Officials Want Methane Gas Reduced
at Colorado Mines
Compiled by CEN Staff
DENVER – Concerned about the amount of methane released during coal mining , Federal and state agencies are pressing for methane-capture technology at two western Colorado mines — the West Elk Mine in Somerset and the proposed Red Cliff Mine near Mack. Because it has 20 times the heat-trapping power of carbon dioxide released from burning coal and other fossil fuels, environmental officials want the methane controlled and used as fuel or flared to reduce its greenhouse potency.
“Methane is a potent greenhouse gas. It is also a valuable resource,” said Larry Svoboda, environmental assessment director of the EPA’s Denver office.
Five western Colorado coal mines, including Red Cliff, are projected to emit about 8 billion cubic feet of methane a year, based on EPA estimates.
According to federal data, Colorado coal mines are projected to put as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere each year as one-and-a-half coal-burning power plants, based on federal data. The two mines in the western part of the state sit on federal land, which means they are overseen by the Bureau of land Management. The EPA, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and the state Department of Natural Resources are urging the BLM to press for methane capture at the mines.
“We are looking to manage significant environmental impacts,” said Paul Tourangeau, director of the state Air Pollution Control Division.
In addition, a coalition of environmental groups has filed a complaint in federal district court over a BLM decision to allow West Elk to vent methane and is calling for methane capture on the Red Cliff project. Jeremy Nichols, director of WildEarth Guardian’s climate program, said “Controlling methane is going to be a big part of controlling greenhouse gases,”
We need to promote export terminals to liquify and ship natural gas to markets in Asia and Euroupe. The US ...
Natural Gas can be consumed so efficiently that the WATER can even be recovered from the combusted exhaust gases.
Going ...
Lack of funding is a serious obstacle for implementation of audit recommendations. Even small rebates will have little impact ...
Re: Natural gas generation wasn’t included in the final analysis but is generally assumed to emit about half as much ...
Disclosure MIGHT prevent pollution if there was a watchdog agency that ruled yes or no on particular chemicals before they ...
Having just read Tom Gray's article 'Fred Udo's bogus numbers' I get the feeling I haven't understood whats going on. ...
I agree with you kirsch. I knew this article had the stench of industry money as soon add I read ...
Can someone explain how disclosure prevents pollution? They can still release air toxins and they are still not held ...
Comment by cogas on 25 May 2009:
What a great idea! Why don’t the green bureaucrats,environmental coalitions, our state administration, and even the federal administration simply drive out ALL business from Colorado? After all, every business creates a huge carbon footprint. Hell, why not just drive business out of the USA entirely! Better yet, let’s all load back up in boats and head back for our respective homelands, excepting those who were here when we showed up. Oh, wait, no, the green sheep want THEIR businesses, but not those of the people who make their livings mining or finding oil and gas. When does this nonsense stop? I knew I should have helped more people in science class…
Comment by logok on 2 June 2009:
Cogas you’re politically biased and under-educated. The object is to reduce emissions. This has nothing to do with killing business and everything to do with meeting goals that our appointed leaders have set. The fact is that items like these are going to continuously be assessed.
Local Businesses are already following in the footsteps of the federal government. ever heard of LEED? Sustainable programs? Green footprints? It’s not hogwash. All new fed buildings (and state) are required to meet these goals, which include documenting and assessing the footprint. The time has come where we as a state take a deeper look into what we are doing with our resources, and how we can maximize potential while minimizing consumption.
That’s the name of the game.
By the way, starting up new programs to assess and confront resource mis-management does in fact _create_ jobs, expand businesses and promote Colorado as a progressive, educated and coveteted state to live and work in. These jobs require talented and experienced professionals. Not fogies stuck in their ways refusing to even consider the notion that change is inevitable.
Get on the bus and progress, or complain about it as is passes you by. looks like you’ve already made Your Choice.
Comment by analyzer on 3 June 2009:
In regards to comment by logok. These statements are true; however, the fact is that operators will completely move investments to higher yield areas. They are not locked into doing business in Colorado. What will the bureacrats that look over the “mis-management” do when the operators aren’t doing anything there? They’ll all lose their jobs as well unless the tax payers keep supporting them superfluously.
Comment by cogas on 4 June 2009:
Logok. I wouldn’t say I am politically biased, but I am definitely conservative. My problem is, I have less and less to conserve as my annointed/appointed leaders raise my taxes to cover the loss of revenues generated by the oil and gas industry. I am progressive and educated, my friend. I would, however, have to bow to your comment that infers I am a “fogey”. However, I am definitely NOT a member of the current herd of sheep who have taken the sustainable energy craze hook, line, and non-lead sinker. I have the same problems with the development of unleashed wind and solar industry as I do the uncontrolled development in the gas industry. Just because an energy source does not directly include fossil fuels does not mean that it does not negatively impact the environment.