pilot project for cbm?

[cowman]

Attended the "pilot project" meeting for CBM developement in one township in Red Deer County and was very impressed! It is amazing how industry, landowners, municipalities, and government agencies can get along...when they all sit down and talk?
I went away with the attitude that "oil and gas developement" doesn't have to be "my way or the highway!" Hats off to all the volunteers who made this thing happen? We could all learn a lot from this?

[coppertop]

News Release


Calgary, Alberta (February 1, 2007) The Alberta Geological Survey (AGS) group of the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (EUB) has completed a study entitled Water Chemistry of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs that examined the natural chemistry of water from both domestic water wells and coal bed methane wells in central Alberta.

Highlights of the study include:

Age dating, as well as biological and chemical analyses of water samples in the central Alberta study area has found that water from coal bed methane wells and domestic water wells have separate and distinct chemical compositions.
The study indicates that bacteria in water wells could be generating naturally occurring methane in varying amounts depending on the location and condition of the well. Although these naturally occurring bacteria do not thrive in aquifers, they flourish and multiply in water wells where the pumping action of the well provides them with an enhanced level of nutrients.
The study collected and examined water samples from twenty water and coal bed methane wells in a 38,300 square kilometre area of central Alberta that included four major water drainage basins, those of the Athabasca, North Saskatchewan, Battle and Red Deer rivers. Water samples were collected from existing domestic water wells and existing coal bed methane wells and age dated according to established scientific methods.

The findings of the study will add to the existing knowledge base about coal bed methane development in Alberta.

Sampling and testing of water was completed according to protocols compiled by the Alberta Geological Survey and based on those developed by the Geological Survey of Canada, the University of Calgary, the University of Alberta, the University of Saskatchewan and the United States Geological Survey.

Water samples were tested at the University of Toronto, Purdue University and independent labs within Canada and the United States.

The two-year study was partially funded by the Alberta Energy Research Institute.

The EUB ensures that the discovery, development, and delivery of Alberta's resources and utility services take place in a manner that is fair, responsible, and in the public interest.

The study can be found at: http://www.ags.gov.ab.ca/publications/newreports.shtml

For more information:

[farmers_son]

And just what do you expect the EUB to say? Yes it is true that “bacteria in water wells could be generating naturally occurring methane in varying amounts depending on the location and condition of the well.” I would think it would be well past time to clean the well out. However it is also possible that methane could be entering domestic water wells from coal bed methane. And a whole lot more likely.

“The EUB ensures that the discovery, development, and delivery of Alberta's resources and utility services take place in a manner that is fair, responsible, and in the public interest. “ However what is in the publics interest may not what is in the best interest of the farmer whose well has gone dry or is otherwise ruined by energy activity. I guess it is also in the public’s interest that “for profit corporations” can take a farmer’s land by force to build a pipeline while only paying the farmer a fraction of what the right of way is really worth. We need to realize that in Alberta the public’s interest and the energy company’s interest is one and the same thing while the landowners interest is of little consequence and will only receive lip service at best.

Cowman: it would be interesting to see how the meeting would have gone if the energy company did not have the right to force their project down the landowner’s throat. Take away their right of expropriation backed up the Government of Alberta Surface Rights Board’s artificially low compensation awards and the town hall meeting with the energy company might have the energy developers talking turkey.

I notice government dollars being spent by the AGS and the EUB to justify further the energy company's interest. What department of the government is spending money to protect and further the landowners interest?

[wbrower]

The Office of Alberta Farmers Advocate was set up in the late 1970's to "protect and further the landowners interest". And the first Farmers Advocate, Helmut Entrup did stand up and fight for the interests of rural Albertans, that is until Peter Loughheed threatened him with termination in the mid 1980's. Since then that office has been a bad joke perpetrated on rural Alberta. It exists only to smooth the way for the petroleum industry, and to feed a tax collection bureacracy.

[cowman]

farmers son: While I do agree landowners are not getting enough compensation I also understand it is a neccessity to have some system in place to give companies access to their property?
The EUBs first priority is to get that well drilled...and it really should be! All Albertans benifit...they really do.
I think the EUB is trying to do a better job of communicating with landowners and that is a good thing? The fact is these companies are not going to go away and we need to acknowledge that? If the situation is so bad in Alberta you would see the present government getting the boot...but that is not happening...especially in rural Alberta?
I suspect the large majority of Alberta farmers welcome the oil and gas money? It probably has kept some of them solvent and still operating?
Many who gripe the loudest have no problem signing the lease...and are quite incensed if the oil company gets sick of them and moves over to the neighbors place!

[cowdog]

Well cowman it seems that you and I both attended the same meeting but, came away with very different impressions. The landowners work very hard and were lead to believe that they gained something; but , as was stated from the onset this was a EUB controlled process. Here are a few examples of what I mean:
1) the landowners fought to have setbacks for permement structures to be changed from 100 metres to the edge of the lease and got it after much rangling. So, what did they really get? The setbacks from structures with foundations only existed for the companies, the landowner has always had the right to construct a permenent structure that is not a residence up to the lease boundry ( its a fight that was won several years ago in Rimby). Now although it may be useful for some landowners to have wells drilled in their yards rather than their fields, this has liberated the CBM companies to do this to any landowner.
2) The landowners demanded a 911 number for problems with a five minute response time and got it, yahoo. But, what they argued for already existed the EUB field offices have had an answering service and a fieldman on call almost since there inception because of H2S leaks, and yes the response time is very quick. I have called several times after hours I know.
3) The bond logging of wells was also a failure portrayed as a triumph. The most commom reason for comingling of aquifers or gas entering aquifers is a poor cement job. In CBM wells these problems are exasterbated by the on going refracking of these well throughout their 40 plus year life time; therefore bondlogging of every well is an impairative. The sonic log tool is part of almost every log tool, to do a bond log during the intial log does not pose a great additional expense or much of a technical difficulty. A bond log of every well prior to completion is what the landowners should have demanded. What they got was an EUB audit of any well drilled. Does this apply to wells already completed? I am going to put this one to the test. Any bets as to my sucess?
4) Turning EUB fieldmen into weed inspectors seems to me to be about as easy as herding cats. If you do succeed in training them how often are they going to visit the wells in 35-27? Currently province wide the EUB inspects about 15,000 of the 650,000 plus active facilities; most of the facilities visited are problems and require at least 2 visits and some are uealth and saftey concerns that may require monthly audits, so, how many individual sites get audited province wide each year? Less than 5,000 a 1/130 chance. Take into seasonal growth and visibility in that season try a 1/520 chance add to this the fact that almost all audits result on complaints, I would play these odds if I was a CBM company and besides weeds are concidered a minor offence, it takes several even to trigger an enforcement action.

On the landowners guide the landowners did a reasonable job for a first draft and should be commended and they managed to get the Water Well Replacement Program to pay for interm water supply cost until a new water supply can be found, if they qualify and only after a year after the submission of recepts and application.

At the first meeting the companie's representative stated that they were going to drill 1 well per quarter and at this last meeting 2 per quarter, what happens if they hold another meeting. The companies also talked about common shared pipelines at the first meeting now they are talking about a common pipeline corridor. Which landowner gets to be the sacificial lamb for a 5 pipeline corridor? What I know for sure about the energy companies is that the only ones they like to screw more than the landowner is each other. I suspect that any attempt at co-operation will soon breakdown. The EUB cannot tell a company how to operate or who must be a partner in a facility they can only make general rules appling to all.

I noted that when the water expert was asked about the base of groundwater protection he danced about the question until a landowner at the front made a point of clarity saying that the experts company HCL had a web site at which any landowner could find the base of ground water protection for any land location in the area getting the expert to state this website was like pulling teeth without an anestetic. I played the little mouse in the corner after the meeting and heard this landowner and the expert talking about the proposed study and overheard the expert say that he is oftenpaid by the govnment to find the results they want. I don't know for sure who the landowner was but he seemed to know a lot about the experts work and water. the EUB project manager didn't seem to like him much but many people from the industry, the landowners, and the EUB knew him and talked with him. I think he must have been with the Pine Lake Surface Rights Action Group. I think the landowners of this area will be turning to them for help, I know I will be.

Coppertop have you read any of that study you are posting? I have down loaded it and begun going through it and so far it does not support the news release by the EUB's spin doctor Darin Barter. In addition to this did you see how few wells were actually sampled for the study? Read this scope of the study and you should realize that in is a study for industry for the further study of the resourse. I also wonder how they could age the water or determine that it contained no recent water without mentioning tridium in the report. I encourge everyone to go to the AGS site and download the "pdf" version and look it over.

[coppertop]

cowdog, I posted the article for information, not because I either agree or disagree with it. CBM is not an issue in my area yet, but I am trying to familiarize myself with the pro's and con's of development in case drilling activity does commence in this part of the province.

[cowman]

Well cowdog you obviously are very educated on this stuff...a lot more than your average Joe?
The "landowner" you speak of is Glen Norman and I think he is pretty well respected for the time and effort he puts into the Pine Lake Surface rights group! And he is also a pretty smart cookie...probably way ahead of most farmers on this stuff.
And yes the EUB guy (Leo Touchette) was pretty hostile to him...I don't think anybody in the room didn't notice that! It is too bad those two can't get along a bit better...because I think working together always can produce better results tha being in conflict?

[farmers_son]

I think conflict is inevitable. The energy industry is rich, agriculture is poor even both industries share essentially the same patch of ground. Millions of dollars have been taken from beneath my farm, I get a token payment every year. I could have received more but the Surface Rights Board sets the compensation I will receive, whether I go to the SRB or not.

The Surface Rights Board could easily award landowners more but as a puppet of the government rates are set artificially low and are merely a token sum thrown to the peasants farming the land. Meanwhile the oil company executives live lifestyles we could only dream of.

Rich and poor, sure to create tensions and conflict.

Re the company moving to the neighbours place. I have said it before but it needs to be said again. If the company can move to the neighbours place, why do they need the right of expropriation? The right to take a piece of the farmers livelihood by force? Let the marketplace work without government interference and farmers would be able to negotiate a realistic rental.

I wonder what the oil companies would think if we took their oil by force. Wouldn't the Americans who own these companies be all in favour of free enterprise then.

[cowman]

farmers son: I don't make the rules? I just have to live with them and try my best? Just like you?
The EUB guys are just employees trying to do their job?
I don't know if anything will change with the Stelmach government. The royalty review might be a step forward or it might just be a whitewash job and business as usual!
When I supported Ted Morton for premier, it wasn't all about ideology! I was looking out for myself at the same time? He stated several times he intended to change the Surface rights act? Now coppertop pooh-poohed that and said it wasn't possible, but I've always found "where theres a will theres a way"? What did Ed say? Well I don't think Ed said anything! One thing about Ed...he doesn't have to live up to many campaign promises...because he never made any!
Now he's the "man" and I guess it is his government that will bring in any changes to the rules? I suspect it will be "business as usual"...so we might as well get used to it?
Kevin Taft is saying some smart things right now? He is going to get some votes in Calgary, without a doubt! How about if he comes out for a newer and fairer surface rights act...do you think he could get a few rural votes? This CBM thing is big. It is going to affect a lot of farmers? Ideology is just dandy...but the guy who "shows me the money" just might get my vote!

[coppertop]

cowman,If I remember correctly I think my point was that no leader can change legislation on their own. The support from the entire PC caucus must be in place to put forward changes or amendments to legislation. Urban MLA's aren't likely to know or care about how surface rights legislation affects landowners, so any amendments will be up to rural MLA's to push forward if they are going to happen. Morton is the Minister of the porfolio that oversees the Surface Rights Board so if he was sincere about his intentions, he is certainly in a position to make changes, providing that he can get his colleagues onside.

I would suspect that some of the surface rights issues will be rolled into the Land Use Policy Framework. My understanding is that a draft policy will be rolled out for public consultation in a few weeks.

[farmers_son]

Re the Surface Rights Act. The only need to change the SRA would be to abolish it.

The Surface Rights Act's only purpose is to take landowners property from them by force and give it to the oil/gas companies, the pipeline companies, and the electrical companies at a token cost. These are for profit corporations and they make a lot of money. Of these three, the oil and gas companies are the only ones where there is a mixed ownership of the rights to the surface and the underlying minerals. The electrical distributors and the pipelines have no right to our property at all except the rights given to them by the Surface Rights Act.

Now obviously oil/gas wells, pipeline and power lines projects are going to go ahead. But do they have to go ahead at the direct expense of the men and women farming the land in this province? The only reason a well site may be worth $2500 a year is because the Surface Rights Board says that is what it is worth. The only reason a pipeline is worth $1500 per acre in a particular area is that is what the SRB says it is worth. The SRB could have said the landowner is entitled to two times or three times or ten times more but that is not the case. Compensation for nuisance and inconvenience, adverse effect is very subjective. It could be $1000 per year or it could be $10,000 per year. However the Government of the Province of Alberta through its agent the Surface Rights Board says it is the lesser amount.

I think an argument can be made that if the oil and gas companies can move next door that they do not need the right of expropriation. I think an argument could be made that pipelines and power lines should never have been given the right of expropriation for a farmers land. Be that as it may there is no doubt that compensation levels are set artificially low when viewed in the same light as comparable industrial developments, and these energy developments on the farmers land are indeed industrial developments.

Farmers need to realize that we are really getting a raw deal from the government when the Surface Rights Board sets compensation for these energy projects using methodologies established in 1970. The price of oil, gas, electricity has sky rocketed, these corporations are making astronomical profits, yet the compensation landowners get is pretty much the same. Today the annual rent for a well site or the compensation for a ½ mile of pipeline will not fill your fuel tanks once. That is wrong.

[cakadu]

If nothing else there should be a regular review and adjustments made accordingly. If I understand correctly, there is or has been nothing in the "formula" to account for rising land costs, development potential etc.

If the resource companies come and take the land, it will quite often destroy any further development potential and that is lost to the landowner. I am not at all in favor of this CBM project and think that if it is deemed to be okay to do elsewhere, we are going to be extremely sorry about it.

Any changes to water may not be readily apparent and it is important to remember that there are varying levels of aquifers and groundwater recharge often occurs many miles away from the actual aquifer. There are so many unforeseen consequences here that I don't see how this project could ever be deemed a "success".

How much of a negotiating position will every landowner have if it is deemed a "success"?

[grassfarmer]

I'm interested in the mention of HCL the hydrogoelogical consulting company in one of the posts. They are the consultants involved in the proposed freshwater oilfield waterflood project close to me. It would appear they are very much in the pockets of the oil companies. Their dubious test results here showed that the aquifer could produce 250 gallons a minute for 20 years without significant depletion. I spoke to someone who has a copy of a groundwater survey conducted in this area in 2003 on behalf of Ponoka County. This is in the form of a map highlighting potential (I assume potential sustainable) water well yields across the county. The area of the proposed project shows a potential of 1.5 to 15 gallons per minute. I haven't seen this information yet but it appears to contradict the idea that pumping 250 gallons a minute from the aquifer is sustainable. Interestingly this report for Ponoka County was also compiled by HCL!
To put this in context I have a stock well that produces 20 gallons a minute at 60 feet depth. My 140 cow/calf pairs drinking at maximum summer levels year round would require my well to produce at 20 gallons per minute for only 140 minutes per day. See how sustainable this type of use is? yet this oilfield project would use as much water as my cows do in a year every 1.5 days. And the oilfield injection process removes it from the hydrological cycle forever unlike the cows.

I am told that the owner of HCL stood up at a landowner meeting once(may have been a Pine Lake one) and stated that no water well in the Province had ever been affected by oil field activity. Rather a bold (and false) claim I would think.
Are HCL the only company doing this type of work or are there others all over the province? if so do they appear more believable?

[cakadu]

Based on your post, grassfarmer, I wonder how they can make those claims when Ponoka will eventually be looking to tap into the water that is already being piped to Blackfalds and Lacombe.

I wish I could remember who did the report and when it came out, but it was at least 10 years ago that the report in question stated that there would be no new development from Ponoka south because there would just not be the water to support it. How then can they turn around and say that they could take water out like that and not have it affect anything.

Statistics can be used to support just about anything, so why wouldn't the oil companies try to make it sound like a rosy picture.