GMUG: “Flaring” methane gas from coal mine not feasible

 

By Lisa Huynh
Daily Press Writer
Published/Last Modified on Saturday, March 8, 2008 9:00 PM MST

DELTA — Burning off methane gas versus venting it into the atmosphere is not currently feasible and the local Forest Service office cannot require it, according to a decision issued Friday by Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest supervisor Charlie Richmond.

His decision — concerning Arch Coal's West Elk Mine northeast of Paonia — came after the Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region in February instructed him to further evaluate "flaring" (or burning off methane) in response to an appeal from several conservation groups concerned about greenhouse gas emissions.

The regional office based its decision on conflicting information provided by the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration regarding the method's viability.

Advertisement
Richmond said in a written statement Friday, "MSHA has notified the Forest Service that flaring is not a feasible option and they would not approve a flaring operation at this time." In a supplemental report, he said flaring is "un-researched and untested technology" and "MSHA believes testing and analysis would require several years of effort."

Richmond went on to say the Forest Service agrees methane gas should be captured and put to beneficial use but, despite popular assumptions, he is not authorized to require flaring or capturing.

Those responsible for the appeal called the decision "extremely disappointing."

"They (Forest Service officials) are contradicting themselves and disregarding the concerns on climate change," said Jeremy Nichols, director of Rocky Mountain Clean Air Action, one of the groups that filed the appeal. "We're incredibly disappointed with the Forest Service's refusal to do what's right."

The Forest Service's August 2007 environmental review noted that methane is more than 21 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, he said.

At a minimum, Nichols said that the Forest Service has within its jurisdiction, the ability to work with other federal agencies to help address the concerns.

GMUG spokesperson Lee Ann Loupe said the role of the Forest Service is to manage surface natural resources. She added that there is no national regulation on methane, and therefore, no federal agency required to regulate it.

Earthjustice staff attorney Ted Zukoski, who represented the groups in the appeal, said the Forest Service squandered an "opportunity to do something about one of the largest contributors of greenhouse gases in the state."

According to Zukoski, the amount of methane (otherwise known as natural gas) that was proposed for venting would have been enough to heat 35,000 homes a year for 12 years.

Despite safety and technological concerns over flaring, he said, "it is our understanding that there are seven active (coal) mines flaring methane."

He said the groups are actively investigating another appeal.

Contact Lisa Huynh via email at lisah@montrosepress.com
 

¤ Please read our Disclaimer and Privacy Policy before participating in our online community.

Comments


Post a comment


READER COMMENTS 

• Be respectful of others, the writer and the subjects in the story.

• Be relevant. Keep your comments on point. 

• See the guidelines for TalkAbout. Perhaps your comment is best for that community forum, available from the home page, instead of commenting on a particular story.

Comment posters are responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. We urge comment writers to treat this as a public forum where manners matter. We encourage a collegial, non-insulting tone. All readers comments must be approved by our staff before posting to the Web site. Be aware, in accordance with the Communications Decency Act and provisions upheld in judicial appeal, that you are responsible for comments posted on this Web site. Montrose Press is not liable for messages from third parties.

DO NOT POST:
* Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults or threats.
* The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
* Comments unrelated to the story.

Opinions, advice and all other information expressed in montrosepress.com's reader comments represent the individual's own views and not necessarily those of the Montrose Press. Montrose Press does not endorse and is not responsible for statements, advice or opinions offered by anyone other than authorized Montrose Press spokespersons.

Thank you for your comments!

(optional)