Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.. <br /> <br />'J:'; <br /> <br />..... <br />~. <br />o <br />.+;... <br /> <br />2. Water production from coalbed methane wells in the study area, <br />3. Limited groundwater recharge from rainfall and snowmelt. <br />- Migration of gas bubbles from downdip producing gas wells was found to have <br />little or no effect on the gas seeps. <br />- Homeowners' water wells were found to have little or no effect on the gas <br />seeps. <br />- Pre~sure interference was obs.erved from the Gurr well to the Pole Barn and <br />Salmon monitor Well, <br />- Shutting in the Gurr well helped to stabilize gas evolution near the subcrop, but . <br />does not appear to be .sufficient to significantly reduce gas seepage. <br />- Gas seepage in the Pine .River area can be expected to continue as long as <br />water production from gas wells exceeds recharge. <br />- Water injection was the most feasible remediation method evaluated. <br />- Metttane monitoring in affe.cted homes should be continued, since no <br />remediation method can be guaranteed. to be 100% effective because of high <br />permeability, faults' and fractures in the shallow coals. <br />- Explosive levels of methane have been detected in the study area outside of <br />homes, <br />- The Colorado Geological Survey has added coalbed methane to the list of <br />potential geologic hazards for future land use reviews. <br />- Coalbed methane gas does escape from shallow coal seams and this gas <br />could present a hazard if trapped in a surface structure. <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />