SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Radiation
6207-J
EPA-430-N-00-004
Spring 2006
COALBED METHANE EXTRA
* *•
A publication of the Coalbed Methane Outreach Program (CMOP)
www.epa.gov/coalbed
Safety at Coal Mines: What Role Does Methane Play?
The Coalbed Methane Outreach Program (CMOP)
works with coal mines in the US and abroad to re-
cover methane gas—rather than liberate it into the
atmosphere—and to use it productively. The program's
primary goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
to promote the environmental benefits of coal mine meth-
ane (CMM) recovery and utilization projects. Because
accumulated methane can cause explosions and other
serious accidents in a coal mine, removing it from the coal
seam also has implications for coal mine safety. There-
fore, CMOP recognizes and promotes improved mine
safety as a critical co-benefit of CMM projects.
The recent Sago Mine disaster in West Virginia and
other widely publicized coal mine accidents around the
world have received a great deal of attention and have
generated some confusion about the link between meth-
ane drainage and safety. In response, this article pro-
vides an overview of safety concerns faced by coal
mines and how they do or do not relate to methane. The
first section explains the variety of safety issues a coal
mine must take into consideration, including methane
build-up. The second section summarizes the recent
coal mine accident at Sago Mine in West Virginia. The
final section describes the regulatory and legislative re-
sponses in the U.S. „ „ , , „
M See Sa/efy, page 2
In this issue...
1 Safety at Coal Mines: What
Role Does Methane Play?
1 Methane to Markets Update
3 Energy Prices Update
4 International Perspective on
Coal Mine Safety
7 CMM/CBM News
9 Upcoming CMM/CBM
Events
To obtain CMOP reports, call
1 888-STAR-YES.
Access documents electronically
From the "Documents, Tools, and Re
sources" pages on our Web site at
www.epa.gov/coalbed
To subscribe to CBM Extra provide contact
information to Pamela Franklin at
franklin.pamela@epa.gov or to
Barbora Jemelkova at
Jemelkova.Barbora@epa.gov
To subscribe to CBM Notes, email a sub
scription request to
energystar@optimuscorp.com with
"SUBSCRIBE" in the subject line.
Methane to Markets Update
The first quarter of 2006 has been an eventful one for the Methane to Markets Part-
nership as a whole. As a result, CMOP remained busy as it attended and planned
various Partnership events and tackled important subcommittee action items.
UNECE Coal Mine Methane Meetings held in Geneva
From January 30 to February 1, 2006, CMOP participated in CMM meetings con-
vened in Geneva, Switzerland by the United Nations Economic Commission for
Europe (UNECE), a Methane to Markets Project Network (PN) member. The meet-
ings included the Ad Hoc Group of Experts on Coal Mine Methane as well as the
Task Force on the Economic Benefits of Improving Mine Safety through the Extrac-
tion and Use of Coal Mine Methane. Delegates from several partner countries, in-
cluding Russia, Ukraine, Australia, the U.K., and the U.S., participated.
The meeting of the Ad Hoc Group of Experts featured presentations from country
delegates, academic scholars, and the financial sector. CMOP gave a presentation
providing updates on global Methane to Market Partnership activities in the coal
sector. The Ad Hoc Group of Experts meeting featured a workshop on the basics of
project financing for CMM projects through securing debt and equity investments.
This workshop was the inaugural event of a US EPA-funded UNECE project to de-
velop CMM recovery and utilization projects in Central and Eastern Europe and the
Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). This project seeks to facilitate financ-
ing of CMM projects in this region by overcoming the specific barriers of the mining
community, building capacity to develop "bankable" investment documents, and
providing access to the international finance community. There will be a follow-up
workshop in the future. The UNECE is an active member of the Methane to Markets
Partnership Project Network.
See M2M Update, page 6
-------
Spring 2006
Page 2
COALBED METHANE EXTRA
M I T H * N t
OUTflEACH
Safety, continued from page 1
Safety Issues at Coal Mines
Over the last 80 years, U.S. coal mines have come a long
way in increasing safety and decreasing fatalities and ac-
cidents. The number of deaths from coal mining in the
United States has dwindled over time - from 2,063 in
1930, to 325 in 1960, to 22 in 2005. According to the US
Department of Labor, U.S. coal mining fatalities have been
relatively consistent over the past few years as shown in
Figure 1. Safety at U.S. coal mines has undoubtedly im-
proved due to stronger regulations, more thorough over-
sight, increased automation, and improved equipment.
Yet, so far in 2006, there have already been 21 deaths
due to coal mining, 15 of which are attributed to methane
related fires or explosions. This recent upsurge has
brought mine safety to the forefront, emphasizing the nu-
merous hazards and safety issues faced by coal miners.
The sources of risk for coal miners include not only meth-
ane accumulation but also coal dust accumulation and the
dangers of working in dark, confined spaces with motor-
ized equipment.
Rgure 1. Coal Mine Fatalities of Recent Years
35
30
oc
OA
1*\
in
~|
|
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006*
• Total Fatalities • Methane-Related Fatalities
*2006 data is January through March
Methane Accumulation
Methane build-up is a common concern because all un-
derground coal mines in the U.S. encounter methane to
some extent. Only those mines that emit at least 100,000
cubic feet (~2,832 cubic meters) of methane per day, how-
ever, are considered "gassy". CMOP has profiled the 50
gassiest mines in the U.S. in a recent publication1 as the
best candidates for CMM recovery projects.
To ensure that methane does not endanger worker safety,
the Mine Safety Health Administration (MSHA) requires
that all underground mines in the U.S. keep methane lev-
els below 1 percent at all times. As a result, all U.S. mines
use ventilation systems to circulate air through the mine
workings. In the case of some gassy mines, methane can
still accumulate in pockets within the mine where ventila-
tion is inadequate. If these methane accumulations are
ignited by mining equipment and friction due to roof falls,
they can be responsible for explosions and fires. To pre-
vent this type of disaster, those mines that cannot consis-
tently keep methane levels safe with a ventilation system
alone turn to a second mechanism—drainage wells.
According to CMOP records, in 2004 21 mines in the US
drained methane from the coal seam either before or dur-
ing mining to decrease the load on the ventilation system
and keep in-mine methane concentrations within a safe
range. Other mines are considering or planning the instal-
lation of drainage as their operations encounter more gas.
Employing these methods is not always a cure, however,
as methane-related explosions and fires still occur. Roof
falls can release unanticipated pockets of methane, in-
creasing the methane concentration to ignitable levels. For
example, several mines in Alabama experienced explo-
sions and accidents over the past several years despite
their use of both ventilation and drainage systems.
Flammable Dust Accumulation
Another major issue encountered by coal miners is the
accumulation of flammable dust, which is created when
coal is extracted, drilled, and transported in the workings
of the mine. When this dust accumulates in mine tunnels,
it can easily be ignited and cause devastating accidents.
For example, eighteen people were killed and nine were
injured in late February in a dust-related explosion in a
Chinese mine. Dust explosions often occur after methane
explosions or during drilling. To prevent such explosions,
miners cover the floor, rib, and roof surfaces of mine open-
ings with large quantities of inert rock dust such as fine
limestone dust. Ventilation is often used to carry dust
away; however, depending on the mine, ventilation may
exacerbate the problem.
Other Safety Hazards
Another major safety issue in underground mines is roof
falls and skin failures which are smaller debris falls. In
both continuous and conventional mining, the roof over the
mined-out area is supported for safety. The most impor-
tant development in roof support - both in terms of safety
and cost - has been the "roof bolt." Roof bolts are long
rods driven into the roof to bind several layers of weak
strata into a layer strong enough to support its own weight.
Roof falls, which are often fatal, occur when a roof bolt
fails. Skin failures occur when smaller debris falls from
between the bolted area, which may result in injury but is
not usually fatal. The National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) suggests that miners use pro-
tective canopies and roof screens while installing bolts in
See Safety, page 4
1 Identifying Opportunities for Coal Mine Methane Recovery at US Coal Mines: Profiles of Selected Gassy Underground Mines (1999-2003).
http://www.epa.gov/cmop/pdf/profiles 2003 final.pdf
-------
Spring 2006
Page 3
COALBED METHANE EXTRA
M I T H * N t
OUTflEACH
Energy Prices Update
Update on the Natural Gas and Electricity
Markets
Last fall, natural gas prices broke records nationwide dur-
ing the aftermath of hurricanes Katrina and Rita and the
subsequent decline in production. Though wellhead price
increases led to higher than ever winter heating bills as
utilities and energy experts warned last fall, prices fell from
the post-hurricane peaks (see Figure 1). Prices declined
late in the year along with demand because of warmer
than average winter temperatures. Prices still hit record
highs in the fourth quarter of 2005 and the first quarter of
2006 but were lower than forecasted, raising concerns for
the coming year. The Energy Information Administration's
Short Term Energy Outlook for March reports approxi-
mately 400 million cubic feet per day of natural gas pro-
duction are expected to remain offline prior to the start of
the next hurricane season, June 1, 2006. Concerns about
potential future supply tightness and continuing pressure
from high oil market prices are keeping expected spot
natural gas prices for the next heating season at high lev-
els.
figure 1. Quarterly Residential Natural Gas Rices by Region
o
Q12005
022005
032005
Q42005
012006
New England-
WN Central.
WS. Central-
Md Atlantic
S. Atlantic
Mxntain
EN Central
ES. Central
Pacific
The Energy Outlook notes residential electricity prices
rose an estimated 5.5 percent nationally in 2005. Some of
the fastest increases in household electricity prices oc-
curred in the Northeast, as evidenced by New England's
towering prices, and in the West South Central region
(Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Arkansas)—see Figure
2. Electricity demand is expected to increase only slightly
in 2006 due to weak heating-related demand this January
and lower cooling-related demand this summer. However,
economic growth and an expected boost in heating-related
demand in the first quarter next year are expected to yield
an overall growth in electricity demand of 2.1 percent in
2007.
Rgure 2. Quarterly Residential Regional Electricity Prices
CM 2005
022005
Q32005
Q42005
Q12006
^— Nsw England —
W N Central
W S. Central
Md Atlantic
S. Atlantic
IVbuntain —
E N Central
E S. Central
Pacific
Natural Gas Supply Shortages: Evidence in
the Rocky Mountains
Dwindling natural gas supply and increased demand are
responsible for rolling power blackouts in areas of Colo-
rado in late February. The controlled blackouts affected
325,000 power customers, some for several hours. Xcel
Energy, the region's largest power supplier, released infor-
mation citing reduced natural gas supply into Colorado as
the reason for curtailed electrical service. Later news re-
leases reported that portions of three coal-fired Colorado
power plants were out of commission for scheduled main-
tenance or because of mechanical breakdowns, increas-
ing the need for natural gas which usually generates half
of Xcel's energy. In addition, weather forecasts predicted
higher than actual temperatures; thus, natural gas was not
available to meet demand created by extreme cold. The
shortage was exacerbated by a number of Rocky Moun-
tain natural gas wells suffering frozen pumping equipment
as well as regional gas pipelines operating at full capacity,
preventing delivery of additional supplies from other areas.
Xcel issued a report to the Colorado Public Utilities Com-
mission on March 13, which will be reviewed over the next
three months to determine if regulatory action is needed.
The company will investigate its weather forecasting
sources to see if better accuracy is possible.
-------
Spring 2006
Page 4
COALBED METHANE EXTRA
M I T H * N t
OUTflEACH
Safety, continued from page 2
newly mined-out areas. MSHA re-
quires carefully executed roof control
systems and roof hazard alert devices
to keep miners out of unprotected
areas as ways to prevent injuries and
death.
Finally, working in tight spaces with
equipment and vehicles poses the risk
of being crushed or struck. Miners
can be hurt by conveyor belts, hy-
draulic hoses, and while repairing
equipment. In 2005, 10 deaths oc-
curred in U.S. underground coal
mines due to powered equipment.
The Sago Mine Accident
As discussed above, even mines that
aren't considered especially prone to
high methane levels are vulnerable to
methane-related accidents. Nothing
brought this point home to the public
more than the January 2 Sago mine
disaster, which has been called the
worst mining-related accident in the
state of West Virginia in almost 40
years. The explosion occurred when
miners returned to work following the
New Year's holiday. Twelve miners
perished, while one survivor is recov-
ering.
Since the Sago event, speculation
regarding the cause of the accident
led to media coverage of the mine's
safety record leading up to the acci-
dent. Sago had 208 MSHA citations
in 2005, but MSHA reports that none
were serious enough to close the en-
tire mine. According to MSHA, less
than half were for "significant and sub-
stantial" violations and none involved
an immediate risk of injury. MSHA
attributes the relatively high number of
citations to Sago's increased mining
operations in 2005 (more than double
the 2004 production levels), which
prompted MSHA to dramatically in-
crease its on-site inspection and en-
forcement presence. Though some of
the citations addressed methane ven-
tilation issues, Sago was not consid-
ered a gassy mine and was not pro-
filed by CMOP as a good candidate
for a methane drainage project.
Currently, MSHA and the West Vir-
ginia Office of Miner's Health, Safety,
and Training (WVMHST) are con-
ducting an official investigation of the
accident. One question this federal-
state team is asking is whether leaks
in nearby natural gas wells may have
led to methane buildup in the mine or
if lightning may have hit a well. Also
under investigation is the design and
installation of a block wall, the timeli-
ness of rescue efforts, and the ab-
sence of a mobile communications
system. International Coal Group
(ICG), which purchased Sago and
began operating it in November
2005, completed their independent
accident investigation and released
the results on March 14. ICG reports
that an explosion was ignited by
lightning and fueled by
methane that naturally
accumulated in an
abandoned area of the
mine that had been
recently sealed. The
ICG investigation con-
cludes that none of the
citations issued at the
Sago Mine during the
accident investigation,
or prior to the accident
during 2005, were
linked to the explosion
in any way. ICG be-
lieves the results of
the joint federal-state
International Perspective on
Coal Mine Safety
The United States is not the only
country facing safety concerns at coal
mines. In fact, several other countries
have higher fatality rates per million
metric tons of coal produced (see Fig-
ure 1). Recent high profile coal mine
accidents in Mexico and China, the
world leader in coal production, CMM
emissions, and coal mining fatalities,
illustrate the global nature of the dan-
ger posed by mine methane. Both
China and Mexico are making efforts
to improve mine safety specifically by
targeting CMM drainage and recovery
operations.
investigation will reach
a similar conclusion.
As of March 15, Sago
has resumed mining
operations.
Figure 1. Comparison of International
Mortality Rates Due to Coal Mining 2003-2004
1
I
>n
I
Q
Sources: Ukraine - peer.org; Russia and South Africa -
Wang Deming of China University of Mining and Technol-
ogy; Australia, US, and China - YX Cao, Ph.D. of Asian
American Gas Inc.; India - China Labor Watch
Note: China's mortality rate is based on official data from the
State General Administration of Work Safety.
MSHA's Response
U.S. mine safety regulations, today
considered among the most stringent
in the world, have been developed
primarily in response to coal mine
tragedies over the past several dec-
ades. The 1968 explosion at West
Virginia's Farmington No. 9 mine,
which killed 78 miners, led to the
Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.
The Coal Act, as it is generally
known, was more comprehensive
and more stringent than any previous
Federal legislation governing the
See Safety, page 5
China is often the focus of mine safety
discussions. In 2005 alone it is esti-
mated that there were 6,000 deaths
from coal mining according to official
government statistics; other estimates
are as high as 20,000, according to
the Hong Kong-based labor group
China Labor Bulletin. The Chinese
fatality rate of 6,000 to 20,000 coal
mining deaths per year indicates that
4 to 13 miners die for every million
metric tons of coal produced. Cur-
rently in the US, 0.04 miners die for
See International, page 5
-------
Spring 2006
Page 5
COALBED METHANE EXTRA
M I T H * N t
OUTflEACH
Safety, continued from page 4
mining industry. The Coal Act included
surface as well as underground coal
mines within its scope, required more
inspections, and imposed monetary
penalties for violations. Most recently
Congress passed the Federal Mine
Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine
Act), the legislation which currently gov-
erns MSHA's activities. The Mine Act
transferred responsibility for carrying out
its mandates from the Department of
the Interior to the Department of Labor,
and named MSHA responsible for as-
sisting the mining community with rule
compliance and offering education and
technical training to mining personnel.
Today, MSHA is required to inspect un-
derground mines at least four times per
year while more frequent inspections
are authorized and required for certain
mines, such as those that release large
amounts of methane gas. MSHA also
investigates all fatal mine accidents.
Furthermore, MSHA has the authority to
issue citations, assess fines, and even
stop work at mines for safety reasons.
It is estimated that MSHA collected $25
million in fines from all U.S. mines in
2005.
Primarily in response to the Sago
incident, MSHA has initiated a vari-
ety of safety measures and events.
First, MSHA is in the process of field-
testing a number of emergency com-
munications and tracking systems
that represent the most promising
technologies for application in under-
ground mines. Both MSHA-approved
technologies and those under devel-
opment will be evaluated. Further-
more, the agency is co-sponsoring
the "Spring Thaw 2006 Safety Pro-
gram" to host more than fifty coop-
erative mine safety and health work-
shops around the nation to increase
awareness of mining hazards. For
example, MSHA, the state of West
Virginia, and NIOSH will co-sponsor
an international Mining Health and
Safety Symposium from April 20-22
at Wheeling Jesuit University in
Wheeling, West Virginia. MSHA has
also promoted time-sensitive safety
themes. It declared February 20 -
24 "Focus on Safety Week" for metal
and non-metal mines nationwide,
and it conducted a "Stand Down for
Safety" nationwide on February 6
during which time miners, company
officials and management dis-
cussed safety issues and hazards.
MSHA also responded to the Sago
incident with tougher regulation. On
February 10, MSHA announced that
it would pursue an emergency tem-
porary standard (ETS), a rulemak-
ing procedure that has only been
used twice before by MSHA. On
March 9, the ETS took effect upon
its publication in the Federal Regis-
ter. The standard makes the follow-
ing health and safety enhance-
ments:
1) Self-Contained Self Rescue De-
vices: MSHA requires mine opera-
tors to maintain additional SCSRs
for each miner underground in a
storage area where they are readily
accessible for miners in the event of
an emergency.
2) Lifelines: MSHA requires mine
operators to install lifelines in all
primary and alternate escape routes
out of the mine. Lifelines help guide
miners in poor visibility conditions
toward evacuation routes.
3) Training: Training provisions
See Safety, page 8
International, continued from page 4
every million metric tons of coal produced. Several disas-
ters this year have resulted in fatalities. A gas explosion
February 1 at Jincheng Mining Group's Sihe mine in the
Shanxi Province resulted in the death of 23 miners and
gas poisoning of 53 others. This particular accident has
received attention because the largest CMM power gen-
eration project in the world—a 120 MW power plant—is
currently under construction at Sihe mine.
China's government has made improving work safety a
policy priority for years, but has fallen short of its goals for
reducing the number of accidents as mines have in-
creased production to meet increasing demand. Coal is
produced in China from both state and provincially owned
mines as well as mines owned by the private sector. Al-
though laws and regulations should apply regardless of
ownership, enforcement of regulations in private mines is
difficult, and consequently safety practices vary sharply
depending on location and ownership. Thousands of
mines have been ordered to close, and China has joined
international training and safety programs. In addition,
officials have been outlawed from owning shares in mining
operations and awards have been given for tips on unsafe
mining operations.
Though globally it ranks 27th in coal production and 17th in
CMM emissions, Mexico has recently had at least one
high-profile mine accident. In the border state of Coahuila,
an explosion killed 65 miners and injured eight at the
Pasta de Conchos coal mine on February 19. Investiga-
tors report that the mine collapsed in an explosion fed by
methane and coal dust. The vice president of operations
at the mine cites a sudden accumulation of gas in the
mine as the cause. Recovery of the 65 perished miners is
expected to take weeks to months due to the elevated
methane levels remaining, which continue to pose unsafe
conditions. Two weeks prior to the accident federal in-
spectors found several safety violations. Mine officials
state that none of the violations were serious and most
had been fixed before the accident. The cause of the sud-
den gas accumulation is under investigation. The Pasta
de Conchos mine initiated a degasification program in the
early 1990s but could not use or sell the resulting gas be-
cause of Mexican law prohibiting all entities besides the
state oil and gas monopoly from profiting on the resource.
In response to the tragedy, the Mexican legislature has
acted quickly to overturn this regulation. The new law,
which was awaiting Senate approval when this article went
to press, could provide an added incentive for mines to
practice drainage in the future.
-------
Spring 2006
Page 6
COALBED METHANE EXTRA
M I T H * N t
OUTflEACH
M2M Update,
continued from page 1
UNECE Task Force on Mine Safety
Launches Case Studies
The UNECE Task Force on Mine
Safety was created to help clarify the
benefits of methane recovery as a
critical element of improving mine
safety. At the January meeting in Ge-
neva, the Task Force resolved to de-
velop a series of case studies that
would provide concrete examples il-
lustrating the range of conditions that
occur in gassy coal mines, the tech-
nologies that have been implemented
and their applicability for specific con-
ditions, and the social and economic
impacts of methane-related explo-
sions and accidents. The goal of the
case studies will be to identify best
practices that result in beneficial so-
cial and economic outcomes for gassy
coal mines. Case studies in the
United States, Russia, and Kazakh-
stan are being undertaken and devel-
oped.
Extended Dates for the Coal Tech-
nical Subcommittee Meeting
The next Coal Technical Subcommit-
tee meeting is fast approaching, and
planning has been underway for
months to ensure a dynamic and in-
formative event. The Subcommittee
meeting will take place over one and
a half days, May 22 to 23, at the Bry-
ant Conference Center in Tuscaloosa,
Alabama in conjunction with the 2006
International Coalbed Methane Sym-
posium (May 22-26, 2006). An addi-
tional day has been added to focus on
presentations from the World Bank
and other multilateral financial institu-
tions on acquiring funding for coal
mine methane projects. The meeting
will also include a presentation from
GE Jenbacher on abandoned mine
methane projects in Europe and an
update from the Administrative Sup-
port Group (ASG). The Sub-
committee will discuss its pro-
gress on the Action Plan de-
veloped at the November
2005 meeting in Argentina
and will hear from coun- ^L I
try representatives and project net-
work members about their activities,
priorities, and needs. This is your
opportunity to influence the action
items and next steps for the subcom-
mittee! Please join us for this impor-
tant meeting. h 11 p : / /
www.methanetomarkets.org/
events/2006/coal/coal-may06.htm
The other Methane to Markets sec-
tors are planning exciting subcom-
mittee meeting events as well. The
Oil and Gas Subcommittee will con-
vene on April 27 in Villahermosa,
Mexico. The Landfill sector will hold
its subcommittee meeting on May 12
in Cologne, Germany in conjunction
with the 2006 Carbon Expo.
http://www.methanetomarkets.org/
events/index, htm
2007 Methane to Markets Partner-
ship Expo
Plans are underway for the M2M
Partnership Expo to be held during
the second half of 2007. This event
will serve to highlight project opportu-
nities, successes, and methane re-
covery and use technologies across
all Partnership sectors. The Expo
Committee is working hard to finalize
details on the date and location—
stay tuned!
Two M2M Funding Opportunities
Still Open
Two grant opportunities are giving
priority to projects that meet the crite-
ria for inclusion in the Methane to
Markets Partnership. The Interna-
tional Utility Efficiency Partnerships
(IUEP) announced a 2006 Request
for Proposals (RFP) for developing
and implementing international en-
ergy efficiency projects and methane
reduction projects that will result in
the reduction, avoidance, or seques-
tration of greenhouse gases (GHG).
The RFP will provide funding for ap-
proximately 10 to 15 GHG reduction
projects with a total value of
k $4,000,000 including a 50/50
cost share requirement. The
Methane to Markets
RFP is open through April 20, 2006.
Projects awarded under this year's
RFP will be those that demonstrate
quantifiable emissions reductions that
can be immediately implemented in
host countries. In addition, USAID's
Global Development Alliance (GDA)
has called for the submission of con-
cept papers that propose innovate
approaches to supporting the core
Methane to Markets activities. Pro-
posals are being solicited for Mexico,
Ukraine, Brazil, Columbia, India, and
Nigeria. The deadline for submission
is September 30, 2006. The number
and value of grant awards will be de-
termine by the Mission Staff in each
country.
United States and Mexico Pledge to
Reduce GHG Emissions
On March 24, 2006, U.S. EPA,
USAID, and the Mexican Secretariat
of Environment and Natural Re-
sources (SEMARNAT) took a con-
crete step towards the implementation
of methane utilization projects in Mex-
ico. At a ceremony presided over by
U.S. EPA Deputy Administrator Mar-
cus Peacock, USAID Acting Adminis-
trator Frederick Schieck, and SEMAR-
NAT Undersecretary Jose Ramon
Ardavm Ituarte, the three agencies
signed a Letter of Cooperation stating
their commitment to collaborate on
Methane to Markets activities in Mex-
ico. Under the terms the letter of co-
operation, U.S. EPA, USAID, and SE-
MARNAT will work together to further
the Partnership's mission by sharing
and expanding the use of technolo-
gies to recover and use methane gas
currently released from natural gas
and oil systems, landfills, under-
ground coal mines, and agricultural
operations. In his remarks, Undersec-
retary Ituarte specifically mentioned
the recent coal mine explosion in
Coahuila that killed 65 miners and
injured 8. He indicated that legislation
is under consideration by the Mexican
Senate to address current regulatory
barriers to CMM project development
in order to decrease the likelihood of
such a tragedy in the future.
-------
Spring 2006
Page 7
COALBED METHANE EXTRA
CMM/CBM News
India Offers Blocks for Coalbed
Methane Exploration and Develop-
ment
The Indian government will offer 10
coal-field blocks for coalbed methane
exploration and development under a
third round of international bidding.
Since the first two rounds of interna-
tional bidding for CBM blocks in 2001
and 2003, significant finds have been
reported in coal blocks in eastern and
central India. The government is of-
fering a 7-year tax holiday starting
from the date of gas production.
Other incentives include freedom to
sell gas in domestic markets at mar-
ket rates, zero customs duty on op-
eration-related imports, and no partici-
pating interest for the government.
The blocks are located in Madhya
Pradesh, Chattisgarh, Jharkhand,
West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh and
Rajasthan. The Notice Inviting Offer
and the Bid Evaluation Criteria have
been posted and can be accessed at
www.dghindia-cbm-iii.com.
Canadian Coalbed Activity
According to industry estimates, Ca-
nadian natural gas production is ex-
pected to rise as much as 20% from
the current 17 billion cubic feet per
day to 20 bcf per day. Most of the
new production is expected to come
from coalbed methane and from con-
ventional natural gas production in the
Arctic. Coalbed methane will grow
from a sector in its infancy to a major
natural gas contributor. Jon Baker,
CEO of Trident Exploration Corp., one
of Canada's largest CBM companies,
predicts that CBM will likely represent
10% of Canadian gas volumes by
2010 from two main plays: the Horse-
shoe Canyon and the Mannville. If
the increased production is realized,
Canada would solidify its rank as the
world's No. 3 natural gas producer
behind Russia and the United States.
TerraWest Strikes CBM Deal in
China
TerraWest Energy Corp. has struck a
deal to develop coalbed methane gas
deposits on 650 square kilometers in
the Junggar coal basin in the western
Chinese province of Xinjiang. This is
TerraWest's first production-sharing
contract with China United Coalbed
Methane Corp. Ltd (CUCBM). The
contract, signed in Beijing on Decem-
ber 30, 2005, also involves Chinese
oil giant PetroChina, which holds the
original natural gas lease for the prop-
erty. Under the deal, TerraWest is
responsible for all of the exploration
spending with the project partners
sharing commercial development and
production costs. PetroChina has a
48 percent interest in the project,
while TerraWest holds 47 percent and
CUCBM about 5 percent.
Ukraine's Cabinet Approved Jl Pro-
cedures
Ukraine's Cabinet officially approved
a set of Joint Implementation (Jl) pro-
cedures in Decree
#206 on February 22,
2006. The legisla-
tion, which was sub-
sequently signed by
the Ukrainian Prime
Minister, formally out-
lines the Federal
Government's proce-
dures of considera-
tion, approval and
implementation for
domestic companies
to carry out Jl pro-
jects under Article 6
of the Kyoto Protocol.
The official procedure
outlines a two-step
process for the approval of Jl projects
by Ukraine's Ministry for Environ-
mental Protection (MENP). First, a
project developer must submit an ini-
tial application on the claimed amount
of Emission Reduction Units (ERUs).
The MENP is allowed up to one
month to consider the application and
issue either a Letter of Endorsement
(LoE) or a written reason for refusal.
If the application is accepted, the pro-
ject developer must then submit addi-
tion application material including a
baseline study, ERU calculations, a
monitoring plan, an environmental
impact assessment and a project fi-
nancing plan. Within 30 days, the
MENP will submit either a Letter of
Approval (LoA) or reason for refusal.
The final application must be submit-
ted with the determination of one of
the verifying companies that is ac-
credited by the Jl Supervisory Com-
mittee.
This important step opens the way for
Ukrainian companies, including coal
mines interested in developing coal
mine methane recovery and utilization
projects, to take advantage of the
Kyoto Protocol's financial support.
Currently, Ukraine ranks 4th in the
world in methane emissions from coal
mines.
-------
Spring 2006
Page 8
COALBED METHANE EXTRA
M I T H * N t
OUTflEACH
Safety, continued from page 5
have been added requiring operators to train miners to
transfer from one SCSR to another. This training will be
reinforced during mine emergency evacuation drills held
on a quarterly basis.
4) Accident Notification: MSHA requires mine operators to
inform MSHA of an accident within 15 minutes of its occur-
rence so that coordination of appropriate mine rescue or
other emergency response can begin as soon as possible.
In developing its standard, MSHA followed the lead of
West Virginia, where lawmakers passed a new mine-
safety bill on January 23 requiring companies to use com-
munication and tracking devices, store extra air packs un-
derground and report accidents within 15 minutes. Other
states are debating similar measures. Lastly, MSHA in-
tends to revise its 25 year old penalty structure and in-
crease fines in an effort to curb safety violations.
Conclusion
Though the US coal industry has a relatively low mortality
rate among top coal-producing nations, US miners are still
challenged by a number of safety issues. Several inci-
dents in addition to the Sago accident have hit the coal
mining industry already this year. During the first two
months of 2006, nine additional fatalities in four states
were reported due to mine fires, transportation accidents,
and equipment mishandling. This range of risks reinforces
that coal mines must monitor more than just methane lev-
els to ensure safety.
The recent focus on domestic mine safety has inspired
regulatory reform, increased inspections, and numerous
investigations. This attention brings methane's role in
mine safety to the forefront since methane accumulations,
if not managed and avoided, can have devastating results.
CMOP works with coal mines in the US and all over the
world to recover methane, mitigating greenhouse gas
emissions as well as promoting use of this clean-burning
energy resource. Management of CMM can positively
influence mine safety because drainage removes methane
from the coal seam. As this year's accidents are investi-
gated and regulatory improvement continues, innovative
and effective ways to manage methane will become in-
creasingly relevant to the coal mining industry.
Announcement:
The CMOP Website now features quar-
terly, regional electricity and natural gas
prices as reported by EIA.
Check it out!
Address inquiries about the Coalbed Meth-
ane Extra or about the USEPA Coalbed
Methane Outreach Program to:
Pamela Franklin
Phone: 202-343-9476
Email: franklin.pamela@epa.gov
or
Barbora Jemelkova
Phone: 202-343-9899
Email: jemelkova.barbora@epa.gov
Our mailing address is:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Coalbed Methane Outreach Program,
6207J
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Visit our Web site at:
www.epa.gov/coalbed
www.methanetomarkets.org
What do you want to know about?
If you have suggestions or requests for future CBM Extra Content, please drop us a line.
-------
Spring 2006
Page 9
COALBED METHANE EXTRA
M I T H * N t
OUTflEACH
Upcoming CMM/CBM Events
North American Coalbed Methane Spring Forum
18-19 April, 2006
Hilton Garden Inn-Southpointe, Canonsburg, PA
Contact: K. Aminian, Coordinator
Email: khaminian@mail.wvu.edu
Invitation Letter and Registration Form at www.epa.gov/
cmop/workshops.html
Indonesia Coalbed Methane Development: A Future
Alternative Energy for the Region
18-19 April 2006
The Ritz Carlton Hotel, Jakarta, Indonesia
Phone: +62 21 837 95203 or 83757
Fax: + 62 21 837 95302
Email: indocbm.committee@iee-e.com
Website: http://www.iee-c.com/events indocbm.html
Mining Energy Outlook: Economic Barriers and Solu-
tions to Energy Issues in Mining
15th Annual Mineral Economics & Management Society
(MEMS) Conference
19-21 April 2006
Golden Hotel, Golden, Colorado
Website: www.minecon.com
International Mining Health and Safety Symposium
20-22 April 2006
Wheeling Jesuit University, Wheeling, West Virginia
Email: minesafety@nttc.edu
Phone: (800) 678-6882
Coal Seam Methane - Coal Mine Methane Summit
2006
27-28 April 2006
Marriott Hotel, Brisbane, Australia
Email: info@iir.com.au
Tel: (02) 9923 5090
Website: CSM/CMM Summit 2006
Climate Change Technology: Engineering Challenges
and Solutions in the 21st Century
9-12 May 2006
Ottawa, Canada
Phone:613-839-1108
Link: http://www.ccc2006.ca/eng/program.html
International Workshop-Coal for Sustainable Energy:
Clean Development & Climate Change
16-17 May 2006
New Delhi, India
Phone: +44 (0) 20 8940 0477
Fax: +44 (0) 20 8940 9624
Contact: Ms. Ivana Jackson, World Coal Institute
Email: iiackson@worldcoal.org
2006 International Coalbed Methane Symposium
22-25 May 2006
The Bryant Conference Center, Tuscaloosa, Alabama
Contact: nhodo@ccs.ua.edu
Fax: 205-348-9276
http://bama.ua.edu/~coalbed/
Methane to Markets Coal Technical Subcommittee
Meeting (held in Conjunction with the Coalbed Meth-
ane Symposium)
22-23 May 2006
The Bryant Conference Center, Tuscaloosa, Alabama
www. meth a n eto ma rkets. o rg
Linking Schemes: Potential Impacts of Linking the
European Union Emissions Trading System with
Emerging Carbon Markets in other Countries
29-30 May 2006
Fondation Universitaire, Brussels, Belgium
Contact: Dr. Ralf Schiile
Email: ralf.schuele@wupperinst.org
Website: www.wupperinst.org/Sites/Proiects/rg2/3214.html
11th US/North American Mine Ventilation Symposium
5-7 June 2006
University Park, Pennsylvania, USA
Contact: Rachel Altemus, Penn State University
Rla7@psu.edu
Tel:+1 814-865-3439
www.egee.psu.edu/USMVS2006/
World Energy Council Regional Energy Forum -
FOREN 2006
11-15 June 2006
Neptun, Romania
Phone: (+4021) 346.43.30; (+4021) 346.47.31
Fax: (+4021) 346.45.46
foren2006@cnr-cme.ro
www.cnr-cme.ro/foren2006
Coal Mine Methane: Recovery, Utilization, Investment
Opportunities
19-21 June 2006
Kemerovo, Russia
http://www.undp.uglemetan.ru/confeng.php
8th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Con-
trol Technologies
19-23 June 2006
Trondheim, Norway
www.ghgt-8.no
------- |