Natural gas issue fuels flames of debate around the Valley

Frontiersman editorial board

The Valley is puffed up with talk of natural gas, and the debate is only heating up. With the prospect of hunting viable coal-bed methane reserves in the areas surrounding Palmer and Sutton, many Valley residents are just now realizing that land ownership is only skin deep, and that has them worrying about things like water quality and noise pollution.

In Alaska, individual land owners do not own most of their sub-surface mineral rights, and that means any resources below the ground are essentially available to the highest bidder. Because the extraction of coal-bed methane will require infrastructure changes, that has many Valley land owners worrying that they'll be left with a lot of unwanted roads, pumping stations and possibly contaminated water while someone else reaps the economic benefits of the resources on their property.

So far, the major player in the bidding for methane rights is Evergreen Resources, and that at least bodes well for concerned property owners. While resource development can never be achieved without at least some kind of scars, Evergreen appears to take a genuinely conscientious approach. The company has already said it doesn't plan to use some of the harsher chemicals in the extraction process -- including the hydrochloric acid they have used in other places. The process they employ leaves smaller scars on the surface than some others, as well.

It's important to remember that Evergreen can't offer guarantees, however, and once the rights have been purchased, all bets are off. Even some of the milder solutions used to release the gas from coal beds may not be welcome when people's water is concerned. One such solution is soap, and most people would prefer soap solutions flowing out of their tubs and sinks, not in.

Another potential problem is that water has to be pumped out of the ground to release the gas, and the water can't be pumped back in at the same point. It's possible to inject water back into the ground, but it will be done at locations where it supposedly won't become mixed with the usable water table. If the plan works, it simply means the water is lost, and if it doesn't work, it defeats the purpose of moving it from its original location. Another problem is that sometimes re-injected water percolates out -- either to the surface or into the water table.

While there seems to be little people can do about sub-surface mineral rights, more knowledge is always better than less, and public input always leads to decisions that work better for the community. The next meeting on the subject will be Sept. 8 at 6 p.m. at Big Lake Elementary, followed by another meeting Sept. 10 at 6 p.m. at Palmer Jr. Middle School. We encourage everyone to attend and have a say on this important issue.