tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4867471592531795278.post218848171575560088..comments2023-10-08T05:31:12.784-07:00Comments on Senator Brophy: common sense water legislation?Senator Brophyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00658267790640058796noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4867471592531795278.post-57480679991755332422010-03-18T15:32:24.482-07:002010-03-18T15:32:24.482-07:00Hello,
You know that the majority of CBM produced...Hello,<br /><br />You know that the majority of CBM produced water is good usable water. It is a shame it is disposed of in the process of gas production.<br /><br />Usually there are other gological formations that exist above or below the coal seam that the good produced water can be injected into and thus SAVED for future use by the landowner when they need it.<br /><br />Under the right circumstances, there is an opportunity to re-inject the "produced water" into another formation (i.e. sand zone, etc.) all within the same well bore (dont even bring the water above ground). Those circumstances require:<br /><br />1. the presence of a receiving zone either below or above the gas production zone <br /><br />2. and produced water quality that is similar to the receiving zone, or that can be chemically treated to meet those specifications. <br /><br />This method of water mitigation is called In-Bore Aquifer Recharge Injection, and is now commonly being used in the Coal Bed Methane world in the Powder River Basin in parts of Wyoming. This method is becoming popular for three primary reasons: <br /><br />1. Water can be mitigated at between $0.03 and $0.08 per barrel vs $0.30 to $1.50 per barrel<br /><br />2. Regulatory restrictions on surface discharge have forced the Production Companies to find alternatives to historic methods of water management. IE stop discharging the water.<br /><br />3. Landowners want to keep any good water that they can on their property for future use.<br /><br />While this method does not work in every scenario, some basic geological evaluation can be done to see if it can work. If it is viable, the savings are exceptional. In the CBM plays in Wyoming companies have average saving of $25 million on a 100 well implementation producing water over a five year period. So why dont more companies use this methodology for handling water. <br /><br />1. They already have infrastructure in place for "disposal" of the water.<br /><br />2. They have the regulatory permits in place that "allow" them to continue with surface discharge.<br /><br />3. They dont want to have to do any work to save millions of gallons of good water.<br /><br />It is a sad situation really. Probably 90% of the GOOD USABLE water produced from the Powder River Basin could be saved. NO PIPING. NO EVAPORATION PONDS, LIMITED SURFACE DISTURBANCES, NO PROBLEMS in winter months.<br /><br />Eliminating surface discharge does NOT have to stop gas prduction, WE can still produce gas and SAVE our water.<br /><br />All my best,<br /><br />Tom WhartonJob Opportunityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03282473342288469232noreply@blogger.com