program
Monitoring is one of the most important components of a management system. Continuous

monitoring needs to be carried out for regulatory requirements, to monitor the environmental
quality and to determine performance of proposed mitigation measures. Monitoring
indicators have been developed for each of the activity considering the mitigation measures
proposed. Indicators have been developed for ascertaining the environmental quality and
performance of the EMP implementation through Environmental Quality Indicators (EQI’s)
and Environmental Performance Indicators (EPI’s) respectively which focus not only on
quantifying or indexing activity-environment interactions that may potentially impact the
environment but at the same time also help in comparing different components of
environmental quality against previously established baseline values. Monitoring results will
be documented, analyzed and reported internally to HSE Manager of HOEC. Monitoring
requirements have been described in the following Table 8.2. Frequency of monitoring and
responsibility of carrying out the monitoring have also been presented in the table below.
SENES 258 HOEC

TABLE 8-2: PROPOSED MONITORING REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROJECT
Environmental Performance Monitoring

Environmental
EPI Monitoring Period &
Performance Location Responsibility
No. Parameter Frequency
Indicator (EPI)
A. Design & Planning
A1 Proximity of Distance between Site and Once in project Civil supervisor
sensitive the drill site and access lifecycle
environmental sensitive road
habitat environmental
habitat
A2 Proximity of Distance between Site and Once in project Civil supervisor
nearest habitation the drill site and access lifecycle
nearest habitation road
A3 Flood History HFL at site Site and Once in project Civil supervisor
Return period of access lifecycle
major floods road
A4 Undisrupted flow Number of cross Site and Once in project Civil Supervisor
of water in drainage structures access lifecycle
drainage channels planned to number road
of actual stream
crossings
B Approach Road & Site Development
B1 Topsoil Area occupied for Site Once during each HSE Supervisor
topsoil storage/ site preparation
Area planned for
topsoil storage
B2 Local drainage Number of Cross Site & Once in project Civil Supervisor
pattern Drainage structures road lifecycle
constructed to
actual number of
cross drainage
structures designed
B3 Fugitive emission Visual observation Site & Daily during site HSE Supervisor
of dust during site of dust in air by approach preparation with Vehicular /
preparation haziness roads Civil Contractors
B4 Air emissions PM2..5, PM10, NO2, Exhausts Once in project HSE Supervisor
from vehicles and SO2, CO, HC, VOC lifecycle with Civil
machinery based on emission Supervisor,
factors
Visual observation Daily Drilling/Civil

of emissions (black Supervisor
signifying more through HSE
Supervisor
pollution)
SENES 259 HOEC

Environmental
Indicator (EPI)
% of vehicles Once in project

possessing valid life cycle Drilling/Civil
Supervisor
PUC Certificates through
Drilling/Civil
Supervisor
through HSE
Supervisor,
Contractors
operating
vehicles
B5 Noise emissions Noise pressure level Site & Weekly during HSE Supervisor
from vehicles and in dB(A) near noise approach site preparation
machinery sources (5m) road
B6 Supervision of Number of vehicles Site & Daily during site HSE Supervisor
material transport reported with approach preparation with Vehicular /
overloaded material road Civil Contractors
/ uncovered
material
B7 Accident reporting Number of Site & During life cycle HSE Supervisor
casualties / approach of project
Number of fatalities road
B8 Fugitive emission Visual observation Near Daily during the HSE Supervisor
of dust during of dust in air by stockpiles entire project life-
material handling haziness and cycle
storages
and storage
C Drilling & Testing
C1 Gaseous pollutant Pollutant DG Stack Once at each DG HSE Supervisor
emissions from concentrations in stack during through Drilling
DG Set gaseous emissions drilling contractor
and maintenance
parameters (air, fuel
filters & air-fuel
ratio) of DG sets
influencing air
emissions
Visual observation Daily during

of exhaust smoke drilling
characteristics
C2 Noise emission Noise pressure level Near noise Once at each DG HSE Supervisor
from DG Sets in dB(A) sources stack during through Drilling
(1m) drilling contractor
SENES 260 HOEC

Environmental
Indicator (EPI)
C3 Noise emission Noise pressure level On the rig Once at each DG HSE Supervisor
from derrick floor in dB(A) floor Near stack during through Drilling
noise drilling contractor
sources
(1m)
Number of cases of Site Monthly during

workers not using drilling
PPE
C4 Accident reporting Number of Site As and when HSE Supervisor
casualties / accident occurs through Drilling
Number of fatalities contractor
C5 Spilled Area of Spill / Site As and when HSE Supervisor

Chemicals/Oil Quantity Spilled / spills occur through Drilling
Severity of Spill / contractor
Characterization of
Spilled Substances
for Contaminants
(Heavy Metals,
Toxics, etc.)
C6 Fugitive emission Visual observation Near Daily during the HSE Supervisor
of cement dust of cement dust in stockpiles entire project life-
during handling air by haziness and cycle
and storage storages
C7 Runoff from Supervision of Site Daily during HSE Supervisor
temporary storage functioning of drilling phase
areas conduits / drains,
channels
C8 Emissions from Total CO, total Flare As and when HSE Supervisor
Flaring hydrocarbon, Non- Stack flaring occurs through Drilling
Methane contractor
Hydrocarbons, NOx
emission estimates
based on emission
factors
C9 Waste water Volume estimate At Weekly during HSE Supervisor
quantity & quality discharge drilling through Drilling
(Process water viz. point contractor
rig wash,
formation water
etc) CPCB General Once during
SENES 261 HOEC

Environmental
Indicator (EPI)
discharge drilling
parameters and Oil
& Gas Extraction
Industry Standards
C10 Storm water/wash CPCB General At Depending on HSE Supervisor
down water discharge discharge generation through Drilling
discharge parameters and Oil point particularly contractor
& Gas Extraction during monsoon
Industry Standards
C11 Drill cutting Total volume At storage Once during HSE Supervisor
storage and generated location drilling period through Drilling
disposal contractor
Concentration of
hazardous
constituents as per
Hazardous Waste
Rules
CPCB Onshore
discharge standards
for Oil & Gas
Extraction Industry
D Gas Processing and Transportation
D1 Gaseous pollutant Pollutant DG Stack Quarterly in each HSE Supervisor

emissions from concentrations in DG set
DG Set gaseous emissions
and maintenance
parameters (air, fuel
filters & air-fuel
ratio) of DG sets
influencing air
emissions
Visual observation Daily

of exhaust smoke
characteristics
D2 Noise emission Noise pressure level Near noise Monthly in each HSE Supervisor
from DG Sets in dB(A) sources DG set
(1m)
D3 Accident reporting Number of Site As and when HSE Supervisor
casualties / accident occurs
Number of fatalities
D4 Spilled Area of Spill / Site As and when HSE Supervisor
Chemicals/Oil Quantity Spilled / spills occur
SENES 262 HOEC

Environmental
Indicator (EPI)
Severity of Spill /
Characterization of
Spilled Substances
for Contaminants
(Heavy Metals,
Toxics, etc.)
D5 Runoff from Supervision of Site Weekly HSE Supervisor
temporary storage functioning of
areas conduits / drains,
channels
D6 Emissions from Total CO, total Flare Quarterly HSE Supervisor
Flaring hydrocarbon, Non- Stack
Methane
Hydrocarbons, NOx
emission estimates
based on emission
factors
D7 Waste water Volume estimate At Weekly HSE Supervisor
quantity & quality discharge
(Process water viz. point
rig wash,
formation water
etc) CPCB General Monthly
discharge
parameters and Oil
& Gas Extraction
Industry Standards
D8 Storm water/wash CPCB General At Depending on HSE Supervisor
down water discharge discharge generation
discharge parameters and Oil point particularly
& Gas Extraction during monsoon
Industry Standards
E Decommissioning/ Site Closure
E1 Noise pressure Near noise sources Site & Once per site HSE Supervisor
level in dB(A) (1m) Approach through Drilling
road & Civil
contractor
E2 Air emissions PM10, PM2.5, NOx, Exhausts Once in project HSE Supervisor
from vehicles SO2, CO, HC based lifecycle through
on emission factors Vehicle/Civil
contractor
Visual observation Daily

of emissions (black
signifying more
pollution)
SENES 263 HOEC

Environmental
Indicator (EPI)
E3 Fugitive emission Visual observation Near Daily during the HSE Supervisor
of dust during of dust in air by stockpiles entire activity
transport of haziness and
drilling facilities storages
E4 Site restoration Visual observation Site Daily during Civil Supervisor
of : decommissioning with HSE
Clearing of Supervisor
decommissioning
waste
Leveling of site;
Relaying of top soil
Regeneration of top
soil
B) Environmental Quality Monitoring

Environmental
EQI Monitoring Period &
Quality Location Responsibility
No Parameter Frequency
Indicator (EQI)
A Approach Road & Site Development
A1 Soil Fertility Fertility parameters Site & Once before site HSE
like pH, NPK ratio, adjacent preparation at Supervisor
Total Carbon, etc. areas each site
A2 Quality of water Analysis of Natural Two samples per HSE
Parameters as per drainage site during site Supervisor
CPCB Use-class channel and road works
receiving
run-off
discharges
A4 Ambient Air Measurement of At 3 stations for 2 HSE
Quality PM10, PM2.5, NO2, Surrounding weeks at each Supervisor
SO2, HC using receptor site during
ambient air sampler points approach road
and site
development
A5 Ambient noise Hearing / perception At Daily site and HSE
quality surrounding road works Supervisor
Measurement of
receptor
Noise Pressure Level Once at 3
points
in dB(A) stations for each
site during
approach road
and site
development
SENES 264 HOEC

Environmental
Indicator (EQI)
A6 Soil Analysis for suite of Site, In event of spills HSE
Contamination contaminants (heavy adjacent over an area of Supervisor
metals, TPH, areas and 10 sq.m
organics, pesticides). Waste
disposal site
B Drilling & Testing
B1 Ambient Air Measurement of At Once at 3 HSE
Quality PM10, PM2.5, NO2, Surrounding stations for 2 Supervisor
SO2, HC, using receptor weeks for each
ambient air sampler points site during
drilling
B2 Ambient noise Hearing / perception At Daily during HSE
quality surrounding drilling and Supervisor
Measurement of
receptor testing
Noise Pressure Level
points
in dB(A) Once at 3
stations for each
site during
drilling
B3 Ground water Analysis of Nearby Once at 2 HSE
Quality Parameters as per source of stations for each Supervisor
IS:10500 ground site during
water drilling
B4 Soil Analysis for suite of Site, In event of spills HSE
disposal site
B5 Quality of water Analysis of Natural Two samples per HSE
Parameters as per drainage site during Supervisor
CPCB Use-class channel drilling
receiving
run-off
discharges
C Gas Processing and Transportation
C1 Ambient Air Measurement of At Quarterly at 3 HSE
Quality PM10, PM2.5, NO2, Surrounding locations for 2 Supervisor
SO2, HC, using receptor weeks each for
ambient air sampler points GGS and GPP
SENES 265 HOEC

Environmental
Indicator (EQI)
C2 Ambient noise Hearing / perception At Quarterly once at HSE
quality surrounding 3 locations each Supervisor
Measurement of
receptor for GGS and
points GPP
in dB(A)
C3 Ground water Analysis of Nearby Quarterly once at HSE
Quality Parameters as per source of 3 locations each Supervisor
IS:10500 ground for GGS and
water GPP
C4 Soil Analysis for suite of Site, In event of spills HSE
disposal site
C5 Quality of water Analysis of Natural Quarterly once at HSE
Parameters as per drainage 2 locations each Supervisor
CPCB Use-class channel for GGS and
receiving GPP
run-off
discharges
D Decommissioning / Closure
D1 Quality of water Analysis of Natural Two samples per HSE
Parameters as per drainage site after Supervisor
CPCB Use-class channel decommissioning
receiving
run-off
discharges
D2 Ambient noise Hearing / perception At Daily during HSE
quality surrounding decommissioning Supervisor
receptor
Once at 3
Measurement of points
stations for each
site during
in dB(A)
decommissioning
D3 Ambient Air Measurement of At Once at 3 HSE
Quality PM10, PM2.5, NO2, Surrounding stations for 2 Supervisor
SO2, HC, using receptor weeks for each
ambient air sampler points site during
decommissioning
SENES 266 HOEC

Environmental
Indicator (EQI)
D4 Soil Fertility Fertility parameters Site & Once after site HSE
like pH, NPK ratio, adjacent restoration at Supervisor
Total Carbon, etc. areas each site
8.3 BUDGETARY PROVISIONS FOR EMP IMPLEMENTATION

Adequate budgetary provision has been made by the HOEC for execution of environmental
management plan. The budget will give overall investment on the environmental safeguards
and recurring expenditure for successful monitoring and implementation of control measures.
The EMP budget has been prepared considering the construction period of drill sites 30 days,
45 days of drilling period 15 days of decommissioning period and construction of GGS and
GPP is 1 year. The operational phase of GGS and GPP budget is for 5 years; after completion
of 5 year operational period the budget will be revised and funds will be allocated for the
project.Budget for environment and social management plan is provided below;
TABLE 8-3: BUDGET FOR ENVIRONMENTAL & SOCIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
Budget (in
Sl. No. Particulars of Work
lakh Rs.
1 Air Quality Management Plan
a. Construction Phase
i. Designing, Planning & Procurement (Budgetary provision is included 0
in the project cost)
ii. Dust suppression through water sprinkling in the internal roads at new 2.7
drill sites (@Rs. 2000 per day x 30 days construction phase, 15 days
decommissioning phase per well x 3 new wells)
iii. Dust suppression through water sprinkling in the internal roads at 4.2
GPP sites (@Rs. 60,000 per month x 7 dry months x 1 year)
iv Ambient Air Quality Monitoring at drill sites -3 monitoring locations 1.8
x 2 weeks per drill sites x once during construction phase x 3 new drill
sites (@ Rs. 5000 x 12 samples per season x 3 new wells)
v. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring at GPP site -3 monitoring locations 1.8
x 2 weeks per season x 3 seasons (@ Rs. 5000 x 12 samples per
season x 3 season)
b. Operational Phase
i. Operation of machineries, vehicle and plants (Budgetary provision is 0
included in the project cost and its maintenance cost)
ii. Regular Maintenance of vehicle, machineries and plants (Budgetary 0
provision is included in the maintenance cost of project)
iii. Greenbelt Development at GGS (0.18 ha) and GPP site (1.8 ha) (@ 1.3
Rs. 64,000 x 1.98 ha)
SENES 267 HOEC

Budget (in
lakh Rs.
iv. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring at drill sites -3 monitoring locations 1.8
x 2 weeks per drill sites x once during drilling phase x 3 new drill
sites (@ Rs. 5000 x 12 samples per season x 3 new wells)
v. Quality of gaseous emission from DG sets at drill sites –once in each 0.36
DG stacks during drilling phase (@ 4000 x 3 DG stacks per well x 3
new wells)
vi. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring at GPP site -3 monitoring locations 9.0
x 2 weeks per season x 3 seasons (@ Rs. 7500 x 12 samples per
season x 3 season x 5 years)
vii. Quality of gaseous emission from DG sets at GPP site –once in DG 1.8
stack x 4 seasons (@ 3000 x 3 DG stack x 4 seasons x 5 years)
2 Noise & Vibration Mitigation Measures
i. Designing, Planning & Procurement (Budgetary provision is included 0
ii. Maintenance of Machineries & Equipment (budgetary provision is 0
included in the project cost and its maintenance cost)
iii. Ambient noise monitoring at 3 new drill sites– 3 locations, once 0.225
during construction phase (@Rs. 2500 per location x 3 locations per
drill sites x 3 new drill sites)
iv. Ambient Noise Quality Monitoring at GPP site -3 locations x once in 0.225
each seasons x 3 seasons (@ Rs. 2500 x 3 per year x 1 year)
i. Operation of plant and machineries (Budgetary provision is included 0
in the project cost and its maintenance cost)
ii. Noise abetment- Greenbelt Development (budgetary provision is 0
provided in air quality management plan)
iv. Ambient noise monitoring at 3 new drill sites– 3 locations, once 0.225
during drilling phase (@Rs. 2500 per location x 3 locations per drill
sites x 3 new drill sites)
v. Ambient Noise Quality Monitoring at GPP site -3 locations x once in 1.125
each seasons x 3 seasons (@ Rs. 2500 x 3 per year x 5 year)
3 Soil Quality Management Plan
i. Stripping of top soil (budgetary provision is included in the project 0
cost)
ii. Prevention of soil contamination (budgetary provision is included in 0
the project cost)
iii. Soil quality monitoring 1 locations in each drill sites before 0.195
construction (@Rs. 6500 per location x 1 locations x 3 wells)
SENES 268 HOEC

Budget (in
lakh Rs.
iv. Soil quality monitoring 3 locations in GPP sites before construction 0.195
(@Rs. 6500 per location x 3 locations)
i. Prevention of soil contamination (budgetary provision is included in 0
the project cost)
b. Closure phase
i. Reinstatement of site (budgetary provision is included in the project 0
cost)
ii. Soil Quality monitoring – 1 locations in each drill sites after 0.39
reinstatement (@Rs. 6500 per location x 1 locations x 6 wells)
4 Site Closure Plan
a. Plugging & Abandonment of well; Decommissioning of site; 0
Waste/mud pit closure and reclamation; Reinstatement of site
(budgetary provision is included in the project cost)
5 Surface Water Quality Management Plan

i. Designing, Planning & Procurement (budgetary provision is included 0
ii. Surface Runoff Control & treatment Measures (budgetary provision 0
is included in the project cost)
iii. Monitoring- treated runoff at drill sites (1 location, once during 0.195
construction phase –monsoon period) ( @Rs.6500 per sample x 3 new
drill sites)
iv. Monitoring- surface water quality (3 location, once during 0.195
construction phase –monsoon period) ( @Rs.6500 per sample x 3 new
drill sites)
v. Monitoring- treated runoff at GPP site (2 location, once during 0.13
construction phase –monsoon period) ( @Rs.6500 per sample x 2
samples
i. Sites runoff control & treatment (budgetary provision is included in 0
the project cost)
ii. Effluent treatment (budgetary provision is included in the project 0
cost)
iii. Monitoring- treated runoff at drill sites (1 location, once during 0.195
drilling phase –monsoon period) ( @Rs.6500 per sample x 3 new drill
sites)
iv. Monitoring of treated effluent at drill sites 1 location, once during 0.195
drilling phase) ( @Rs.6500 per sample x 3 new drill sites)
SENES 269 HOEC

Budget (in
lakh Rs.
v. Monitoring- surface water quality (3 location, once during drilling 0.195
phase –monsoon period) ( @Rs.6500 per sample x 3 new drill sites)
vi. Monitoring of treated effluent at GPP site- 1 location, once during 1.30
each season) ( @Rs.6500 per sample x 4 samples per season x 5
years)
6 Ground water management plan
a. Operational Phase
i. Planning, designing and procurement (budgetary provision is 0
included in the project cost)
ii. Prevention of Contamination (budgetary provision is included in the 0
project cost)
iii. Monitoring of ground water quality at drill sites (2 locations in each 0.39
drill sites once during drilling phase) (@6500 per sample x 2 locations
per drill sites x 3 new drill sites)
iv. Monitoring of ground water quality at GPP site (2 locations once 1.6
season) (@4000 per sample x 2 locations per x 4 seasons x 5 years)
7 Waste Management
a. Drilling Waste (cuttings, spent mud and wash water)
i. Planning, designing and procurement (budgetary provision is 0
ii. Prevention of Contamination during Drilling Period (budgetary 0
provision is included in the project cost)
iii. Disposal of waste (budgetary provision is included in the project 0
cost)
iv. Monitoring of treated waste – once during drilling phase in each drill 0.24
sites (@ 8000 per sample x 3 new drill sites
b. Produce Water
i. Treatment & discharge of Produce Water (budgetary provision is 0
ii. Monitoring of produce water quality at GPP site (one sample per 1.3
season) (@6500 per sample x 4 seasons x 5 years)
c. Hazardous Waste (Used oil & Spent Oil and Lead Acid Batteries)
i. Storage and Disposal of Used oil & Spent Oil (budgetary provision is 0
ii. Storage and Disposal of Lead Acid Batteries (budgetary provision is 0
d. Domestic waste (kitchen waste & sewage)
i. Storage & Disposal of Kitchen Waste (budgetary provision is 0
SENES 270 HOEC

Budget (in
lakh Rs.
ii. Treatment & Discharge of Domestic Waste Water (budgetary 0
8 Flare & Illumination Management Plan
i. Enclosed Ground Flaring- designing, planning & procurement 0
ii. Work Zone Illumination- designing, planning & procurement 0
9 Spill Management Plan
i. Planning, Designing and Procurement budgetary provision is provided 0
in air quality management plan)
ii. Preventive and Mitigative Measures budgetary provision is provided 0
in air quality management plan)
10 Greenbelt Development Plan
i. Plantation and maintenance of greenbelt (budgetary provision is 0
provided in air quality management plan)
11 Wildlife Management Plan
a. Wildlife Habitat Protection from Project Operation (budgetary 0
b. Reduction of Human-Wildlife Conflicts
i.. Fencing around drill sites, GGS and GPP (budgetary provision is 0
ii. Anti Depredation Measures (Salary of squad members 2 person x @ 1.44
Rs. 200 per day x 30 days x 12 months )
iii. Erection of Signboard 1
iv. Wildlife Awareness Program
c. Supervision of Wildlife Management Plan by WMC (Rs. 25,000 per 1
quarter x 4 quarters)
12 Road and Safety Management Plan
a. Construction Phase & decommissioning Phase
i. Designing and planning (budgetary provision is included in the 0
project cost)
ii. Signage in the transport route & its maintenance (Rs. 50,000) 0.5
iii. Deployment of traffic personnel in sensitive area – 4 persons (@ Rs. 2.88
6000 per month x 12 months x 1 years)
13 Occupational Health & Safety Management
i. Provision of appropriate PPE to all workers and basic facilities 0
(budgetary provision is included in operational cost of project)
ii. Regular training (occupational health & safety) (budgetary provision 0
is included in operational cost of project)
ii. Occupational health checkup and basic facilities 0
SENES 271 HOEC

Budget (in
lakh Rs.
iii. Operation & Maintenance of facility (budgetary provision is included 0
in operational cost of project)
14 Management of Social Issues and Concerns
a. Providing Job Opportunities (un-skilled, semi-skilled and skilled job 0
opportunity will be provided through the contractor)
b. Ensuring Public Safety (budgetary provision is included in operational 0
cost of project)
c. Management of Common Property Resources (budgetary provision is 0
included in operational cost of project)
d. Corporate Social Responsibility:
i. Development drilling and setting up of GGS and GPP (5% of the total
project cost will utilised in various CSR activities in the project area)
ii. Production of Gas: during this phase 2% of the profit will utilised in
various CSR activities in the project area)
SENES 272 HOEC

9 Disclosure of Consultants
SENES Consultants India Private Limited (SENES India) is a professionally managed,
fast growing, wholly owned subsidiary of SENES Consultants Limited (SENES), Canada.
SENES specializes in the fields of energy, nuclear, environmental and social sciences with
offices spread across Canada, the United States, South America and India. SENES has been
operational in India for more than ten years having Head Office in Noida, Uttar Pradesh with
branch offices in Kolkata, Hyderabad and Mumbai with all supportive infrastructure
necessary for project implementation.
SENES India has accumulated a wide body of knowledge from its National and International
Oil and Gas experience worldwide, including the EIAs for upstream oil & gas projects for
Ensearch Petroleum in Jordan, Premier Oil in Assam, Geopetrol in Andhra Pradesh, Eni India
in Andaman Sea, ONGC in Assam, Mizoram, Andhra Pradesh, Oil India in Assam, Cairn
Energy in Rajasthan and Gujarat, British Petroleum in West Bengal etc.
SENES India was responsible for carrying out the Dirok Development Project in Tinsukia
district, Assam. The team deployed for the proposed project is provided below:
• Salil Das: EIA Coordinator
• Debanjan Bandyopadhyay: Air quality expert, Noise quality expert
• Mangesh Dakhore: Risk Assessment Expert
• Dhritiman Ray: Water Quality Expert
• Ranjit Mukherjee :Socioeconomic Expert
• Abhishek Roy Goswami: Ecology and Biodiversity Expert
• Indrani Ghosh: Air and noise quality expert
• Anindya Mukherjee: Environmental Specialist
• Subhradeb Pramanik: Risk Assessment Specialist
• Saumabha Bhattacharya: Ecological Expert (Associate FAE- EB)
• Souvik Basu: Socioeconomic expert (Associate FAE- SE)
• Dibyendu Chakraborty: GIS and Mapping Specialist (Associate FAE- LU)
The EIA report preparation have been undertaken in compliance with approved MoEF ToR
and the information and content provided in the report is factually correct for the purpose and
objective for such study undertaken.
SENES 273 HOEC

SENES has already obtained QCI Accreditation under the QCI-NABET Scheme for
Accreditation of EIA Consultant Organizations vide certificate no: NABET/ EIA/ 1013/043
dated 9th October 2010 and List of Accredited EIA Consultant Organizations. SENES has
been re-accredited by QCI/NABET vide letter no. NABET/EIA/RA016/040 dated 11th
August, 2014. The QCI/NABET accreditation certification is provided in the following page.
SENES 274 HOEC

SENES 275 HOEC

SENES 276 HOEC

Dirok Development Field Draft EIA HOEC 180215

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Dirok Development Field Draft EIA HOEC 180215

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dirok Development Field Draft EIA HOEC 180215

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environmental

M/s Hindustan Oil Exploration Company Limited

Environmental Clearance for

2.11.1 Construction Consideration – River and Water Channel.............................................73

SENES iii HOEC

3.5 Area of Impact ...........................................................................................................135

6.1.10 Emergency Response - Organizational Structure ......................................................211

Table 6-5: Leak Frequencies from Process Equipment .........................................................198

SENES vii HOEC

Figure 3-4: Average PM2.5 Values at the Monitoring Locations ...........................................88

SENES viii HOEC

Figure 6-5: VCE Modeling Results for Overpressure ...........................................................204

KCl Potassium Chloride

Block Location & Accessibility

Gas Gathering Station (GGS)

Gas Processing Plant (GPP)

• Site construction: Construction and development work will be done on

Project Utilities and Resource Requirements

BASELINE ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS

QUANTITATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

11 Wildlife • Movement of heavy vehicles will be restricted at night time, especially in

TABLE 1-1: COMPLIANCE TO MOEF TOR

1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

1.3 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

1.4 STRUCTURE OF THE EIA REPORT

2.2 OBJECTIVES OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Objectives of the proposed development activities are summarized below:

2.3 AAP-ON-94/1 BLOCK LOCATION & DESCRIPTION

Block AAP-ON-94/1 is located in Assam-Arakan Basin and falls within geologically

FIGURE 2-1: REGIONAL SETTING MAP OF DIROK DEVELOPMENT FIELD

FIGURE 2-2: DIROK DEVELOPMENT FIELD LOCATION MAP ON TOPOSHEET

FIGURE 2-3: DIROK DEVELOPMENT FIELD LOCATION MAP ON SATELLITE IMAGERY

FIGURE 2-4: ACCESSIBILITY MAP

2.4 AAP-ON-94/1 BLOCK- DIROK DEVELOPMENT FIELD

2.4.1 Environmental Settings of Dirok Development Field

Environmental Setting of Dirok Development Field

Tropical Rainforest of Dehing Patkai WLS Tea Garden of Dirok T.E.

Burhi Dihing River Factory of Dirok T.E.

FIGURE 2-5: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTINGS OF DIROK DEVELOPMENT FIELD

2.4.2 Existing Activity in the Block

2.5 LOCATION OF WELLS, PROPOSED GPP AND GGS

Well No Co-ordinate Village name/ Panchayat Dev. Block/District

2.6 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTINGS OF WELLS, GGS, GPP AND PIPELINE

2.6.1 Wells and GGS

Dirok 1 and Dirok 2

Dirok 4 and Proposed GGS

FIGURE 2-6: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF DIROK 1 AND DIROK 2 SITES

FIGURE 2-7: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF DIROK 4 AND GGS

FIGURE 2-8: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF DIROK 5

FIGURE 2-9: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF DIROK 6

FIGURE 2-10: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF DIROK 7

2.6.2 Environmental Setting of GPP

FIGURE 2-11: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF GPP

Landownership along the Pipeline Route

Settlements along the Pipeline Route

Major Crossings along the Pipeline Route

Ecologically Sensitive Zones along the Pipeline Route

Industries along the Pipeline Route