Coalbed report valuable tool

http://www.canada.com/edmonton/edmontonjournal/editorials/story.asp?id=96828FA9-AD47-400A-A8DD-227713A34EC3
The Edmonton Journal

Monday, July 21, 2003
 
There is little doubt that coalbed methane could add decades to Alberta's production of natural gas -- just as the oilsands are massively extending the province's oil reserves.

But if this emerging industry is to go ahead, our environmental policy likely will need to be amended to manage its impact on underground and surface water, private land and homes, air quality and greenhouse gases.

While the environmental risks from coalbed methane are laid out in an impressive report from the Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development, it does not make the case that coping with this new industry requires sweeping changes to the regulatory regime.

The southern half of our province sits on deeply buried coalbeds that also hold methane, the main ingredient of natural gas. Using existing technology, recoverable methane reserves are estimated at 20 trillion cubic feet -- compared to conventional gas reserves that have declined to 41 trillion cubic feet.

Two companies already are producing coalbed methane commercially. Several others have lanched pilot projects.

This production has raised serious environmental concerns.

Many of the coalbeds are saturated with water that must be removed before the gas can be extracted.

Some of that water is fresh, and can be disposed of in lakes and streams. The concern here is that methane production could deplete underground aquifers, reducing well water available to neighbouring landowners. As a result, Alberta Environment already invites public input before allowing any fresh water removal.

Some of the coalbeds are immersed in water with high concentrations of salt and heavy metals -- water that cannot be released on the surface. The Alberta Energy and Utilities Board requires that it be injected into saline aquifers that lie below zones of underground fresh water. The worry here is that saline water could contaminate fresh water.

Removing coalbed methane also creates a risk that some of that greenhouse gas could escape to the atmosphere.

In the U.S., where coalbeds provide nine per cent of natural gas production, wells produce slowly and may take one year or more before reaching economic levels. Meanwhile, the gas often is flared -- wasting a resource, releasing carbon dioxide, and polluting the air.

Because the productivity of each well is relatively low, coalbed methane production normally requires two to eight wells per section of land -- compared to just one well per section for producing conventional gas.

This multiplies the number of surface disturbances such as well sites, pipelines, roads, and noise -- affecting neighbours, farms and animal and plant life.

A major benefit of conventional gas has been the royalty payments to the Alberta government. Coalbed methane production, however, likely will be far costlier, and commercially viable only with lower royalties. It may provide new activity for the energy industry -- but not a big royalty flow to offset declining conventional gas revenues.

The Pembina Institute report, by Mary Griffiths and Chris Severson-Baker, contains some excellent advice about regulatory reform for the EUB and Alberta Environment. But not all of it.

For example, the proposal to require environmental impact assessments of the effects of large-scale coalbed methane projects seems reasonable at first glance. But it implicitly criticizes the EUB -- which already has the authority to require a formal assessment, and the discretion to not require one.

Griffiths claims that the EUB has no mandate to review surface and air-quality impacts. In truth, the board has an extremely wide mandate, says David Percy, professor of environmental law at the University of Alberta. That mandate, he says, is "to effect conservation of resources, to control pollution, and to apply economic, orderly and efficient development in the public interest."

At Alberta Environment, spokesman Robert Moyles says there is no consensus on the meaning of "environmental impact assessment." He insists, however, that the current approval process does assess "the impact of a project on a particular environment."

Alberta Environment now is planning a review of coalbed methane. "There will be a public consultation," Moyles says. "We want to understand people's concerns and see how existing rules and regulations might be improved."

That process should make good use of the Pembina Institute's excellent study, and must ensure that a cross-section of Albertans can join in evaluating the costs and benefits of an industry with huge potential for business, jobs, government revenue, energy for Albertans -- and with an impact on another valuable resource, the environment.