Feds Fight Tougher Coalbed Methane Wastewater Standards In Montana

[hatrack]

HELENA - A federal agency is putting pressure on Montana regulators to back away from a proposed crackdown on coalbed methane wastewater. The U.S. Department of Energy says it was called in at the request of Wyoming state officials, who have worried their northern neighbor may go overboard with water quality rules.

The Board of Environmental review was left wondering why the Department of Energy had a representative at a hearing earlier this month on a proposal that would apply tougher water quality restrictions on coalbed methane operations. "You don't typically get those type of individuals traveling to testify," said Robin Shropshire, a member of the state Board of Environmental Review that is looking at tougher water rules.

The prospect of large-scale, coalbed methane drilling in southeastern Montana has led to bitter disputes between conservationists, some land owners and the natural gas industry. But federal regulators are an uncommon sight in the battle. John Veil, a Washington D.C.-based manager with the Argonne National Laboratories, said he was sent by the Department of Energy to a hearing on the proposed coalbed methane rules. He stood as an opponent and spoke against the tougher measures. While he acknowledged that it was "somewhat unusual" for the DOE to get involved in such disputes, "there is great concern that if this proposal would be put in place the way it is now it would severely restrict coalbed methane production in Montana." The Department of Energy hasn't officially weighed in on the issue, but the agency is preparing an analysis of Montana's proposed rules.

Drilling for coalbed methane involves the release of volumes of groundwater to ease the pressure holding the natural gas in coal seams. The disposal of that water is a huge concern for a number of ranchers and conservationists, who argue that the water can be salty or of poor quality and harmful to crops. David Alleman, with the DOE's National Energy Technology Laboratory, said they are working under the assumption the rules could impact both Montana and Wyoming gas production. One of the goals of the agency is to ensure an abundant energy supply for the country. The proposed coalbed methane rule in Montana could get in the way, he said. The rule could require coalbed methane operators in Wyoming to change the way they release waste water into rivers and streams that flow into Montana. That could curtail gas production, Alleman said. "It's our feeling that what is being proposed here is an attempt to go beyond what is reasonable," said John Wagner, director of Wyoming's Water Quality Division.

EDIT

http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2005/12/26/build/state/25-methane.inc

[spun_in_montana]

1. Having been active on this issue in Montana

I doubt that any stricter controls by the feds or the state will be effective in stopping the waste of our most precious resource.
One need only to fly over the Montana/Wyoming border near the Powder River Basin to see the affects CBM has had on not only the wildlife but the ranchers as well. The Wyoming side looks parched while the Montana side enjoys a much more "natural" state.
I wish them luck.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

2. You've got friends in this fight in West Virginia!

"Salt sands" as they were once called can poison entire ecosystems with their brines. The salt sands of the Kanawha Valley in WV were the origins of industrial giants like DuPont and Union Carbide. Now, the Kanawha Valley has monumental cancer clusters, the unhealthiest men in the nation (according to Men's Health Magazine) and moonscapes where our mountains used to be.

We talk about it from time to time on my radio show: "Head-On With Bob Kincaid," airting nightly from 7-10 p.m. ET and available world wide through the good offices of the White Rose Society at www.whiterosesociety.org/Kincaid.html

And welcome to DU!

[zeaper]

3. Is this precious resource a deadly poison?

spun_in_montana wrote:

I doubt that any stricter controls by the feds or the state will be effective in stopping the waste of our most precious resource.

Then GrpCaptMandrake wrote:

Now, the Kanawha Valley has monumental cancer clusters, the unhealthiest men in the nation.

It appears that you two must be talking about different things-or is this “precious resource” that we should not waste really the cause of cancer.

Things might look bad in a plane but from the ground but the Wyoming CBM fields look no different than the fields of Montana. I think it is time that Montana got off its butt and create some jobs and tax revenue. From what I understand there are plenty of regulations on the books to keep this industry from causing too much trouble.

The main opposition for this development is coming from eco groups that are getting paid out of state money to beat their drums. The working poor in Montana need development for good jobs and some tax relief.

[benburch]

4. Actually, they are talking about the same thing!

The environment is the precious resource referred to in the original posting. The Water Table in particular. Remember we are talking of areas where most people get their water from wells that are likely no deeper than the local Water Table.

[zeaper]

5. What about the cancer?

But, if this water cause’s cancer, as GrpCaptMandrake implied, is it really a precious resource or a dangerous poison. You can’t have it both ways.