wyoming

Getting closer boys and girls

"Water contamination issues were the focus of a meeting last month concerning the state’s approval of an aquifer exemption for an underground coal gasification pilot project in the Powder River Basin near the town of Wright.

The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) and the Environmental Quality Council both approved the exemption, but the state was subsequently told by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) it had to hold a public meeting on the water reclassification. The EPA will have final say on the permit because the matter involves the Clean Water Act, which prohibits the contamination of existing or potential drinking water sources.

The project

Linc Energy is planning a research and development project that calls for burning a coal seam that lies about 1,100 feet underground, which will produce syngas that can be converted into liquid fuels, such as diesel and other byproducts, including CO2 used in enhanced oil recovery. The 90-day test project will involve creating five chambers, each six feet in length, 24 feet wide and 11 1/2 feet high. The syngas would all be flared from the pilot program.

In granting the exemption, WDEQ reclassified the water in the project area from Class III (livestock) to Class V (industrial), saying since the water contained coal, it therefore could be eligible for mineral production.

One of the concerns expressed at the meeting was that the target coal seam for the 80-acre project site lies about 100 feet above the Fort Union aquifer, a major source of Wright’s domestic water. While the demonstration project is about 10 miles northwest of Wright, Linc and state studies show contamination (if any) would be isolated, but there was still doubt by Wright city officials and other areas residents.

Public water question

“I run the Wright Water and Sewer District for the town; I’m the one responsible for the treated water,” said Ralph Kinjan. “My concern is because it’s in the Fort Union aquifer … our wells are at 3,000 feet, our first screens are at 1,200 feet, you’re going to 1,100 feet — according to what can I see on this thing — and I’m not sure how that correlates to how you’re going to separate a coal seam, setting fire [to it], when we’re only 100 feet deeper getting our water. So that’s one question I would like answered from the EPA and the DEQ, from both of you.”

“I have a lot of just concerns,” Kinjan continued. “I read your report, which you sent to the EPA. It sounds like it’s real good, and it’s going to work perfect. Whether that happens or not — I know in Australia they’ve [Linc] had problems, they haven’t cleaned up the sites. I know [there was] one in ’78-’79 in Campbell County, and it cost $10 million to clean up the site, and it’s not too far away from here ... between Wright and Gillette. If it cost $10 million then, what would it cost if we had a failure here? Is there a contingency plan in case something goes wrong? Is there bonding for $100 million in case something goes wrong, so the town of Wright isn’t out of water, or, if you want to say, the whole Powder Basin uses Fort Union water? So that’s my comments.”

Rancher’s concern

Some area ranchers also had concerns, noting their experiences arising from the development of the coal bed methane industry in the Powder River Basin.

“I’m an area rancher north of town,” said Tex Adams. “My concern is here’s another energy industry wanting to come in and tap into our water. We went through this with the methane, and they basically killed the upper Belle Fourche River. This is a river — we’ve got five miles of frontage on our place — and it’s never went dry until the last two years, and it’s because water is being pumped out. Now we’ve got somebody that’s wanting to go in and take control of part of an aquifer that’s needed by the people in this area, and the benefits from coal gasification will be spread all over the country, I am assuming, but the people in this area are the ones that need the water the most. So, I’m just wondering why we need to give up what’s so needed in this area for our livelihoods for people elsewhere in the country. Thank you.”

Environmental group opposes exemption

Several environmental groups, including the Wyoming Outdoor Council and the Powder River Basin Resource Council, also spoke at the meeting, emphasizing the importance of the Fort Union aquifer in the Powder River Basin. The PRBRC has been fighting the aquifer exemption since the Linc project was proposed over two years ago, claiming it doesn’t meet the legal requirements of the state or the Clean Water Act.

Jill Morrison, with the Powder River Basin Resource Council, noted there were 14,000 individual domestic water systems in the Fort Union formation in the “lower northeast planning area,” with 14 municipal and public water systems, including Gillette and Wright. She further commented on the precedent the WDEQ was setting in reclassifying a higher-grade aquifer.

“The concern is if DEQ permits an aquifer exemption for good quality water, in this case Class I water quality, simply because it contains coal, this is a precedent for exempting groundwater aquifers all over the basin that contain minerals like coal,” Morrison said. “Again, I want to emphasize that we know from the very thorough, independent, scientific panel and report from Australia that Linc has operated for years there, but they haven’t demonstrated either the commercial viability of their underground coal gasification process, or that they can clean up and reclaim that site. And we also know that the bond that they provided, and that DEQ is requiring [$2.95 million], isn’t enough to ensure cleanup of the site should contamination occur, which we know it will occur, based on the process … Qe believe that sacrificing precious groundwater for an unproven experiment is bad policy.”

Rural water concerned about bonding

In a somewhat similar vein, Mark Pepper of the Wyoming Association of Rural Water Systems, expressed his concern about adequate bonding and the potential effects of aquifer contamination.

“We now know that the orphaned [coal bed methane] well bonding was inadequate, so I don’t know if that has been addressed adequately,” Pepper said. “I ask the same question of the uranium industry a lot … after the mining phase is completed, how do they control excursions, if it’s the same type of process? That has been my concern all along, once the mining phase is completed, once 10 years go by, how do they prevent excursions from having occurred in the uranium industry? And this is similar set-up, same type of set-up. My primary concern is bonding.”

Geologist supports company, project

There were advocates for the project at the meeting as well, including Peter Wold, a rancher and oil and gas developer with holdings in the Powder River Basin. He’s been a principal supporter of Linc Energy’s efforts, visiting its Australian demonstration site, and also with the development underground coal gasification technology.

“From my studies, frankly, I was surprised also to find out that in the United States there have been 33 underground coal gasification tests here in this country, 17 of them were here in Wyoming. One of them, the Hoe Creek project, did contaminate water, and it was a mess, and that’s what you hear about when this issue comes up. The others were successful, and the most recent one, the Rocky Mountain Number One test near Hanna, that test was successful,” Wold told the WDEQ. “Contained in the 1,200 pages of the Linc Energy application are sophisticated scientific, chemical and mineralogical studies modeling this proposed test here in the Powder River Basin. They’ve complied with every request from numerous state and federal agencies, and answered every detailed, and many regulatory, requirements to get to this point. Linc is coming here with this project from a thoughtful, carefully-planned approach.

“I’m encouraged by my research of the potential that this technology has to free the United States of the need to import foreign oil,” Wold continued later. “It’s time that we encourage this type of a project and produce what we have right here in this country, rather than sending our dollars overseas to our foreign enemies. So with that, I encourage the EPA to sign off on this aquifer exemption, as the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality and Environmental Quality Commission already have.”

Association supports promise of reserves

Marion Loomis, with the Wyoming Ming Association, also spoke in favor of the project, noting the state has some 1.3 trillion tons of coal that’s too deep or difficult to be conventionally mined. He explained underground coal gasification could be a way to move that potential resource into the available “reserve” category.

“Those of us in the mining industry have long wished for a way to move some of those resources into the reserve category. With the development of new and more efficient use of existing technologies, we’ve managed to do so; however, most of the resource still is out of reach,” Loomis said. “Developing in-situ coal gasification holds the promise that may allow us to reclassify some of those resources into reserves, and the potential benefits to the state are significant.”

Question on company’s long-term plan

In the comments, some of the audience expressed interest in knowing about the long-term interests of Linc, and the state, in developing underground coal gasification in the Powder River Basin (the Wyoming Business Council funded a $500,000 coal gasification study in 2007). Morrison noted Linc has purchased many, if not all, of the state coal leases in the Basin.

“For clarification, our understanding from the record is that Linc Energy has 333 state leases throughout the entire Powder River Basin in terms of the coal, and that those were purchased from Mr. Peter Wold,” Morrison said. “That’s our understanding we have, that there’s a holding, and that’s why the concern for the precedent-setting nature of this project and the aquifer exemption.”

Meeting refocused on water reclassification

Kevin Frederick, administrator of the Water Quality Division for the WDEQ who conducted the meeting, told participants at the outset that it was only to receive public comments on the Water Quality Division’s proposal to reclassify the groundwater, and it wasn’t a question-and-answer session.

Several citizens, however, apologized after coming in late and for the general nature of their comments, saying they had just learned of the meeting.

Resident concerned for traditional coal

“I guess this meeting kind of gave me more questions than what I thought about … I think Marion [Loomis] made the comment that coal mines have put a lot of money into our state, which they have, and I understand that, but if they change to a gasification program and it works, then what does that do for our actual mineral coal mines?” remarked one resident. “The other thing is … if we’ve had 17 test units in the state of Wyoming already, and over how many years, and 33 in the United States, how many of these gas plants do we already have? Because they’ve already done the testing and they supposedly know it works. I guess that would be my question.”

“Just a comment,” then said Frederick. “This is to take public comment on the reclassification of groundwater to Class V in the proposed aquifer exemption, so I’d like to encourage everyone to try to stay on point … or we’re going to be here for days.”

Complaint about no public notice of meeting

Meanwhile, the editor of the Wright newspaper also noted the apparent lack of notice about the meeting.

“I’m the editor of the High Plains Sentinel newspaper here,” said Janet Eldridge. “I read all the press releases that I get and I’m going to have to say that I haven’t read one press release that’s been sent to me about any of this. I would like to request that those be sent to me in the future so I can keep my community informed on what’s going on, because I haven’t read anything that’s been sent to my paper in regards to be able to get it out to our community.”

Frederick noted that the comment period on the aquifer reclassification would end at 7 p.m. the night of the meeting.

Process outlined

“The process then is we’ll take and record your comments today, and we’ll develop a response to those comments after we’ve analyzed them in Cheyenne,” said Frederick. “I can’t tell you how long that’s going to take, and we’ll evaluate those, with respect to the issue at hand today.”

Editor’s note: To see a graphic of how the process works, go to www.casperjournal.com.