Talk:Coalbed methane

Renewable Resource?
Even if bacteria can continue to break down coal and produce methane, it's not renewable when the coal runs out. That might not happen for a thousand or a million years, but it's not infinitely sustainable. Considering it "renewable" is still a minor and controversial opinion. It's not unreasonable to assume that technology will some day develop which might enhance the in-situ production of methane from coal beds and thus make it run out that much faster. Landroo (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The term renewable is a misnomer. 1) Most of the methane is still thermogenic. 2) It is old knowledge that some bacterial methane was mixed in. 3) They can only get an additional resource by manipulating the chemical environment. 4) The bacteria does not eat the solid coal; they eat hydrocarbons; most of the solid coal is highly phenolic and toxic to bacteria. 5) The hydrocarbons in the coals are not abundant; they will run out fast. 6)The Wyoming coals and the Fruitland coals in New Mexico are extra-ordinary (when mature) rich in special liptinitic hydrocarbon generating components. The "renewable" tag is purly a manipulative strategy. PETRSCIENT (talk) 03:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Extraction
1) Open cavity completetion has played an very important role in CBM production and is nearly "unique" to CBM. Missing from the article.

2) Strange and unspecific statement that "coal from alabama can have different Langmuir para compared to xx, despite otherwise similar coal properties." PETRSCIENT (talk) 04:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Link missing
The link http://www.cccbm.org/ appears not to work (16 July 2010) 160.5.197.157 (talk) 13:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Propose adding reference to NRC report on coalbed methane produced water
Hi, I'd like to add some text about a 2010 United States National Research Council report on coalbed methane produced water:


 * The water that must be pumped out to release methane from some coal beds is called "produced" water, and must be managed through some combination of disposal, use, or storage, and often requires treatment to remove salts and other compounds. Currently, the majority of the water is disposed of at least cost, rather than being put to beneficial use, for example, for irrigation and as drinking water for livestock. These potential beneficial uses have gained attention particularly in the western states where water is a much needed commodity. A 2011 National Research Council report investigated the critical environmental, economic, and regulatory issues associated with coal bed methane produced water. The report noted that the extraction of water from coal beds and its eventual disposal or use can have either positive or negative impacts on soil, ecosystems, and the quality and quantity of surface water and groundwater. At present, no widespread negative effects have been documented. However, because coal bed methane production is a relatively young industry, these environmental impacts are not yet completely documented or understood . Produced water varies greatly in both quality and quantity depending on the geology of the coal basin from which it is extracted, but after any required treatment, the water could be put to beneficial uses. However, produced water is thought to accumulate over millions of years, making it essentially a nonrenewable resource, and therefore managing produced water carries with it the responsibility to take all environmental considerations into account, rather than simply choosing the management option that comes at the least cost. Furthermore, the consequences of removing these stocks of water on local groundwater systems have not yet been thoroughly investigated. Continued research to resolve gaps in information on the chemistry of coal bed methane produced water, its effects on the environment, and the regulatory framework to best govern it, would permit the development of more effective and sound coal bed methane produced water management practices.

I'd appreciate any feedback. Thanks, Earlgrey101 (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I added this text to the "Environmental Impacts" section and someone else deleted it. That's fine, but could you explain why? Otherwise I'd like to add the text back again. Earlgrey101 (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The movie Gasland
In this documentary it was claimed that you can't tell coal gas from shale gas, based on the carbon-14. According to the summary of this article, that is irrelevant; the gas from coal is nearly all methane, and the gas from shale is not. I believe the Gasland documentarian was over their head and needed to consult with independent researchers. It would have prevented this goof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.196.121.15 (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

New Section on Opposition Groups
I think this page needs a section on the opposition to Coal Bed Methane. In Australia there is massive opposition to Coal Seam Gas as they call it there from groups like Lock The Gate and in the UK there is opposition from groups like Frack Off. Allie Cabab (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If there is such opposition, then it would certainly justify mention. However (at least in the UK) there's a vast difference between coalbed methane and fracking. UK coalbed methane has been extracted without controversy for decades – it's a relatively simple borehole process, with little side effects. The current protest against fracking is because that's a different process, with risks of seismic activity and concerns over groundwater contamination.
 * Because fracking has now rattled a few cages, there's some overspill into other issues. Obviously this is just my subjective view, but I'm unimpressed with Frack off's recent pronouncements. They're text-matching, not comparing real similarities in techniques. UK coalbed just isn't as intrusive as the fracking-like techniques they complain of. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Moved from top of page. Please see wp:toppost. You can use "New section" tab near top of page to add a new posting. David Woodward ☮ ♡♢☞☽ 10:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

APRIL 2022. I have just read an article on the abc.net.au that producing coal seam gas in Queensland, Australia has waste salts as by products which will require 'management forever'. It did not say what toxins these salts were. We need to know and all activities which require future generations to pay for such management are ill advised. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:1C5C:E438:BCFA:27 (talk) 05:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Coalbed methane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080224103534/http://waterquality.montana.edu/docs/methane/cbmfaq.shtml to http://waterquality.montana.edu/docs/methane/cbmfaq.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150511105757/https://www.og.decc.gov.uk/UKpromote/onshore_paper/Promote_UK_CBM.pdf to https://www.og.decc.gov.uk/UKpromote/onshore_paper/Promote_UK_CBM.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060918195447/http://energy.usgs.gov/factsheets/Coalbed/coalmeth.html to http://energy.usgs.gov/factsheets/Coalbed/coalmeth.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050902224116/http://www.em.gov.bc.ca/subwebs/coalbedgas/ to http://www.em.gov.bc.ca/subwebs/coalbedgas/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)