Red Lodge Clearinghouse

The 2005 federal Energy Policy Act required Interior, in consultation with U.S. EPA, to arrange for the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study on the effect of coalbed methane production on surface and ground water resources, including ground water aquifers, in the states of Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Utah and Wyoming.

The law said the study should gauge the effectiveness of current mitigation and recommend necessary changes to "address adverse impacts." The law required the study to be completed within a year.

A panel of the National Academy of Sciences met last week in Denver with state and federal regulators to gather information about what information is known regarding the effects of coalbed methane production on surface and groundwater and determine what issues merit further study.

The Bureau of Land Management, which has authority over mineral development on federal lands, asked the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences to sponsor last week's forum as a way to help inform the agency's decisionmaking process regarding the need and scope for an independent study on the effects of coalbed methane production on water resources.

Coalbed methane production accounted for 9.4 percent of the nation's natural gas production in 2006, and the percentage is growing, Mary Smith of EPA said in her presentation to the panel.

BLM spokeswoman Heather Feeney said agency officials plan to meet with NAS in the next few days to determine the scope of further study efforts.

NAS spokeswoman Jennifer Walsh said the Interior Department has not yet requested that NAS perform the study and neither the academy nor the committee that held last weeks' hearing will issue a report on the meeting since it was not part of a formal study.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, sent a letter last September to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne accusing the department of ignoring its duty to perform the congressionally mandated study. Waxman said anything less than a comprehensive NAS study of environmental and health issues that includes recommendations would fail to meet EPAct's requirements (Greenwire, Sept. 7, 2007).

'We don't take water for granted'

Robert Ukeiley of WildEarth Guardians said BLM has not done a good job of addressing water quality issues related to coalbed methane production. "For federally owned CBM, they should be using their authority to better protect water from CBM operations," he said.

Bruce Baizel of the Oil and Gas Accountability Project questioned the need for further study of the effects of water produced by coalbed methane operations, noting that effects to soil, surface water and ground water have already been shown in the Powder River Basin and effects to wells have been seen in the Raton and San Juan basins.

"Why aren't they just going ahead and addressing those impacts? I'm not sure further research is needed there," Baizel said. "Maybe research on the technology to treat the water is needed. That might be fruitful, but particularly in the Powder River, it seems pretty clear there are impacts to surface waters in particular."

While the debate over coalbed methane has not been as heated in New Mexico and Colorado as it has been in the Powder River Basin, some residents there have also had to deal with negative effects from coalbed methane production.

John Stump, who lives in a rural subdivision about 180 miles south of Denver, said gray water started coming out of his water well about a week after a coalbed methane well was drilled about 2,000 feet away. "It literally looked like someone had dumped bags of concrete into my cistern," he said.

Stump suspects the cement migrated to his well after Pioneer Natural Resources injected cement into the ground to seal any cracks or crevices in the nearby coalbed methane well. Pioneer has denied responsibility for Stump's well problems, although tests have shown the sludge in his cistern is partially made up of a cement-based product.

Stump now hauls his water to his house 350 gallons at a time.

"If you live in a town or a city or you have a good well, you take [water] for granted," Stump said. "We don't take water for granted any more by any means."

The role of water in CBM extraction

Coalbed methane extraction requires the removal of large amounts of water from underground coal seams to release the methane gas. Pollutants found in these waters include chloride, sodium, sulfate, bicarbonate, fluoride, iron, barium, magnesium, ammonia and arsenic.

The quantity and quality of water that is produced in association with coalbed methane extraction varies from site to site and over the lifetime of a well. The produced water can sometimes be used in agricultural and livestock operations, but other times high levels of sodium and other dissolved organics make the water unusable for irrigation. Additionally, taking water out of the coal seams may also decrease water in irrigation wells in connecting aquifers, rendering them unusable.

The country's major coalbed methane producing areas are the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana and the San Juan Basin in Colorado and New Mexico. Most of the water released to free methane gas in the San Juan Basin is reinjected into the ground, while much of the water in the Powder River Basin is released into streams.

Jon Jaffe of Anadarko Petroleum, a major coalbed methane producer in the Powder River Basin, said his company treats more than 100,000 barrels of water per day through ion exchange. Many operators do not treat their water before it is released, however.

Because of concerns about high sodium levels in water produced during coalbed methane extraction in the Powder River Basin, the Montana Board of Environmental Review passed "nondegradation" standards in 2006 to protect irrigated lands in southeastern Montana. EPA recently approved those water quality standards, despite concerns in Wyoming that the new rules could hamper the energy industry (Land Letter, March 6).

The state of Wyoming and the energy industry have challenged the rules in court, arguing that Montana's actions could negatively affect energy development.

EPA may develop effluent guidelines

EPA plans to collect information from coalbed methane producers to determine whether effluent guidelines are needed to control the discharge of pollutants into surface waters and municipal water supplies. If the plan is approved, EPA would collect detailed information from about 400 facilities, including data on source water characteristics, management techniques, costs and financial data.

EPA is seeking public comment on the questionnaires before submitting them to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval. Comments are due by April 24.

EPA's effluent guidelines do not currently regulate pollutant discharges from coalbed methane operations.

EPA identified the coalbed methane industry as a candidate for detailed study in its 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan and also announced plans to develop an industry questionnaire to support this detailed study. EPA is conducting the study to determine whether it should initiate effluent guidelines to control pollutants discharged in water produced by coalbed methane extraction.

Gable is an independent energy and environmental writer in Woodland Park, Colo.

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Name

Email

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (Registered users only)

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment