Progress? Or industrial abuse?

Spectrum, by David Werner

On Oct. 18 I attended the second day of the Oil and Gas Accountability Project National Coal Bed Methane Summit held in Wasilla, listening to national experts and land owners from Colorado and New Mexico who'd had firsthand experience with CBM on their ranches and had hard-learned advice to share. It was encouraging to see borough officials there, asking some pertinent questions. Advice was given for negotiating land use/damage agreements, doing wellwater testing to document the amount of heavy metals, hydrocarbons and solvents prior to CBM drilling, obtaining water rights, and also documenting the pre-development condition of land with GPS-sited photos. SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) suits were discussed as was the importance of open communication between landowners regarding their dealings with CBM representatives. We learned that lawsuits may occur if we attempt to regain control over our properties. We learned that in a residential area near Durango, Colo., the property values of 10- to 20-acre "ranchettes" dropped an average of 22 percent after a single CBM well was established on those properties. We saw aerial photos of 20-acre spacing of CBM wells, with the associated roads, pipelines and loud compressor stations. It was impressive.

Why do the ramifications of CBM development concern me? Like many Alaskans I'm in my 60s, and may retire in the next 10 years and can leave the Valley if it's become overly unpleasant. My moose hunting is slowing down, so what happens in the moose range shouldn't affect me personally. I dipnet at Chitina so the condition of salmon streams shouldn't bother me, either. My hiking is done on the ridges high above Mat-Su, so the CBM access roads and compressor noise shouldn't be an issue. Plus, I live near Palmer, and even though the Equestrian Acres aquifer recharge zone stretches north toward CBM lease areas, I don't expect CBM development nearby or water quality issues in my immediate area soon, so my own property value shouldn't go down. So why my concern?

To me, it will be very painful to witness the large-scale industrial abuse of the Valley that we can expect, given the frequency of negative CBM experiences in the western states, I do know many people living in the lease areas who will be directly affected immediately, and they are deeply disturbed about impending development and feel violated by the actions of the elected officials from whom they expected representation in Juneau. For many of these folks leaving is not an option -- they have family, jobs and property here, and want to keep enjoying the outdoor activities of the Valley. They will have to stay and deal with the changes of CBM, and they deserve better than that.

I also know people who still don't have a clue about CBM's likely negative impact on our area, thinking that this is just another developer versus treehugger, conservative versus liberal issue -- just one more Mat-Su "controversy" that will blow over and have no effect. But with the USGS estimating 1,000 trillion cubic feet of methane from the 40 percent more coal reserves in Alaska than in the Lower 48, we're too good to ignore. We're ripe for the picking, and CBM developers are not going to leave us alone.

We can draw upon the experiences of the Western states. The state can buy back the leases, as was done in the past in Homer, before industry sinks a lot of money into exploratory core holes, which would make the buyback more expensive/ We can repeal House Bill 69, and craft a law which will bring back local control and protect our property values and the reasons we live here. We'll not be able to trust some elected state officials, who are likely conferring with industry right now with regard to "reworking" HB 69; they have already shown their colors and they've lost our trust.

It also seems that our state agencies feel an urgency to move quickly, but CBM is a big, big deal and needs to be done right, or after the 15- to 20-year boom is over, the methane is extracted, the wells, pads, roads and pipelines abandoned, the next generation of Alaskans will have to figure out what to do with the mess, because it probably is not going to be tour material for visitors, or for recreation, or desirable for home building.

So I can watch what happens with CBM in the Valley over the next 10 years, and with retirement I can make my decision, as many of you might, whether to stay or leave. If enough people base their decisions to come or leave on the presence and the nature of CBM development, the implications to further growth and to property values are not too hard to figure out. Gov. Frank Murkowski, our elected state officials, our state agency officials of DNR, DEC, and AOGCC, and our elected borough officials need to know how we feel about the first step, the state buyback of the CBM leases, and the second step, getting good legislation to replace HB 69. We need to let them know now -- this is moving very, very fast.

David Werner is a Palmer resident.