U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
May 03, 2013 09:35 AM UTC

Fracking's "Fair Witness?"

  • 20 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

The Boulder Daily Camera's Joe Rubino reports on last night's talk by Gov. John Hickenlooper on "fracking" for oil and gas at the University of Colorado, hosted by Patty Limerick and CU's Center of the American West. Yesterday's presentation by Hickenlooper in this deferential academic setting nonetheless attracted a big crowd, including a few overly rowdy opponents of "fracking" who were reportedly escorted out. All of the questions for Gov. Hickenlooper were submitted in advance and read by Dr. Limerick.

The former geologist talked about his relationship to the oil and gas industry and how he seeks to be impartial in his decision making.

"I am constantly attacked now for being in the pocket of oil and gas, or somehow subservient to their philosophy or their wish," he said. "The Quakers have a term called 'fair witness,' someone who comes in and they don't have an ax to grind … and that is what I try to be."

Hickenlooper said the science on the impacts of fracking is far from settled, and the focus should be on getting "better, more persuasive facts." He said once there is an accepted set of facts about fracking, opponents and proponents will have a baseline for reasonable discussion and compromise.

Like we said, last night's presentation was not a debate. Dr. Limerick wasn't under any obligation to refute what Hickenlooper was saying, and the fact is, Limerick is by all accounts very close to CU's conservative President Bruce Benson. Whether or not the event was meant to be one-sided apologetics is for others to decide.

The context we can provide, unlike the moderator at yesterday's forum, for Gov. Hickenlooper's claim that he tries to be a "fair witness" on oil and gas issues, consists entirely of his own prior statements on the issue. Early last year, Hickenlooper was harshly criticized for a radio ad he recorded for the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, where he falsely claimed "we have not had one instance of groundwater contamination associated with drilling and hydraulic fracturing." In July of last year, Hickenlooper told an audience at the Aspen Institute that "out in the West, there is literally no risk" from fracking. Neither of these inaccurate and sweeping statements can be in any way characterized as "fair."

This past February, Hickenlooper repeated a story he has used locally a number of times about having "drank fracking fluid" to a U.S. Senate committee. After his remarks were covered in national news media and hyped by proponents of "fracking" everywhere, the lowly Durango Herald extracted the clarification from Gov. Hickenlooper that "I don’t think there’s any frack fluid right now that I’m aware of that people are using commercially that you want to drink." You see, Hickenlooper drank an experimental "fracking" fluid that isn't actually used commercially.

These major holes in Hickenlooper's credibility on this issue go basically unreported, but for those who follow the issue, from advocates to residents of affected communities, they are undeniable indicators of bad faith–bad faith that has played out in Hickenlooper's consistent actions to weaken and scuttle oil and gas reforms in the Colorado legislature this session. The latest example, a bill to increase fines on the industry for accidents, as reported by FOX 31's Eli Stokols last night:

On Thursday afternoon, Democratic Sen. Matt Jones failed to put the teeth back into a bill aimed at increasing fines for oil and gas spills — teeth that Hickenlooper’s administration successfully removed last week.

House Bill 1267 increases the maximum daily fine that can be imposed for environmental mishaps to $15,000 a day; but the proposed minimum $5,000 daily fine that was included in the bill that passed the House last month was struck from the bill last week during a hearing before the Senate Appropriations Committee after Hickenlooper’s lobbying team swayed two Democrats on the panel to do so…

When H.B. 1267 passes the Senate on third reading, Hickenlooper will get exactly the bill he wanted: one he can use to say that he’s increasing fines on the oil and gas industry that will not on its own subject the industry to higher fines. [Pols emphasis]

On the whole, this legislative session has proven an enormous, even historic, victory for Democrats, with more of their most prized agenda items set to become law (or in the case of education funding, voted on statewide) than any year we can remember. Gov. Hickenlooper shares in that success, and rightly earns praise from the Democratic base on so many issues he has helped deliver solutions this year. It can't be taken away from him.

But on this issue, Hickenlooper has a problem. And even as the successes mount on other issues, it stands out.

Tweet
Share

Comments

20 thoughts on “Fracking’s “Fair Witness?””

  1. Now that Ft. Lyon has been rejected as a Homeless Prison,perhaps Hick can push it as a Fracking Fluid Energy Drink bottling operation.

  3. Oh, please, dear Governor, explain how you can be a "fair witness" on oil and gas industry issues while systematically suing communities in this state who are working under their statutory and constitutional mandates to protect local citizens and their property from the negative impacts of energy development.  It's an insult to intelligent community-minded people all over Colorado. 

     

    1. Hickenlooper said the science on the impacts of fracking is far from settled, and the focus should be on getting "better, more persuasive facts." He said once there is an accepted set of facts about fracking, opponents and proponents will have a baseline for reasonable discussion and compromise

      Sounds reasonable so why has Hick gone straight to phony parlor tricks and threats of lawsuits, bypassing all the reasonable fact gathering?

  5. What's unsubstantiated?  Who Limerick is? Limerick's role in the presentation or friendship with conservative Bruce Benson? You're saying these things are untrue?   As for the second part of  "unsubstantiated potshots'" how are any of these observations potshots?  ColPols specifically states that this was not a debate and Limerick was under no obligation to refute anything Hick said.  In short…huh?

    1. Sorry, I just see Pols' disdain for Hick spilling over to Limerick:

      Whether or not the event was meant to be one-sided apologetics is for others to decide.

      No implications there, no siree.

  6. With all due tribute to Ann Richards:  "Poor Hick, he can't help it — he was born with a swig of fracking fluid in his mouth."

     

  7.  

    He said once there is an accepted set of facts about fracking, opponents and proponents will have a baseline for reasonable discussion and compromise.

     

    The O&G industry spends a prodigious amount of money making sure  facts that don't support their story are discredited or never see the light of day. All the while they saturate the media and hammer our legislative bodies with an endless stream of made up and exaggerated information.

    The profound mendacity of the O&G industry has been chronicled for so long it has become axiomatic…

    One of the oldest O&G jokes I have heard (first heard it when I worked in the gas patch in the 80s) goes…

    How do you tell when an oil man is lying? ….His lips are moving.

    These lies have persisted for so long, many otherwise forthright people believe them to be true.

    Like the one about groundwater never being polluted by O&G operations. How much evidence does it take before the industry messgaing machine finally gives up and says…."yeah, it happens all the time…we just buy people out, shut them up and sue anybody who fucks with us."?

    Hicks' bullshit rhetoric is the same specious crapola the industry has relied on for decades…he is just the latest well-placed, public blow-hole, spewing the same old half truths and out-and-out lies he is all too eager to believe.

     

  8.  It's a massive blind spot for him

    True…amazing how an otherwise intelligent person can buy into such egregious story-telling. The "suspension of disbelief" is strong in this one, Obi-wan…a petro-jedi in the making. "May the Frack be with you"….

    1. Somehow I think it's something other than a blind spot.  It comes across more as a paid spokesman, or a promise of something in the future.  Will we ever know? . . .

       

      1. The latter, I think…

        What typifies Hick more than his massive ego?  He reads the papers and knows how everyone proclaims his undying popularity and his political invincibility. Don't you suppose the oily boys know how to play him like a fish? He wants to be president…and he thinks they can take him there.

        For those who doubt it…convince me I am wrong.

  9. The Quakers, so I've heard, also have this thing about sitting in a meeting house in silence — not engaging in mindless chatter — until one of them truly feels he or she has something to say from the heart. Unfortunately, I get the sense that Hickenlooper is talking from his wallet or someone else's.

    2. That is part of it. There are basically 2 kinds of Quakers. Of the Book and Not of the Book. Those not of the Book are usually from the East; CT, MA, etc. I don't know which Hick was raised in. Many of us had both at different times, depending on where we lived, Quakers in meeting as you describe may not even be considering ecclesastical matters, but others frequently more topical to the community though they often narrow it to ecclesiastical consideration

        1. some Quaker Meetings don't use the Bible. In Quakerism a Meeting is a church. Larger organizations are Quarterly Meetings. Usually Quakers are organized by state. That is changing as some, even those "Of the Book" are taking a larger sociopolitical ground.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

90 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!