CBM buy-back is giant step in the right direction

Frontiersman editorial board

Depending upon which side of the well you draw your water from, you're either dancing in the streets or singing the blues in the Mat-Su Borough today. After more than two years of intense battling, the coal-bed methane controversy that has consumed the Valley took a stunning turn on Thursday morning.

On Wednesday, Pioneer Natural Resources Company took control of Evergreen Resources Inc., the company at the center of the controversy. Following immediately on the heels of that acquisition, Pioneer announced it would return 250,000 acres worth of shallow gas leases to the state. Most of those leases were in the Mat-Su. The way those leases were acquired, and ensuing legislation, created a furor in the Valley as many property owners felt they'd been sidestepped by their legislators. One great source of concern was that many of those leases were on private property in areas that are essentially subdivisions, and densely populated by Valley standards.

Though the opponents to the current process of CBM development were often characterized as Outside environmentalists and anti-growth, the truth is that it has been a diverse group of property owners and others that joined hands on a common issue, for different reasons. Some of the more active members are actually involved in construction and other growth industries. Others have been involved in the push toward increased planning and zoning in all aspects of growth in this community. Whatever their philosophical reasons, their methods have been effective.

The most stunning news to come from this battle so far had been the retirement of Sen. Scott Ogan who was in the midst of an emotional and intense recall effort, almost solely based upon his involvement with Evergreen. It was a loud message that the anti-CBM effort had teeth, and that it wasn't going to back down.

It's difficult to judge how much of the decision to relinquish the leases was driven by the anti-CBM movement, but Pioneer cited an uncertain regulatory climate as a primary reason. Whatever the reason, we believe this was the best possible outcome to the current challenge. Now the borough and the state can work out a regulatory process prior to selling further leases. We hope both bodies will work quickly to that end. This isn't the end of the battle, it's simply the proper beginning.