| |
|
Thursday, September 11, 2008
|
|
From The Durango Herald: "La Plata County has released its most recent revision of new gas and oil regulations for the public to comment on ahead of a possible final vote on the rules Sept. 23. The latest version was approved last month by the county's planning commission and requires, among other things, that companies disclose the chemicals they use to the county and emergency medical personnel. The update - the county's first in about a decade - comes as the state is also in the final stages of a major overhaul of its rules to give greater weight to public health and the environment. The two entities' rules could overlap in areas."
More from the article:
The disclosure of chemicals became a prominent local issue after it was revealed this spring that a Mercy Regional Medical Center nurse had become seriously ill after treating a patient exposed to a proprietary hydraulic fracturing chemical. The new rules would require operators to keep an updated inventory of chemicals and disclose this to the county or emergency medical personnel when requested. Another major change is the right for neighboring landowners to appeal proposed wells. Previously, only surface owners had that right.
The recommended draft also changes the definition of a major facility to cover internal-combustion engines with a cumulative horsepower of 200. Before, generators were considered individually, rather than cumulatively, meaning a company could have various types of them on a well pad without being considered a major facility...
Josh Joswick, who follows gas and oil issues for the San Juan Citizens Alliance, said the environmental group sees the planning commission's version as a step in the right direction. But he would like to see other issues addressed, such as drilling near the Fruitland Outcrop, where dangerous methane seeps are a concern. Christi Zeller, executive director of the pro-industry La Plata County Energy Council, said that it was a mistake for the county to push forward before the state has finished its process because of potential conflicts...
The county is accepting comments through Monday. Nau said the deadline could be extended if the Sept. 23 public hearing is changed because a state oil and gas hearing in Denver is on the same day...
If you go: A public hearing and possible final vote on La Plata County's revised oil and gas regulations will take place at 7 p.m. Sept. 23 in the Anasazi Room of the county courthouse. A copy of the rules is available at co.laplata.co.us. Public comments can be e-mailed to Oil and Gas Planner Kathleen Murphy at murphyka@co.laplata.co.us. For more information, call Murphy at 382-6269.
"cc"
6:19:19 PM 
|
|
From The Norwood Post: "The good thing about the proposed uranium mill outside of Naturita is that it is situated far above and away from any water the facility would potentially contaminate. The bad thing about the proposed uranium mill is that it is so far away from water that the water needed to process the uranium will be difficult or expensive to acquire. George Glasier is the CEO of Energy Fuels, the company that is planning the Piñon Ridge uranium mill. He said that the facility would get some of the necessary water from wells dug on his property, and that some of the water would need to be hauled from either the San Miguel or Dolores River. This is no small amount of water -- Glasier and other Energy Fuels representatives confirm that the mill would use an estimated 300 gallons of water, every minute of every day, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to process the hoped-for 1,000 tons of uranium ore daily."
"colorado water"
5:46:24 PM
|
|
Here's a look at today's hearing before the Colorado Supreme Court over the water court ruling about produced water from coal-bed methane wells, from The Aspen Times. From the article:
The court [will hear arguments today] in a dispute over water that's pumped from the ground in order to draw natural gas out of coal beds. The justices are expected to rule later. Landowners in southwest Colorado had sued, saying the practice threatens their limited water supplies. They argue that gas companies should defer to water users with older water rights and replace the water they use when it belongs to others. The state engineer, who administers Colorado water law, and BP America Production Co., appealed a ruling last year by a district court in La Plata County that said the water produced while extracting the gas from coal seams is subject to state water law.
Pumping groundwater relieves the pressure trapping the methane gas trapped in the coal seams. Other gas drilling might produce water, but not in the volumes that coal-bed methane extraction does. Millions of gallons of water might be pumped over the life of one well. BP America and the state engineer say the water is a waste product of the drilling and should continue to be regulated under state oil and gas rules. BP America re-injects the water into the ground, usually at deeper levels than they draw it. "BP supports the state's position that the current regulatory framework which is based on established Colorado water law adequately protects the water rights in these (coal-bed methane) production areas," BP America spokeswoman Paula Barnett said in a written statement. "We await the court's decision before further commenting on the case."
If the lower court decision stands, companies drilling coal-bed methane would have to apply for well permits or replace the water they divert with water they buy elsewhere. "I think it would put energy producers into the lineup with every other water user. That would be a dramatic change," Sarah Klahn, the attorney representing the two ranching families who sued, said after the hearing. A water district and a city in south-central Colorado, where coal-bed methane drilling is on the rise, filed briefs supporting Klahn's clients. Klahn is involved in a similar case in Wyoming, another big coal-bed methane producing area.
Colorado Solicitor General Dan Domenico, arguing for the state engineer's office, said making energy companies get well permits for water that is a byproduct of drilling and which the companies don't use is stretching the bounds of state water law.
District Court Judge Gregory Lyman in Durango said in his July 2, 2007, ruling that water produced from coal-bed methane drilling fits the definition of water being put to "a beneficial use," the trigger under Colorado law requiring the state engineer to regulate the water use and companies to follow water law. That means the companies would have to defer to users with older water rights or submit a plan to replace water they divert from other users. The families who sued have used springs, seeps and surface water for more than 30 years and are concerned that pumping area groundwater will deplete their sources. The area is in southwest Colorado's San Juan Basin, a major coal-bed methane producer. Water districts and communities in the Raton Basin of south-central Colorado, where coal-bed development is spreading, filed briefs in the case supporting the plaintiffs: William Vance Jr., Elizabeth Vance, James Fitzgerald and Mary Fitzgerald. The briefs by the Purgatoire River Water Conservancy District in Colorado Springs and the city of Trinidad say the magnitude and impact of water depletions from coal-bed methane drilling in the Raton Basin appear to be much greater than depletions in southwest Colorado.
Meanwhile Las Animas County was at yesterday's meeting of the Arkansas Basin Roundtable arguing for the benefits to the county from produced water from coal-bed methane wells, according to The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
Officials in Las Animas County don't want a one-size-fits-all regulation for water produced by drilling for natural gas. Water users in the county gain millions of gallons of water every day from gas wells, County Commissioner Ken Torres told the Arkansas Basin Roundtable Wednesday. "We need that water," Torres said, recounting the wildfires and water shortages of the 2002 drought. "Without that water, farmers and ranchers lose more and the county loses more." He said the water from gas wells is also a primary source of water for dust and fire suppression in the county.
"We don't need a one-size policy," Torres said. "We could lose everything. We're trying to put the water to beneficial use. It's an issue that could affect the county for the next 20 years." The roundtable met in Trinidad specifically to hear about the issues surrounding coal-bed methane produced water. It's an issue that is occupying state attention this week, said Jeris Danielson, general manager of the Purgatoire River Water Conservancy District...
The district's attorney was meeting with the Division of Water Resources on potential new rules Wednesday. On Thursday, the Colorado Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on a Durango-area case, Vance v. Simpson, in which ranchers are claiming coal-bed methane pumping represents a beneficial use of water and has the potential to affect agricultural water rights. Danielson, a former state engineer himself, said there was a prior ruling in the Purgatoire district in Division 2 Water Court, but that the state has chosen not to enforce depletions from gas-well pumping. The district sides with the plaintiffs in the Vance v. Simpson case, he said...
"The Purgatoire River district has a decree for 20,000 acre-feet, so a depletion of 1,250 acre-feet is significant," Danielson said. "We have no idea how (drilling) is affecting domestic wells," Torres added. Besides the depletion to the Purgatoire River, there is a similar amount in the Cucharas River from drilling, Topper said. Topper explained that water is considered a waste product in the energy business, one that companies would pay to eliminate. In most natural gas wells, the production of water increases over time as the gas is removed. In coal-bed methane wells, there is more water up front, with gas production increasing over time. The coal-bed methane situation is complicated because the gas well fields are relatively shallow aquifers that are tributary to surface water supplies. The companies producing the water have three options: Putting the water to a beneficial use, releasing it to streams if it is of sufficient quality or re-injecting the water, Topper said. The state's regulation remains a gray area, however, and administration is difficult...
Shortly after assuming his new job last year, State Engineer Dick Wolfe told The Pueblo Chieftain that the implications of the current Supreme Court case could affect not only coal-bed methane, but all natural gas wells in the state. He indicated the state would move carefully on regulations.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.
"colorado water"
6:04:44 AM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2009 John Orr.
Last update: 3/15/09; 2:38:49 PM.
|
|
|
