Category Archives: Energy Policy

Hickenlooper Does It Again: “I Drank Fracking Fluid”

22
  by: Colorado Pols Tue February 12, 2013 at 12:31 PM MDT

UPDATE: Conservation Colorado blasts Gov. John Hickenlooper in a statement a short while ago:

Conservation Colorado Deputy Director Carrie Curtiss released the following statement on Governor Hickenlooper’s comments in front of a U.S. Senate Energy and Environment Committee today:

"Looks like Governor Hickenlooper really drank the frack-aid on this one.  We're astounded that Governor Hickenlooper would use a national platform to give the impression that frack fluid is safe for public health.  The industry has a track record of misleading the public about the fact that its fracking fluid contains numerous toxic chemicals.  These chemicals  - include cancer causing benzene and diesel, as well as dozens of other dangerous compounds. Rather than implying to a national audience that there is nothing to fear, his energy would be better spent protecting public health back home."

Try to contain your apoplexy while the Washington Times reports from today's testimony before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee: 

(more…)


Full story: Hickenlooper Does It Again: “I Drank Fracking Fluid”

Oh my! I’m Making Big Enemies

2
  by: Konola Thu January 31, 2013 at 6:22 AM MDT

My most recent Free Press column covered a lot of ground making the point that industry is using Ray Scott to rob Colorado of severance taxes, and that you can’t believe much of what they say. The article generated a response from Ed Baltzer, President of Avant Environmental Services, Inc.

According to their website, “Avant Environmental Services, Inc. safely provides high-quality environmental services on time to industry, governments, and individuals. Services include Phase I Environmental Site Assessments as defined by ASTM, Phase II site assessments, regulatory compliance, voluntary cleanup plans, asbestos inspections and abatement management, environmental health and safety, air monitoring, and related services. Avant provides careful attention to each client’s particular situation.  Avant endeavors to provide the correct level of service and to work with each client to ensure that they are in compliance with relevant regulations.”

This website appears to be new, several pages are still under construction. My Baltzer is the only listed employee. He was previously with Walsh Environmental Scientists and Engineers, LLC, which has offices worldwide, including in Grand Junction. Walsh helps clients get drilling permits, among other things.

So… the first Email I received from him was directed to my editor at the Free Press. It is pretty long, so he followed up with a second letter to my editor, which included a cc to Representative Ray Scott. What follows is first my response to the second E-mail, then his second letter to the editor, then the first letter to the editor. Your comments are welcome. As usual, there are lots of supporting links in the Homework Section, which you can scroll down to access.

Response from me to second E-mail:

Ed, who is your employer? (http://www.avantenvironmental.com/company.html)

I almost wrote you a thank you note for giving me some ideas for follow up columns, but you are way too determined to discredit me for me to extend that courtesy. The fact that you have now included Ray Scott (Hi, Ray!) in this exchange leads me to believe that you are not simply an interested citizen invested in newspapers printing the truth, but rather are an industry shill.

It does seem that you are confusing me with a reporter, which I am not. I am an opinion columnist. Certainly facts are important when trying to motivate one to support one’s point of view, and my facts are just that. One of your examples in your dismissive letter was that I “lied” (my term, not yours) about the head of the institute in TX losing his job. He is no longer the head of that institute. He may still be a professor, but he is no longer the head of the institute. He lost his job as head of the institute. That is a fact.

What you did was throw up some straw arguments that have nothing to do with my point, which was that the scientific “evidence” promoted by industry is losing credibility in part because of the money influencing the outcomes. The bill that Ray Scott is sponsoring that would allow new wells to avoid severance tax is a give-away to the industry, and he needs to be called on it. I doubt that most of my readers know, but surely you do, that most production in wells occurs during the first couple of years of production. Hence, the bill Scott is proposing robs the people of Colorado of just compensation for the privilege of harvesting the resource that is owned by the people. If the industry weren’t already the most profitable on the planet, I might have some sympathy for the costs they incur, but that isn’t the case, and I have no reason to want severance taxes to be waived. I can only conclude that you and Scott want that result because of personal financial reasons.

Climate change has to do with humans burning fossil fuels, so it is not the stretch that you make it out to be to conflate the production of natural gas with climate change—especially if one has 700 words in which to make a point. Fracking has to do with the production of natural gas. Natural gas is a fossil fuel. We are fracking in order to continue burning fossil fuels. There is a relationship between climate change and burning fossil fuels, whether you recognize it or not, and there are plenty of scientific studies that point to that relationship. Here’s a story about just one of the scientific reports: http://www.geotimes.org/feb07/WebExtra020207.html

Second Letter to the editor

From: Ed Baltzer (E-mail redacted)
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 7:24 PM
To: Tracy Dvorak
Cc: Ray Scott; Claudette Konola

Subject: shortened article

Dear Ms. Dvorak:  here's a shortened version.  I also attached a list of common logical fallacies for your reading enjoyment.  Thanks again for a great newspaper.  EMB

 Dear Editor:
 
Claudette Konola's opinion of January 25, 2013 (Climate Change is Real, and Ray Scott is Clueless) begs for editing.  In it she introduces her strong opinion about climate change, and states "despite all of the money flowing into universities to produce studies that deny climate change has…human causes, reality is finally rearing its head…".    She then presents evidence of bias in hydraulic fracturing research.  Climate change and hydraulic fracturing are unrelated.  She presents a thesis not supported by the evidence, which is the writing error of a non-sequitur, or the logical Fallacy of Irrelevant Thesis.  
 
So, I guess her thesis actually is how big oil money is biasing hydraulic fracturing research, not climate change research.  She states such bias resulted in "professors and department heads resign[ing] from American universities for agreeing to publish biased information", implying multiple resignations from multiple universities.    In support of her thesis, she states that one professor retired and one academic head (Raymond Orbach) "lost his job".  However, according to the University of Texas, Mr. Orbach resigned from his post as director of The Energy Institute at UT, but remains a professor, so he did not lose his job. What she wrote misrepresented the facts.  In fact, one department head resigned his post at one university, which had nothing to do with climate change research. 

 
Ms Konola then discusses a drilling bill proposed by our Representative Ray Scott.  The bill, HB-1122, is silent on hydraulic fracturing, global warming, AND scientific research.  This is another non-sequitur.   

Ms Konola uses language such as "hyped as being true to science",  "fantasy world of pro-oil and gas operatives", "flagrant disregard for truth and science", and "his pockets get filled".  This is using biased or emotional language to coerce the reader to accept a position, rather than using logic or evidence.  It is known as the Question-Begging Epithet, another logical fallacy.  I have other comments but am out of space.

Such errors are not unique to Ms Konola or Progressives.  All of us need to think clearly and write carefully.  Present a clear thesis and logically support it with undistorted facts.   This is hard work, but is required for intelligent discussion, which is vital to the preservation of our Republic.
 
Thank you for your time.
 
Sincerely   
 
Edward Baltzer

And now the original letter to the editor:

From: Ed Baltzer (E-mail redacted)
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 9:10 PM
To: editor@gjfreepress.com
Cc: Claudette Konola; Ray Scott
Subject: Conoloa editorial (Konola note, for someone so picky about writing, he manages to mangle my name.)

Dear Editor:

Thank you for presenting a wide range of viewpoints in your paper – I really appreciate it. 

However, Claudette Konola's opinion of January 25, 2013 (Climate Change is Real, and Ray Scott is Clueless) begs for editing.  In it she introduces her strong opinion about climate change, and states "despite all of the money flowing into universities to produce studies that deny climate change has…human causes, reality is finally rearing its head…".    She then presents evidence of bias in hydraulic fracturing research.  Climate change and hydraulic fracturing are two unrelated topics.  She presents a thesis not supported by the evidence, which is the writing error of a non-sequitur.   A non-sequitur would have earned me an F in high-school English.  In logic, this is known as the Fallacy of Irrelevant Thesis. 

So, at this point, I assume that her thesis actually is how big oil money is biasing hydraulic fracturing research, not climate change research.  She states such bias resulted in "professors and department heads resign[ing] from American universities for agreeing to publish biased information", implying multiple resignations from multiple universities.    In support of her thesis,she states that one professor retired and one academic head (Raymond Orbach) "lost his job".  However, according to the University of Texas, Mr. Orbach resigned from his post as director of The Energy Institute at UT, but remains a professor, so he did not lose his job.  So a correct rendering would have been, "At the University of Texas, coincident with criticism of the study, a professor retired,  and another resigned from his directorship, but remained a professor".  What she wrote misrepresented the facts.  A reasonable interpretation, assuming the resignation and retirement are the result of criticism of flawed research, is that academia is routing out non-scientific research.  This is a good thing.

Ms Konola then describes a State University of New York (now Buffalo University) research report that was "hyped as being true to science" and resulted in a research institute being shut down.  I checked BU's web page and learned that the report presents robust data on environmental violations recorded in Pennsylvania between 2008 and 2011.   It was peer reviewed by two professors, a retired US DOT employee, and an environmental consultant.  It is exactly this type of research that is needed to understand the role of regulations and regulators in mitigating environmental impacts of hydrocarbon production.  In their decision to close the institute, UB stated that they are pursuing "a comprehensive program of scholarship and education with appropriate breadth and complexity".  Once again, assuming the criticism of the report was justified, BU corrected errant scientific research, which is good.  By the way, her use of biased and emotive language such as "hyped" in her statement above and "fantasy world of pro-oil and gas operatives" earlier in the article is known in logic as the Question-Begging Epithet, and is a logical fallacy.

After criticizing Range Resources for "bull[ing] EPA" (another Question-Begging Epithet fallacy) by legally protesting EPA's "scientifically baseless action" (hey, maybe it IS scientifically baseless, did she check?), Ms Konola discusses a drilling bill proposed by our Representative Ray Scott.  The bill, HB-1122, is silent on hydraulic fracturing.  This is another non-sequitur. 

I could go on, but it's late. 

Ms Konola and other progressives are not alone in their use of logical fallacies, flawed reasoning, misrepresentation, and writing errors.  We all make these and similar errors.  I encourage all people, especially writers, to think clearly and write carefully.  Present a clear thesis (is it climate change? fracturing pollutes? drilling is bad? Representative Scott is greedy?  No one can determine Ms. Konola's thesis from her article).  Then support your thesis with undistorted facts and logic that is free of fallacies.   This is hard work, but is a requirement for intelligent discussion, which is vital to the preservation of our republic.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely

Edward Baltzer

Certified Hazardous Materials Manager

Certified Professional Geologist

Homework:

Free Press Article

Avant Environmental Services Website

Baltzer's Linkedin Page

Walsh website

Good Story About Scott's Proposed Bill

 


Full story: Oh my! I’m Making Big Enemies

Blistering Audit Hits Colorado Energy Office

11
  by: Colorado Pols Tue January 29, 2013 at 12:19 PM MDT

Kristen Wyatt of the Associated Press reports, and no denying this doesn't look good:

Colorado's embattled energy development office is plagued by misspending, sloppy accounting and high turnover, according to a blistering state audit released Tuesday.

The review blasted the Colorado Energy Office for a number of issues, including not keeping track of travel expenses and contracts, and not following up to make sure projects were complete.

The audit concluded the agency can't demonstrate the $252 million spent over the past six years was used cost-effectively. Much of that amount — $144 million from fiscal years 2009 through 2012 — was federal stimulus money…

Auditors found that between 2007 and 2012, the agency had no comprehensive annual budget for 34 programs and couldn't determine the amount spent on any of them. Auditors reviewed eight of those programs in depth, finding that staff couldn't identify goals or whether any of them [Pols emphasis] had been achieved.

We'll start by agreeing that nobody should defend sloppy accounting in this office any more than one would in, for example, the Colorado Secretary of State's office, or other recent boondoggles like the state's trouble-plagued benefits management software. Waste is never okay, and the same can be said of taxpayer-funded projects without clearly defined objectives. That said, today's story does appear to contain a significant error:

(more…)


Full story: Blistering Audit Hits Colorado Energy Office

Oil and Gas Lobbyist Commits Termination Offense

48
  by: Colorado Pols Fri January 25, 2013 at 4:55 PM MDT

homer-doh-squaregreenA late Friday story that's sure to be the talk of the political class this weekend–forwarded to us earlier this afternoon, here's a memo that was accidentally sent to every member of the Colorado General Assembly yesterday. From the lobbyist outfit Colorado Legislative Services, LLC, the attachment to the email is supposed to be a new ColoradoBiz Magazine article on compressed natural gas.

Instead, they sent an internal memo prepared for Chesapeake Energy on their legislative agenda in Colorado for the 2013 session. Safe to say, this was not the intended attachment. Excerpts:

(more…)


Full story: Oil and Gas Lobbyist Commits Termination Offense

Ray Scott demonstrates profound dishonesty…or ignorance…you choose

12
  by: Duke Cox Mon January 21, 2013 at 7:58 PM MDT

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Representative Ray Scott of Mesa CountyВ introduced a bill into the Colorado Legislature on Friday that would exempt oil and gas wells permittedВ in the next two yearsВ from the states’ severance tax.В  В He claims the point is to help fund education, because after the two year free ride, he intendsВ subsequent severance taxes will be earmarked to fund college tuitions. Yeah, …right.

His supposition is that a freebie from the state is necessary and desirable to spur a slug of permits that will then create a resultant uptick in drilling, which will then spur job creation. He claims the idea is much like Amendment 58 which went down in 2008 by nearly 60 % at the ballot box…but it isn’t.

The Bill Ritter supported Amendment 58 would have raised severance taxes on O&G production and would have ended the decades long Ad Valorem Tax Credit that alreadyВ allows O&G companies to reduce their severance taxes in the amount of the property taxes they owe.В  This discount, which they alone enjoy, В amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes they don’t pay…year after year. To offer them another freebie and try to link it to a bill that did just the opposite to the industryВ isВ  plainly dishonest.

But, when you are a legislative toad for the oil and gas industry, you can never be quite dishonest enough…so Rep. Scott deals out this whopper…

 “The oil and gas industry in Colorado is arguably the largest industry in our state,

This , of course, is not true…and I believe Ray Scott knows it. В O&G are part of the energy and mining sector of our state economy…a sector which makes up under 5% of our state economic output. He is either lying or ignorant.

he also offers up another gem…

“Each derrick’s going to create potentially 200 jobs. If we could get one extra derrick in Mesa County right now, that 200 jobs is important. If we got five, that’s a thousand jobs.”

I am not sure what sort of math the good Representative is using to calculate this (or where he gets his data), but it is the same sort of calculation, I will bet, that allows the “blonde lady in the black pantsuit” to claim O&G supports 11,000,000 jobs nationally. I have checked withВ  the U.S. Dept. of Labor and I can only say to her, “liar, liar, pantsuit on fire” because she isn’t telling the truth…

and neither is Ray Scott.


Full story: Ray Scott demonstrates profound dishonesty…or ignorance…you choose

Hickenlooper For President? “TBD”

12
  by: Colorado Pols Fri January 18, 2013 at 11:29 AM MDT

FOX 31′s Eli Stokols reports obligatively:

Hickenlooper, when asked the 2016 question, has always dismissed the rumor that he might seek the Democratic presidential nomination; and, last week in his State of the State address, he playfully acknowledged that he’s confident about and focused on reelection, noting that he considers the mid-way point of his first term “the quarter point” of his administration.

But make no mistake: Hickenlooper is increasingly well-positioned for a presidential run in 2016 or, perhaps more realistically, in 2020.

In this month’s issue of 5280 magazine, Hickenlooper’s chief strategist, Alan Salazar, became the first member of the governor’s inner circle to openly express excitement about the prospect of a future presidential run.

The magazine’s editor at large, Maximillian Potter, asked, “Will we ever see a President Hickenlooper?”

Salazar’s stunningly candid response: “I hope so.”

Speculation about a possible presidential bid for Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, most recently stoked by a story in Politico that referred to him as a potential 2016 candidate, is primarily based in his overwhelmingly favorable approval ratings here in Colorado–persistently among the highest for any governor in America. That favorability, however, is based more on Hickenlooper’s perceived personal affability among voters than actual policy achievements as Governor. That’s a subtle but important difference.

The fact is that Hickenlooper’s relations with the Democratic base, particularly conservation-minded liberals, are more than a bit strained after his repeated statements, some bordering on gaffes, in favor of the industry. We do expect Hickenlooper to pick up support on the left after the legislature passes such high-profile bills as civil unions and the ASSET undocumented student tuition bill this year. Larger solutions to long-term fiscal problems the state faces are not yet in place, awaiting the next step in Hickenlooper’s ironically-named “TBD” initiative.

In short, Hickenlooper’s viability for high national office remains theoretical at best. We haven’t heard anything since the initial rumor about a possible Commerce Secretary appointment, but that remains one of a number of possbilities.

If Hickenlooper is serious about the “slow rollout” of his national aspirations described in Stokols’ piece today, and he wants to use his record as governor as part of that, he’ll need to turn issues like oil and gas drilling, and the state’s “TBD” fiscal outlook, into past-tense accomplishments.


Full story: Hickenlooper For President? “TBD”

Big Oil’s paying the bills at Colo. School of Mines oil shale research center

1
  by: checks-and-balances Wed January 16, 2013 at 2:03 PM MDT

Dr. Jeremy Boak, Director of the Center for Oil Shale Technology and Research (COSTAR) has been working hard this past year, trying to downplay fears about oil shale’s impact on western water supplies. And, while Dr. Boak has plenty to say, he fails to mention that the companies experimenting with oil shale fund his program.

This sort of corporate sponsorship for academics isn’t new, but it’s the sort of thing people should know when considering his opinions. After all, the saying “don’t bite the hand that feeds” could be seen to apply here.

COSTAR is a program at Colorado School of Mines, which was started in 2008 with funding from three oil companies – ExxonMobil, Shell and Total Exploration and Production.

According to a Colorado School of Mines press release, COSTAR is a $900,000 per year research center.

COSTAR’s website lists corporate money first among its funding sources. So, we think Dr. Boak has a pretty strong incentive to see oil shale speculation and experimentation continue.

The Guardian published a story last week on a similar situation, but with fracking instead of oil shale. According to the article, the gas industry has been buying up academic research so that data will show only the benefits of hydraulic fracturing, not the risks. After all, academic institutions have long been trusted sources for independent, third party research. Some might say, it’s hard to remain independent when the industries institutions studying are paying their bills.

The Guardian calls it “frackademia,” and sometimes the result of these relationships can be pretty obvious. Take this example:

Dr. Charles “Chip” Groat took early retirement from the University of Texas at Austin after his financial ties to the industry became public. The researcher, whose study had concluded that there is “no link between hydraulic fracturing and water contamination”, sits on the board of Plains Exploration and Production Company, a Houston-based fracker. Groat has received over $2m in cash and stock options from the company since 2007.

We don’t know what, if any, financial ties Dr. Boak has to oil shale companies, other than that they subsidize his paycheck as Director of COSTAR. In 2012, Dr. Boak spoke at an API-sponsored briefing on oil shale in Washington, D.C. Was he paid to appear and speak there? Who paid for his plane ticket or hotel room? Did the Colorado School of Mines have to foot the bill for his API press conference appearance? These are questions only Dr. Boak can answer, and maybe he should.

At the very least, the fact that Dr. Boak’s income is funded by oil companies should be mentioned whenever he’s quoted, and he shouldn’t be listed as an “academic” source. When Dr. Boak gives his opinion, he’s cashing a check made possible by the same companies promoting oil shale.


Full story: Big Oil’s paying the bills at Colo. School of Mines oil shale research center

Gov. Hickenlooper, we have a problem

6
  by: ProgressNow Colorado Tue January 15, 2013 at 1:58 PM MDT

With a new progressive majority in the Colorado House, and new progressive leaders in our state boldly tackling the big problems, we at ProgressNow Colorado are excited about where Colorado is headed in 2013.

But we’ve got a problem, and we need your help.

Gov. John Hickenlooper has proven to be a friend of progressives on many issues: basic rights for committed gay and lesbian couples, expanding access to health care, reducing violent gun crime, and providing a great education for all of Colorado’s students. But on the issue of oil and gas development and fracking, Gov. Hickenlooper has repeatedly sided with the oil and gas industry against protection for Coloradans. Last year, Gov. Hickenlooper even starred in a pro-oil industry ad that falsely claimed fracking has not resulted in groundwater contamination. (1)

hickenergy.jpg

Colorado is in the midst of an energy boom made possible by an extraction method for oil and gas called fracking. Energy production is an important part of Colorado’s economy. Striking the right balance between developing these natural resources, and protecting Colorado’s water supplies and communities, is one of the most important debates taking place today.

Click here to respectfully tell Gov. Hickenlooper to stand up for Colorado’s water and families, not out-of-state energy companies.

Earlier this month, Hickenlooper’s administration approved new groundwater testing and setback (minimum distance from existing structures) rules that fail, according to many experts, to adequately protect Colorado families from the harmful effects of oil and gas production near their homes. Some of these new rules, like a far less comprehensive water testing regimen, appear to be outright giveaways to energy companies at the expense of the health and safety of Coloradans. (2)

At ProgressNow Colorado, we applaud Gov. Hickenlooper for the things he has done right, but we can’t ignore his blind spot on conservation issues any longer. Click here to send a message to Gov. Hickenlooper right now, asking him to stop siding with energy interests over the interests of local communities threatened by drilling across the state.

We all know that energy production is going to happen. Working together, let’s make sure it’s done responsibly–and that our families and other irreplaceable resources are protected. Thank you for doing your part.




Full story: Gov. Hickenlooper, we have a problem

Greg Brophy Just Makes Stuff Up

3
  by: Colorado Pols Tue January 15, 2013 at 8:18 AM MDT

In an otherwise excellent New York Times story yesterday on the changing politics of guns in the state of Colorado, we find, naturally, the foremost gun nut rights advocate in the Colorado General Assembly, Sen. Greg Brophy. While Brophy commenting on a story about guns in Colorado is a pretty routine occurrence, we were taken aback by the…for lack of a better word, and excuse us, but the bullshit that Sen. Brophy either believes or repeats uncritically.

State Senator Greg Brophy, a Republican, said the attention from outside groups would make Colorado “ground zero for gun control in the United States.”

Republican supporters of gun rights have bristled at the push for tighter gun laws. One of the first bills introduced in the legislature would allow teachers with concealed-weapons permits to carry guns inside their classrooms (with a school district’s permission). Mr. Brophy was one who recoiled at the universal background checks, saying the only way to enforce such a system would be to require all gun owners to register their firearms. [Pols emphasis]

“That is the most onerous regulation ever conceived of in this country outside the outright confiscation of firearms,” he said. “Even if I want to loan a shotgun to my nephew to take out pheasant hunting, I can’t do that. I don’t think they realize here in Colorado just how dangerous that proposal is to liberty.”

Whether or not you support the idea, as endorsed by Gov. John Hickenlooper in his State of the State address last week, of requiring a background check for most firearms transfers including private transactions, there is no question that Sen. Brophy is irresponsibly exaggerating the issue. For one thing, the bill for universal background checks hasn’t even dropped yet. Brophy’s use of a hypothetical “nephew” in his example cleverly misdirects from the fact that these laws in other states do contain exemptions for immediate family members. If Sen. Brophy wants nephews included in that exemption, he can propose that as a lawmaker, can’t he?

More puzzling is Brophy’s sweeping claim that “the only way to enforce” universal background checks would be to “require all gun owners to register their firearms.” We really don’t know what he means by this. It’s possible that Brophy is fearful of a provision to require the reporting of lost or stolen firearms, but that’s certainly not the same thing as requiring all guns to be registered–and again, he hasn’t even seen the bill yet to know what’s in it. Moreover, considering the copiously-documented chain of custody required by law for such things as cold medicine today, or (need we even say it) medical marijuana, we just don’t see how the voting public is going to consider an obligation to report a stolen firearm some kind of onerous burden.

In the end, opposition to requiring a background check for every firearm sale boils down to preserving loopholes–loopholes by which an individual who even Sen. Brophy must admit should not have a gun might be able to obtain one. More so than proposals to ban various types of guns or gun parts, opposition to background checks makes no political sense to us.

But it occurs to us that we say this quite often about Sen. Brophy.


Full story: Greg Brophy Just Makes Stuff Up

Commissioner Sean Conway gets it wrong on new drilling setback rules

2
  by: Center for Western Priorities Fri January 11, 2013 at 3:23 PM MDT

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)



Weld County Commissioner Sean Conway made a blatantly false claim in a 9News Denver story that ran Thursday evening. In an effort to push back on the state’s efforts to provide “setback” protections for local homeowners near drilling and fracking sites, Conway claimed that new requirements increasing minimum setbacks would have prevented a cheese factory from opening in Greeley.

A little background: The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) has preliminarily agreed to increase the minimum distance between an active drilling operation and an occupied building to 500 ft. Conservation groups have urged the commission to go beyond this.

Yesterday, Mr. Conway wrongly stated that the new setback rules would have prevented the Leprino Cheese Plant from opening in Greeley because of three existing wells on the property. This is blatantly untrue.



The law allows new construction to proceed within 500 ft. of existing or proposed oil and gas development with an agreement between the landowner and the mineral owner.

Here are the relevant portions of the new rule:

604.a.1: …No Well or Production Facility shall be located five hundred (500) feet or less from a Building Unit except as provided in Rules 604.a.(1) A and B, and 604.b.



604.b.2: A Surface Owner and mineral owner or lessee may agree to locate future Building Units closer to existing or proposed Oil and Gas Locations than otherwise allowed under Rule 604.a…. [ Read the full rule]

There is a question whether 500 ft. is enough to keep residents safe from the effects of drilling operations, but that’s another discussion. To ensure Colorado is embracing a truly balanced approach to energy development, we need to guarantee that our elected officials make accurate statements.

Commissioner Conway either didn’t read the new rule before giving his sound bites, he didn’t understand the rule – in which case he probably shouldn’t pretend to be an authority on it – or he was simply looking to create a false example regardless of the truth.


Full story: Commissioner Sean Conway gets it wrong on new drilling setback rules

New video series takes look at drilling impacts on Colo. residents, businesses

1
  by: checks-and-balances Tue January 8, 2013 at 4:18 PM MDT

(The ongoing debate on fracking makes this diary worthwhile,especially to our West Slope polsters. – promoted by Voyageur)



POLS NOTE: Here is the link for those who can’t see the embedded player.

—–

A new video series takes a look at the impacts of drilling on Colorado residents and business owners. According to the Center for Western Priorities release – the group that’s releasing the minidocumentaries:

“Colorado communities struggling to balance their quality of life and local economies with industrial drilling and fracking operations are the focus of a new mini-documentary series by the Center for Western Priorities (CWP).”

The videos include interviews with residents and local business owners in Rifle and Paonia. People living in the Western Slope community of Rifle already have drilling in their midst, and are experiencing air and water challenges, explosions and truck traffic that make some of them wish they’d never moved there.

Farmers, ranchers and local business owners in Paonia talk about Colorado BLM’s plans to make 20,000+ acres in their area available for oil and gas leasing. Agriculture is a staple of the North Fork Valley, and the farmers and ranchers are scared of the impact drilling will have on their livelihoods.

More from the CWP release:

“It’s an unknown practice,” said Jeff Schwartz, a Paonia farmer. “The risk that we’ve learned, that I’ve learned, about around the country is that there is a high risk of water contamination, and that’s a high risk to my family making a living.” Schwartz continued, “Anything that threatens the safety of our food crops threatens everything we do.”

CWP says that LookWest will continue visiting western communities to give people affected by oil and gas drilling a platform to have their stories heard. You can watch the videos at the CWP website (www.westernpriorities.org).  


Full story: New video series takes look at drilling impacts on Colo. residents, businesses

2013: Ground Zero for Fracking

1
  by: wade norris Sun January 6, 2013 at 9:57 AM MDT

(Crossposted at Huffington Post)

This November, against all odds, the town of Longmont, Colorado, passed the first Fracking ban in Colorado. This ballot initiative was necessary because when the city council passed a ban in the summer, ‘Democratic’ Governor Hickenlooper threatened to sue the city to overturn it. Hickenlooper has sided with the Oil and Gas industry on every occasion, even cutting a commercial for the Industry which stated there were ‘no instances of contamination’ from Fracking.

Then, the Governor signed an Executive Order creating an Industry friendly task force that takes away the rights of local communities to regulate fracking.  

Undeterred, the people of Longmont turned to the Ballot Box and put the question to the Longmont voters.  Against enormous political pressure, the people of Longmont won, and now the industry-funded Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA) is suing the city over the voter-approved ban.

This is ground zero because this fight pits establishment politicians, even Democrats, aligned with the Oil and Gas industry, against the people who live in the communities who are endangered by fracking. If the Colorado Oil and Gas Industry wins their lawsuit it will most like be appealed to Federal court or even to the Supreme Court.  How will our President side on this issue?

In support of the citizens of Longmont and to inform and encourage other communities in Colorado, the grassroots group Be the Change held a rally and performance

event in Boulder on December 2nd.  Environmental Activists rallied in Colorado in solidarity with the City of Longmont.

Present was Bill McKibben of 350.org, Josh Fox of ‘Gasland’, Wes Wilson – Wes Wilson, former environmental engineer with the EPA, Phil Doe of Be the Change (CO), and

Michael Belmont of the Longmont activists who helped pass the ballot measure.

There were activist groups like Mothers for Sustainability and the Sierra Club.

Musical performances included Josh Fox, Laura Goldhammer, Earth Guardians, Elephant Revival, Pressure Point and Kunundrum.

Listen to the speakers and the bands lead the charge for support for the citizens of Longmont, and everyone opposed to fracking in this video here, with quotes from the speakers below.

Josh Fox of Gasland

                                       

The speakers are during the first hour, and the music starts with Josh Fox on Banjo at 1:12 into the video.

Bill McKibben of 350.org

(7 minute mark)

It was really good to see that pledge of resistance going around, and with a few thousand names on that (pledge) it will be harder for the powers that be to ignore what’s going on.

We watched 1200 people arrested in Washing last year. It was enough at least to temporarily slow down this big Tar Sands pipeline – the Keystone pipeline….

All these fights are coming together in great ways. And I am so grateful to you all for the work you are doing.

Michael Belmont -emcee and Longmont Activist with Our Health, Our Future, Our Longmont

(10 minute mark)

I entered this fracking fray because of a deep concern that the American Democratic process is being sold to the highest bidder. But the Giant doesn’t always win. In spite of a bullying Governor, a trillion dollar industry who threw half a million dollars at us, and 7 former mayors of Longmont who opposed our efforts, the ordinary people of Longmont prevailed.

On November 6, 2012, in Longmont, Colorado,against all odds and in the face of oppressive state laws, 60% of the voters from virtually all political persuasions reclaimed their constitutional right to health, safety and wellness by prohibiting the dangerous industrial operations of Fracking and the disposal of its toxic waste in our city limits.

Wes Wilson of the EPA:

(22 minute mark)


Lisa McKenzie of the Colorado School of Public Health showed in her studies that if your live within 1/2 mile of a gas well, you were more likely to have cancer and other illness….

So the science is now in. We know that fracking wells poisons people nearby.We can’t allow this to continue.

Josh Fox of Gasland:

(35 minute mark)

I don’t think Obama wins this state without Boulder.  I don’t think (Governor) Hickenlooper doesn’t win this state without the people like you going to bat for him. And if he is coming out there and saying to you ‘Well were going to sue you for defending your health.’ (boos) I mean this is an outrageous position for a Governor to be taking. For citizens to be democratically organized and standing up for your rights and saying ‘We don’t want the Fossil Fuel Industry, the chemical contamination and the lies of the 19th century… and 20th century in our future. We are going to defend our sanctity of our health, defend the character of our homes, defend the character of our towns… and then the Governor takes sides against the citizenship and sues them!?! (BOOS) I mean this to me seems to be an untenable political position if you are loud enough….

Our fate in New York is also tied to what you guys decide to do…

We need you badly… California, which has an enormous shale, the Monterrey Shale which stretches from East of San Francisco to East of Los Angeles and over the entire Central Valley –  the Agricultural Breadbasket and almond bakset and artichoke basket of the United States,  is in direct conflict for water, land and territory with the Oil and Gas industry and that’s coming…

If we can find a way to make Colorado a base of support, I think we are going to be able to help all of those fights.

Other Notable Quotes:

Sonia Skakich Skrima – founder of What the Frack?!

I tell people that this is not just the Oil and Gas industry Fracturing for Natural Gas. They are Fracturing our water, they are Fracturing our representative democracy, they are Fracturing our health, all for profits.

Angela Monti of Mothers for Sustainability

(47 minute mark)

Colorado is moving in the direction of the so called ‘New Energy Economy’. Many elected officials, state agencies and state environmental leaders… public universities are collaborating with the Oil and Gas industry to develop Colorado’s Natural gas reserves, thereby committing Colorado to decades of Hydraulic Fracturing. In 2010 under the leadership of Governor Ritter, and with the support of several state level environmental organizations, the state legislature passed the Orwellian and erroneously named Clean Air, Clean Jobs act making Colorado the first state in the nation to pass a fuel switching bill. It requires Public Utilities to transition some of their units to  Natural Gas and requires it must be produced here in Colorado, effectively mandating Hydraulic Fracturing in Colorado.

The musicians were concerned and outspoken as well.

The Earth Guardian’s singer Mr. Martinez – who gives me a lot of hope from the younger generation:

I went to Washington, D.C. and filed a lawsuit against the state of Colorado and against our country for not protecting our atmosphere, and our air, and our water. (it’s filed) on behalf of the Our Children’s Trust campaign that says all the water, the air and the Earth is to be protected for future generations to come… We are filing in all 50 states to reduce our carbon emissions….and we actually won in Texas in New Mexico, so they are lowering their carbon emissions every year and are now planting trees…

The group Pressure Point added

It is not our right but our duty to peacefully protest any and all actions that contradict the interest of We The People. We see a huge injustice today in the political arena where politicians are ruled by banking and special interests groups that is becoming a concern for the future generations of this Country and our World.

Kunundrum Guitarist Joseph Diehs :

Like many, I did not know what Fracking was or just how bad it is. But I do know I like a good beer. For those of you outside Colorado, the areas they are talking about Fracking – Longmont, Boulder, Fort Collins, they supply the water to some of the best breweries in the state, if not the country. There’s New Belgium (Fat Tire), Left Hand, Oskar Blues (Dale’s Pale Ale), Avery… Think how that would hurt those businesses if the water they used was ruined by fracking.

Other shout outs went out at the event to Sam Schabacher of Food and Water Watch for organizing various actions across the state, Shane Davis of Poudre Canyon Sierra Club, the Unity Center of Boulder for hosting and all of their excellent crew in charge of lighting, sound and stage management.

Thanks to Tommy Golec for editing and sound for this video.

Most of all, thanks to the people of Boulder county and Longmont for standing up to  the Oil and Gas Industry and our Governor.

By the way, if you are so inclined, please contact Governor Hickenlooper’s office on this subject at (303) 866-2471.

More video of the EPA hearing and Fracking protest last fall:

Governor Hickenlooper says there have been no instances of contamination from Fracking….let him drink this water…


Full story: 2013: Ground Zero for Fracking

The Constitution doesn’t grant your rights — it protects them

23
  by: Voyageur Thu January 3, 2013 at 1:01 AM MDT

(Because the Constitution is important, I’d like to further this dialog. – promoted by Voyageur)



      A relatively new Polster, ElliotFladen, has distinguished himself among our starboard stalwarts by posting reasoned arguments to support his views, rather than cutting and pasting boilerplate from some right-wing websites.  But while I respect him, I profoundly disagree with some statements he made in a recent exchange, in which I defended the right to martial privacy doctrine established in Griswold vs. Connecticut.

    Griswold, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) for those of you who like to look up such things, established a a right of privacy in the process of striking down a Connecticut law that banned the use of birth control by even married couples.

 

  ElliotFladen attacked that ruling, the precursor to the more famous Roe v. Wade abortion decision, in part because he found it at variance with an obscure labor law ruling upholding minimum wage laws.  I won’t go into that argument except to state that I have a masters degree in labor relations and am quite sure my knowledge of labor law and history far exceeds his.  I do, however, challenge his ending assertion in that discussion:  

“You need to understand two very simple facts of constitutional law.  (1) The constitution does not enshrine your policy preferences or mine.  I like contraception.  My wife and I have used it.  My girlfriends in the past have used it.  But just because I like it and I think it is SMART to use it does not mean that there is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO IT.  (2) And if you believe that there IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to contraception, you need to figure out the SOURCE of that right.”

    Let me make a couple of preliminary points.   First, Mr. Fladen, all caps is considered “shouting” on blogs and is also a bit jarring to read.  The portions you capitalized would have been better served by italicizing.

  Secondly, you are quite wrong to say the Constitution does not enshrine policy preferences.   It was written by white men who owned property and displays a decided preference to property and capital over labor – even going so far in its original form as to enshrine the right of white men to own black men and women as slaves.   This background is significant because while right-wingers love to assail “Judicial Activism” as some sort of left-wing heresy, the fact is that judicial activism goes back as far as the birth of the Supreme Court and has usually been right-wing activism aimed at upholding the rights of capital over labor – such as the decisions Fladen cites in which courts prohibited minimum-wage laws or limits on hours of work as unconstitutional limits on the right of contract.  Page Smiths eight-volume “People’s History of the United States” makes this point at length and I commend it to any serious student of American history.

   But let us turn now to Mr. Fladen’s rather irrelevant discussion about his wife and past girlfriends using birth control, which sets up his dual-edged claim:

 

“But just because I like it and I think it is SMART to use it does not mean that there is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO IT.  (2) And if you believe that there IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to contraception, you need to figure out the SOURCE of that right.”

Actually, that’s wrong on both points, and suggests a serious misunderstanding of what the Constitution is all about. In point of fact, it is misleading to suggest that the Constitution confers any individual rights.  Most of the rights granted by the Constitution proper are granted to states, not individuals: such as the right of each state to have two senators, regardless of its population.

    Even the so-called Bill of Rights doesn’t actually “grant” individual rights.   It assumes God gave you your rights and that governments will eventually try to take them away.   The Bill of Rights is thus less a grantor of liberties than a set of chains set upon those governments to make it difficult for potential oppressors to take away your God-given rights.

    So, Mr. Fladen, it is not up to me to find a constitutional right to contraception.   It is up to you to find an enumerated power that gives the state or federal government the right to send its Sex Police into my bedroom and pull off my condom or flush our birth control pills down the toilet!   Good luck with that.  

On further review, as they say in the NFL, Bad Luck with that!

   Mr. Fladen does have the grace to recognize that the majority opinion by Justice William O. Douglas found the right to marital privacy in the “penumbras” and “emanations” of other constitutional protections not the precise language of the document himself.  But he is on shakier ground by trying to pin the decision on due process provisions of the 14th Amendment, which are cited only in the concurring opinions of John Marshall Harlan II and Byron White.

This brings us to my favorite part of Griswold — the concurrence by Justice Arthur Goldberg, which uses the Ninth Amendment to strike down the Sex Police.

Ahh, the Ninth Amendment, this cranky conservative’s favorite part of the Bill of Rights, and the one that forms the basis for my notions set above.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

   In both logic and math, the ninth amendment is followed by the 10th:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    So this, Mr. Fladen, is why I don’t waste time looking for a right to privacy, a right to contraception, or a right to abortion in the Constitution.   I don’t have to!  It’s up to you and anybody else who tries to take those rights away from me to find an enumerated power permitting you to do so.

        I’m an avid chess player.  Nowhere does the constitution give me the right to waste my days on the 64 squares.  But I don’t have to seek that right.   You have to find a way to take it away from me!  [And I must admit that, when playing White, the French defense has often robbed me of the pleasure of the game.  But that is the nature of this vicious game, not constitutional law;-)]

  The Constitution doesn’t grant anybody the right to be a Denver Broncos fan.  It doesn’t grant the right to watch Jeopardy.  It doesn’t guarantee the right to prefer Mozart to rap music. You have thousands of rights that aren’t mentioned in the Constitution – because they don’t have to be.

   Remember, whether the right you cherish is to birth control, abortion, chess, or rooting for the Orange Crush, you don’t have to look for a part of the Constitution that gives you that right.  It’s up to those who want to take your God-given rights away to search for the enumerated powers that allow them to take away those rights, and they have to get past the ninth and tenth amendments before they can even try.

  (FPE note:  As I said, I do respect Mr. Fladen.  If he would like to organize his own thoughts on constitutional law into Diary form, I shall happily promote it to further this discussion.)

   


Full story: The Constitution doesn’t grant your rights — it protects them

Update…No Session on Monday,7th! More Later….

20
  by: Duke Cox Sat December 29, 2012 at 11:14 PM MDT

(Glad to exercise my waning obligation in promoting a strong West Slope and Colorado voice, the esteemed DukeCo1 – promoted by ClubTwitty)





It’s Your Water…Pay Attention

On the morning of Monday, Jan. 7th, at 9:00 o’clock (as of this writing), the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission will continue hearings involving the minimum distance that should be required between oil and gas wells and facilities, and occupied structures. This “setback” has historically been 150 feet in rural areas and 350 feet in urban areas. The damage that can be done by mishaps in the O&G business can be disasterous. The truth is well documented.

This setback distance needs to change. I will be testifying, on behalf of the thousands of members of the Western Colorado Congress, at the hearing on Monday and I encourage every Coloradoan who cares about the air they breathe and the water they drink to ATTEND the hearings and SPEAK during the public comment period. The Commission needs to see a crowd that fills the hallways and stretches to the street The hearings will be held Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday at the Sheraton Denver Downtown at 1550 Court Place.

My submitted testimony I have pasted after the fold…  

BEFORE THE OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF COLORADO

IN THE MATTER OF CHANGES TO THE ) CAUSE NO. 1R RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE OIL )

AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION ) DOCKET No. 1211-RM-04

OF THE STATE OF COLORADO )

COGCC SETBACK RULEMAKING 2012 )

TESTIMONY OF DUKE COX

When I sat down at the computer and began to consider my testimony, my mind went to a question. I reflected upon how many times I have taken the opportunity, and have been honored, to be a part of the decision making process each of you, Commissioners, now faces.  I simply don’t have the inclination nor the energy to figure it out, but I began to speak to this issue in 2005. When you add in all the other commissions, committees, and councils, before which I have appeared, I have asked hundreds of decision makers for the same thing…fairness and honesty.

The decisions facing this commission are not trivial…nor are they technical…they are filled with humanity. The decisions you make affect real human beings in very real ways. The judgments you must make are filled with the anguish and disenfranchisement of the many living human beings that wind up on the losing end of the “play”; the thousands of Colorado citizens that drew the short straw when it comes to their dealings with a chemically intense industrial company that wants to take up residence, literally across the street, and yet bear no actual responsibility for the impact of their presence. Ask anyone who lives in the gas patch…those impacts are profoundly unpleasant and dangerous.

Those humans are the ones for whom I speak; the ones whose story is not bankrolled and broadcast by the most powerful industry in the world. The ones’ whose homes I hope you will choose to protect.  

I am a builder. I build homes, among other things. I know how important a home can be. I also know far too many people whose homes have become an unhealthy trap, or an unlivable liability. Now, as the industries’ appetite for oil and gas profits continues to accelerate, more and more thousands of Colorado homes, and the people they hold, are going to be put at risk. It is imperative that this commission move decisively to establish rules that clearly put public safety as their priority. It is unfair to ask Colorado residents to live with significant risk, when that risk can be so easily reduced.

The setback rule is a critical marker in letting companies know that Colorado only welcomes the best companies; those committed to using the best available technology and incorporating the very best management practices. Companies who want to produce oil and gas in Colorado should willingly utilize the remarkable reach capability of modern directional drilling. As we all know, both oil and gas are taken from pools with no distinct underground property lines. This reality greatly improves the flexibility of decisions about location. The industry lobbies’ who claim that surface property rights are a hindrance to drilling are not being honest. Companies who want to do business in Colorado must honestly and respectfully consider the need to protect our people and the homes they inhabit.

It is not too much to ask, in view of the remarkable new technologies that are here and still emerging, for Colorado’s oil and gas companies to admit that theirs is what Duane Zavadil of Barrett Resources once referred to as an “intrusive” industry. It is within your authority to recognize the increasing threat to Colorado’s public health as drilling, fracking, and production operations creep ever closer to thousands more Colorado homes.

A new setback rule requiring operators to remain at least a thousand feet from homes is a good start in the right direction.

The developers and Homebuilders Association are being disingenuous when they claim that somehow they will be prohibited from developing new subdivisions if greater setbacks from homes are required.  Clearly this is not the case.  The proposed rules by the COGCC staff, and the rules proposed by the conservation community, both include the ability for a landowner to waive the setback requirement.  The developers own the land they are developing.  As landowners, they can waive any setback requirement – whether that setback be 350 feet, 1,000 feet, or 2,000 feet.  

With a 1,000 foot setback, developers will still be able to develop land as they choose.  My guess is what the developers are truly concerned about is how they will market homes in subdivisions where they have waived the setback requirement.

You all have a lot on your plate in protecting the public health, safety, welfare, and environment (including wildlife) while simultaneously promoting the oil and gas industry.  You do not have to worry, however, about how developers and homebuilders will market homes that may eventually be closer than 1,000 feet from an oil and gas facility.      

Colorado’s rulemaking process has been lauded by many people across the nation. Justifiably so. We have created a very comprehensive and workable set of rules that many consider to be a model for the nation, and we should all take pride in what we have created. But, as technology advances and as oil and gas operations inexorably move closer and closer to more heavily populated areas, those rules need to be updated.

Now is the time to do that, and the people of Colorado are counting on you to represent them.  Your mission to represent the people of Colorado and to help protect their health and well being is not secondary to your responsibility to promote development. HB1341 made that clear in 2009. Nothing has changed since then…the people of Colorado, the cities and towns in which they live, and the glorious Colorado environment that envelopes us all are under your stewardship. Please… for all the people in all the communities across our beautiful state…don’t forget that trust.

Duke Cox

 


Full story: Update…No Session on Monday,7th! More Later….