BuzzH
Well-known member
Looks like bigger bonds will be required for CBM development in Montana.
Environmentalists offer agenda
By JENNIFER McKEE
Gazette State Bureau
HELENA - Conservation groups outlined their top priorities for the 2005 Legislature Friday, including bills to require bigger cleanup bonds for coalbed methane drillers and stipulate that houses can't be built directly on riversides.
"Montana is a great place to live, work and raise family,'' said Julia Page, a small-business owner from Gardiner and member of the Northern Plains Resource Council, who outlined bills she and other conservationists hope will keep Montana that way.
Among the priorities is a coalbed methane reclamation bill, sponsored by Sen. Lane Larson, D-Billings. This bill would increase how much money methane drillers have to set aside to clean up defunct methane wells.
Right now, Page said, drillers need only set aside $50,000 as a reclamation bond to clean up wells after drilling stops.
"That's nowhere near enough,'' Page said.
A Wyoming jury awarded a couple there $800,000 last year to pay for reclamation costs for 12 coalbed methane wells on their land, she said. That averages $40,000 an acre.
Reclamation costs
The proposal would require drillers to set aside enough bond money to cover the true costs of reclamation and require that methane wells and land disturbed to drill and drive to them be reclaimed, Page said.
Page said the bill isn't an effort to stymie coalbed methane production, but to plan for it.
"It's a way to live with development,'' she said. Currently, many people don't believe there's enough protection for farmers and ranchers and they will "fight desperately'' to stop them, she said.
Coalbed methane is a kind of natural gas trapped between coal seams underground. It's typically held in place by great lagoons of underground water.
In southeastern Montana, where the biggest methane pockets are, underground water is also salty. Because such water must also be pumped to the surface to get to the methane, some farmers have questioned coalbed methane development over fears it will contaminate their irrigation water with salt and cause thousands of miles of new roads to be built, among other things.
Gail Abercrombie, executive director the Montana Petroleum Association, said that while the proposal is still an idea at this point, she has heard of it and will be keeping an eye on the legislation.
Agency rules vs. state laws
"It seems awfully complex for a statute,'' she said, adding that some of the finer points of the proposal might be better hashed out as agency rules, not sweeping state laws.
The groups also outlined a proposal to require that all buildings - including homes - be set back at least 30 yards from stream banks and 100 yards from the banks of major rivers. The point, said Paul Roos, a businessman and guide from Ovando, is to preserve the natural look and function of Montana's waterways.
Right now, Roos said, Montana's river and stream corridors are becoming congested with homes - many of them second residences - built right against river banks. This necessitates protecting such homes from flooding by building up banks artificially with riprap. That makes it harder for wildlife that depend on rivers to access them, Roos said, and it makes rivers and streams less appealing to people. In the long run, he said, overbuilding on rivers threatens the property values of the very people who do it because a streamside lot with a view of a bunch of houses is not worth as much as a lot with a view of a wild stream.
The bill contains variances for property owners who wouldn't be able to meet the requirements and still build a house on their lot.
But Glenn Oppel, government affairs director for the Montana Association of Realtors, said that while his organization has not taken an official stance on the proposal, he has some initial concerns.
"First and foremost, it looks like statewide zoning,'' he said, adding that polls conducted by real estate agents show most Montanans oppose that.
Plus, the bill tells private property owners what the can and can't do with their land.
"That's the overwhelming issue: what's the impact on private property,'' he said.
Environmentalists offer agenda
By JENNIFER McKEE
Gazette State Bureau
HELENA - Conservation groups outlined their top priorities for the 2005 Legislature Friday, including bills to require bigger cleanup bonds for coalbed methane drillers and stipulate that houses can't be built directly on riversides.
"Montana is a great place to live, work and raise family,'' said Julia Page, a small-business owner from Gardiner and member of the Northern Plains Resource Council, who outlined bills she and other conservationists hope will keep Montana that way.
Among the priorities is a coalbed methane reclamation bill, sponsored by Sen. Lane Larson, D-Billings. This bill would increase how much money methane drillers have to set aside to clean up defunct methane wells.
Right now, Page said, drillers need only set aside $50,000 as a reclamation bond to clean up wells after drilling stops.
"That's nowhere near enough,'' Page said.
A Wyoming jury awarded a couple there $800,000 last year to pay for reclamation costs for 12 coalbed methane wells on their land, she said. That averages $40,000 an acre.
Reclamation costs
The proposal would require drillers to set aside enough bond money to cover the true costs of reclamation and require that methane wells and land disturbed to drill and drive to them be reclaimed, Page said.
Page said the bill isn't an effort to stymie coalbed methane production, but to plan for it.
"It's a way to live with development,'' she said. Currently, many people don't believe there's enough protection for farmers and ranchers and they will "fight desperately'' to stop them, she said.
Coalbed methane is a kind of natural gas trapped between coal seams underground. It's typically held in place by great lagoons of underground water.
In southeastern Montana, where the biggest methane pockets are, underground water is also salty. Because such water must also be pumped to the surface to get to the methane, some farmers have questioned coalbed methane development over fears it will contaminate their irrigation water with salt and cause thousands of miles of new roads to be built, among other things.
Gail Abercrombie, executive director the Montana Petroleum Association, said that while the proposal is still an idea at this point, she has heard of it and will be keeping an eye on the legislation.
Agency rules vs. state laws
"It seems awfully complex for a statute,'' she said, adding that some of the finer points of the proposal might be better hashed out as agency rules, not sweeping state laws.
The groups also outlined a proposal to require that all buildings - including homes - be set back at least 30 yards from stream banks and 100 yards from the banks of major rivers. The point, said Paul Roos, a businessman and guide from Ovando, is to preserve the natural look and function of Montana's waterways.
Right now, Roos said, Montana's river and stream corridors are becoming congested with homes - many of them second residences - built right against river banks. This necessitates protecting such homes from flooding by building up banks artificially with riprap. That makes it harder for wildlife that depend on rivers to access them, Roos said, and it makes rivers and streams less appealing to people. In the long run, he said, overbuilding on rivers threatens the property values of the very people who do it because a streamside lot with a view of a bunch of houses is not worth as much as a lot with a view of a wild stream.
The bill contains variances for property owners who wouldn't be able to meet the requirements and still build a house on their lot.
But Glenn Oppel, government affairs director for the Montana Association of Realtors, said that while his organization has not taken an official stance on the proposal, he has some initial concerns.
"First and foremost, it looks like statewide zoning,'' he said, adding that polls conducted by real estate agents show most Montanans oppose that.
Plus, the bill tells private property owners what the can and can't do with their land.
"That's the overwhelming issue: what's the impact on private property,'' he said.
