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 ------- |