Study says Wyoming needs better management of coal-bed methane
January 2006
U.S. Water News Online
GILLETTE, Wyo. -- Wyoming's failure to come up with comprehensive regulations controlling coal-bed methane development may be to blame for friction between landowners and energy companies, a new study by University of Wyoming researchers suggests.
That same regulatory failure also plays a role in Montana's move to enact coal-bed methane water regulations that could curtail production in Wyoming, says the study by the University of Wyoming's Ruckelshaus Institute of Environment and Natural Resources.
"Strongly held disagreements and difficulties about CBM development generally, and water management specifically, have gotten to the point that, at the very least, continued growth in CBM production may be under some threat," the study states.
Wyoming has so far only captured 5 percent of its estimated $140 billion in coal-bed methane reserves, the study states. Production dropped by 5 percent from 2003 to 2004 "due to difficulties in managing and disposing of CBM water," according to the study.
Coal-bed methane production often involves pumping huge quantities of groundwater to relieve pressure that holds the gas in coal seams. Some ranchers and conservationists have complained about wasting water by pumping and about poor water quality.
Gov. Dave Freudenthal's administration and some in the energy industry were less than enthusiastic about the study's conclusions.
Lara Azar, spokeswoman for Freudenthal, said the study appears to have succeeded in gathering and combining a lot of different points of view.
"It's clear that there isn't a silver bullet to deal with some of these issues, but there's potential for looking further into the viability of some of the ideas presented," Azar said.
Among the ideas suggested in the study are giving state regulatory agencies shared, or "overarching" authority over coal-bed methane matters, and the creation of a "CBM" coordinator as the one authority responsible for the state's management of the industry.
Gene George, a Casper geologist, reviewed the study. He has worked closely with coal-bed methane development since it started in the Powder River Basin along the Montana-Wyoming border.
"Some of the things they pointed out are valid points that need to be addressed," George said. "It was done by people who are good people but don't have real practical knowledge of the subjects. So some of the recommendations won't work in the real, practical aspects of what we're doing."
George said state and federal agencies involved in regulating the industry are already working hard to coordinate their efforts and share information. He said he views the study as a "committee" approach to problems that the experts still have not found answers to.
George also said issues regarding coal-bed methane water management seem to be blown out of proportion.
"I don't see that we have a huge problem with water. We're getting permits, we're meeting water quality, and we're protecting agriculture," George said. "There are many, many good things happening with the water that do benefit a lot of people."
Organizers and researchers behind the Ruckelshaus study say that recognizing problems with the CBM industry is only a small portion of the document. And they say it's used to introduce detailed facts and potential solutions.
"Blood pressure is pretty high in all corners," said Harold Bergman, director of the Ruckelshaus Institute. "There's no experience out there that would have foretold, clearly, what the consequences (of coal-bed methane development) would be. Now there's been a fair amount of good experience, and now is the time to take a deep breath and figure out how we're going to move forward and do it better."
Return to the U.S. Water News' Archives page
Or
Return to the U.S. Water News Homepage
Editor@uswaternews.com |
