The end is nigh!

[coppertop]

Interestingly enough there is a column in today's Edmonton Journal calling for a moratorium on CBM drilling. The article is written by the NDP Environment critic, and he feels that concerns about the enviromnent;water safety,noise pollution,land use and property rights must be addressed before further development proceeds.

Now, I am not NDP, but I do agree with his notion that a proper management framework needs to be in place.
If we look back on the development of various oil and gas fields in Alberta, and realize that the Environmental Enhancement and Protection Act only came into effect in the 1980's, we can see that there has already been significant development without appropriate regard for the enviromnent....do we want to regress or do we want to see CBM developed in an sustainable manner.

[cakadu]

The real concern we have out here when it comes to water is the fact that for the better part of the last 100 years, the surface water has been drained away thanks to the some 160 miles of drainage ditch out this way.

It's pretty simple hydrology really, no surface water, not much chance of groundwater being able to recharge to any degree, if at all. Hence the significant problems with finding enough water to satisfy household needs let alone anything else.

What water is around needs to be protected to some degree not only for present needs, but future needs as well.

I have some difficulty understanding how having a plan to do all this drilling is misconstrued as wanting to shut it all down. There isn't a cause and effect relationship here.

[cowman]

I do understand that your area, Linda, has a few pretty "tough companies"? One guy told me they don't mess around...talk to you once and apply for a "Right of Entry"...which the surface rights board quickly rubberstamps!
CBM wells are still basically 4 to a quarter? I assume you have both heard of the two pilot projects, one in Mountain View county and one in RD county. One township in each will be subject to "intense developement"...64 wells per section? 27-35-w4 in Red Deer County! The EUB had an info night about two weeks ago at a local hall? Un-fortunately I couldn't attend but got some of the low down from the neighbor.
4 wells per pad and pipelines in a grid pattern. If it makes sense economically this eventually could become the norm!
I think the better rules on casing the wells far below the aquifier and the better fraccing rules pretty well addresses the water problem? They know a lot more about how the coal seam fracs than they did 4 years ago?
I think we have to be realistic here. The companies need to get their product out of the ground and the government of Alberta through the EUB...is going to make sure they do?
I'd be a lot more concerned about sour gas or the environmental problems at Fort Mac than coalbed methane? It really isn't the big boogeyman that certain people have portrayed it as.

[cowman]

Linda: One more thing.
When I was A boy my old man was an avid trout fisherman so every Sunday we'd hit the Clearwater, Swan Creek, Stony, Stauffer creek etc.? Driving through your area there were an awful lot of boggy farms that really were only good for poor pasture? Large drainage projects over the years have created some pretty darned decent farm land? One example would be just west of Spruceview?
I find it also interesting that there are some pretty impressive farms where once they were just tarpaper shacks and "stump farms"!
The land east of Rocky was like Dog Patch until a few enterprizing Dutch immigrants came in drained the land and taught the natives how to farm bog?
I do know there are areas close to where you live where water wells are very difficult to find, but one old timer told me it was always that way.

[cakadu]

It might be hard to find water around here EXCEPT for the quarter we're sitting on, which is why we will protect it as much as we can.

We weren't the ones that asked for the 300 meter setback - the EUB imposed it on them.

I don't think you can separate out and compartmentalize each of the actions i.e. Fort Mac, CBM etc. It will be a cumulative effect and we need to address it that way. All I can say is lord help us if that type of intensity on CBM becomes the norm. Quite frankly, I don't think we need anything that badly and certainly not without doing it in a sustainable manner.

The question I would pose is how do we know it isn't the boogeyman when we haven't had much of it before? Copper brings up a good point in that we didn't think we were doing too bad a few years ago either.

[cowman]

Linda: Well I would suggest to you that a lot of landowners don't see it that way?
If the government land use policy says they can't do anything with their land but farm it, and farming remains basically a breakeven deal, then they certainly might welcome 16 wells per quarter section? Depending on how well they did their homework, they might be getting surface rights for 16 wells? Now I would suggest in 27-35-w4 a surface right per well is around $2500? Sixteen times $2500 is $40,000...every year! The coalbed wells have a life expectancy of 30 to 40 years...at a recent surface rights meeting they suggested that might be as high as 80 years!
I think we are close to coming to a better deal on pipeline compensation? Some of the companies are even saying privately that something has to change? Several challenges to the status quo are working their way through the system! At one meeting I went to the Surface Rights representative said it is only a matter of time! How many thousands will pipelines add to the yearly rent?
However you look at it that sure beats growing barley or chasing cows around! And you have 4 little 10ft X 10ft exclosures on your land...and the rest you continue to farm! Or you could just lie back and let mother nature take it back and have a wildlife santuary! Maybe collect some "carbon credits"? Why we just might be the "landed gentry"!!!
At Joffre right now, they are installing equipment to collect CO2 for injection? Word has it that soon the Rimbey Gas plant will be doing the same thing? CO2 injection works and the future possibilities of "carbon credits" makes it a very,very viable option!
The solution to any problem is seldom "back to the past"? Technology and modern thinking can and probably will solve most of these problems. This save the farmland and stop all developement is usually coming from people who don't own any or have to make a living off it!

[coppertop]

cowman, the key to this is really the safety of the water supply isn't it ? No-one would mind resource extraction if they were assured that the air they breathe and the water they drink and require for other uses is going to still be safe and available. I do not want to see country residential development in my area, simply because I live 10 miles from town, there are two feedlots in close proximity that are both multi-generation family run operations that are farming full time, and quite frankly large scale farming and a bunch of city or town types wanting their own little piece of heaven do not mix. Dealing with the oil and gas industry is something that comes with this territory and we land owners have had to learn the ropes and look after our interests. CBM has not been a factor here yet, and may never be.

[cowman]

And I wonder...will some people ever be satisfied with whatever assurances...that the water supply is safe? Or is that really the issue?
There are a whole bunch of "environmentalists" who I like to call watermellon environmentalists? You know...green on the outside...and very red in the middle? Not really interested in the science of the matter...more concerned that some "evil USA corporation" might be exploiting them?
Really more concerned with political idealism than economic reality?
These are the people who would like to see us living the horse and buggy days again...or at least the great unwashed redneck peasants who actually have to make their living off the land?...not to keen on that role for themselves!
Thank God the majority of Albertans can see through these "closet communists" for what they are and don't support them in any way?

[cakadu]

Cowman, there are an awful lot of judgments and generalizations in your statements. I believe in what I am doing and no amount of money will ever make me feel like it is adequate compensation.

You might not like the beauty of wildlife, green spaces and more importantly open spaces, however some of us really do.

There is absolutely no way that any of these CBM guys have a crystal ball to know that the safety of our water is and will remain intact.

The other thing you are not considering over the long term is that the money will be great until it isn't there anymore. Then what do you do with the land and more importantly, who will buy it? If you don't ever intend on selling the land, then it might be a good deal for some.

The other point is that if it were only the 10 x 10 patch you're talking about that might be one thing, but they have the lease road, need access and all the other stuff that goes along with it. Over simplifying isn't the answer either.

Of course these guys are going to come armed with all the relevant information to make it sound like everything is safe. So too, do the powerline people come with all their studies saying everything is fine if you live in the proximity of a high voltage power line. Doesn't mean that I have to take their information at face value.

[cowman]

Linda: Well no you don't have to believe anything they say, and you can try your best to hold things up.
The fact is most Alberta farmland is only owned for 500 feet and then someone else owns it? No one can deny the owner of that resource at 501 feet from having access to it. As far as powerlines/roads etc. there has to be some method to take that right of way...with just compensation! Now I don't believe in many cases the company/government give just compensation? I think there needs to be higher recognition of what the landowner is giving up for the good of society. In a commercial operation,especially, there has to be a better return to the landowner that reflects more fairness? If a company ships millions of dollars of electricity over a power line or millions of dollars of gas through a pipeline...I believe the landowner deserves some better compensation that reflects the value of the commodity.
But then...I don't make the rules! The people of Alberta do, through their elected officials.

[cakadu]

Cowman, it isn't as black and white as you state it. If wanting a plan - any plan at this point - that will look at things in totality and sustainably is holding things up, then I am guilty of that.

We cannot continue to do things at the pace that we are and not expect any consequences. I would also question whether this is being done for the good of society or if it is being done for the benefit of a few. I don't see my gas, natural gas, electricity or any other costs going down.

I see us shipping raw products out of this province/country and buying back more expensive refined goods. That is not working to the good of society.

[coppertop]

Linda, that is one thing that our new Premier has challenged his government to rectify. He wants to see our goods refined here, and he needs the support of Albertans vs the multinationals to get the process underway.

Have you contacted the new Minister's office with respect to the issues on your own land ? I would suggest a letter if nothing else. Mel Knight is a pretty savvy fellow and in my opinion a very fair man.