U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(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) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
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%
July 13, 2007 03:36 PM UTC
19 Comments
Tresi will run for Kathleen Curry’s seat when she term limits out. This appointment will be a nice feather in her resume.
She is a big thorn in the oil industry’s side, but I’m sure she hears from angry land owners living in the drill zone and the Grand Valley Citizens’ enviro group probably on a daily basis. When there is that much angst going on from constituents and local special interest groups, becoming a thorn has merit.
I can picture some westslopers having a conniption fit as I type.
Tresi will be good for the commission, but she can’t become the obstructionist backed by the enviros. This wouldn’t help her in the future. This is a working Commission and if all grinds to halt, well, not too good for the public or the industry.
Is Curry going to the Senate when she’s termed out?
but rumors of the industry ‘grinding to a halt’ are both exaggerated and ignorant of oil and gas and property law and regulations. 1.the feds control federal lands and minerals, which comprise a lot (of both public resource–minerals and surface); 2-You can’t STOP oil and gas development on valid leases. Minerals are a property right, and the legislature/commission can work to bring more equity to the process, and better ensure that ‘externalities’ (oh, say like loss of potable water and breathable air) are properly mitigated, but they cannot unreasonably prevent the property owner (or agent i.e. driller) from developing.
Industry tends to argue that any increased regulation is robbing it of its property right. But to pretend it is a zero-sum game, that a couple of environmentally-conscious people on the commission (or anyone else) can cause the industry to ‘grind to a halt’ is simply parroting industry talking points.
The Piceance is one of the continent’s most prolific gasfields, industry is currently spending hundreds of millions on new infrastructure as the drilling period (the next two decades) kicks in–new pipelines (to haul the gas off to Chicago at bargain basement prices), new half-mile tunnel, new $20 million (private) roads…
Industry won’t pull out because Tresi is on the commission, even if she were to be one of the mythical obstructionists (opposed to all energy development) that people like Josh Penry like to pretend exist, and which–judging from this blog–people repeat as truth, absent any evidence in support. (A Vince Carroll doesn’t count as evidence).
Whether you like it or not, the Feds are the big players here.
My question is if these people will increase the number of inspectors and well inspections. Right now it is about 1 inspector for every 3,300 wells, a number that has remained pretty much constant even thru the massive energy boom. There are plenty of regulations, just not a lot of enforcement.
Will Houpt just use the seat to tout her own horn and scream like GVCA? Either way, it makes Ritter look good to the GVCA and people like them who viewed him as the savior to all their problems.
but I did read she refused to run against Entz in the last go round. I can’t see her running against “Country Club” Schwartz in a primary (although she’s probably win that one).
What powers does it have?
One would hope. Here is there home page-http://oil-gas.state…
The COGCC pretty much implements the state regulations on oil and gas development (on private surface and non-federal minerals) and monitors that activity. A similar entity exists in every state with O&G activity and is part of the various Mineral Leasing laws.
It approves down-spacing requests (and other waivers/modifications), tracks well numbers across the state, conducts field inspections, tracks non-compliance and violations.
The term ‘conservation’ in this case means developing the oil and gas efficiently, not protecting the surface resource, water, critters, etc.
ClubTwitty-The (Good Ol’) Boys of the Western Slope since before your mama was born. “Bringing 19th Century thought to a 21st century world”
How upsetting – it’s no longer a rubber stamp. There goes drilling rights on the capitol grounds…
has always been very heavily tilted toward industry. People are having their lives destroyed because the OG industry is NOT using best practices. How would you like to need an air cleaner in your home so you could breathe? And, what if these air cleaners don’t really do the job? I am hopeful that issues surounding rights above and below ground may be better clarified. Certainly the environment must be considered and there should be no rush to get the oil out of the ground. The only rush is coming from those whose only concern is to maximize profits while Garfield County’s infrastructure is being stretched to breaking. The boon to Garfield’s economy from OG is temporary. The destruction of the Roan Plateau will have a negative impact FOREVER.
…just not in the press release. You have to dig into its analysis, but it admits significant mule deer mortality will result, permanent damage may occur to the genetically pure Colorado River cutthroat trout, recreation will be forced to adjust to oil and gas activity, and wilderness character as a whole will be eliminated from the Roan Plateau planning area.
Local communities, area governments, sportsmen, anglers, a majority of the public, and conservation groups, are asking that about 1/3 of the planning area be managed for all these other values and uses, and not be drilled.
As some 60,000 ADDITIONAL gas wells come into the Piceance Basin (projected over the next couple of decades), these public lands atop the Plateau and some remaining unleased/undrilled critical winter range at the base, are a last little island of unleased or undrilled BLM lands in the region. Some 85% of BLM’s Piceance Basin lands are already leased for oil and gas. And tens of thousands of wells are planned for these lands, being installed at record rates. Add in the potential for oil shale and the prospects for N.America’s largest migratory deer herd (in the Piceance) look slim.
Then there are the sage grouse, ferrets, many sensitive plants, scarce water resources…
The Roan Plateau is one little, relatively undeveloped postage stamp of public lands with amazing and unique biological, recreation, and ecological values, sitting in the midst of a rapidly growing industrial zone,one of the continent’s fastest growing energy fields–and some people want to turn it into just another gasfield. THAT’S what shameful.
Go Governor Ritter. That is why he got my vote.
It is interesting how Greg Brophy said in his quote above that the commission was moving away from those who have knowledge about the industry to those who have a political agenda.
As if all of those who oppose rubber stamping drilling just don’t know what they are talking about. Your posts above prove that ridiculous assertion wrong.
On a separate note, I had the pleasure to give a presentation on economic development to Club Twitty a few years ago. Boy, what a mistake – i’ll never do that again.
Why? What happened?
I have been really disappointed in the GVCA for not pursuing the gathering of scientific data on such issues. I believe they once invested in 2 devices which gauge air quality. If they focused on gathering more hard data and relied less on personal revelation and stories I feel their case could be much stronger. Even if it meant reaching out to the academic sector and getting some grad student to do some research they could make some grand progress.
Air quality monitoring is expensive, even GJ had to ask for state monies to install some (a request that was denied). The data doesn’t exist, one reason that industry argued for weaker air standards on the West Slope. Its not GVCA’s fault that they don’t have enough hard data on impacts to air and water. The drilling is relatively new (boom hit about 7 years ago) and it is impossible to have much beyond anecdotes at this point, as far as health impacts go. Many people have moved here from many other places, so its not like its easy to suddenly derive statistically sound ‘proof’ that people’s health are being affected. Seeing the cloud of smog hanging over a valley that once had great air quality (and of course VOCs are invisible), and smelling the fumes, its easy enough for local folks to see the merit in mere ‘anecdotes.’
However GVCA does have money and they seem to be putting in places where they can raise hell as opposed to other means. Even just funding a researcher who has access to great university resources such as air quality monitors would be a great step forward for them. Heck, get the guy who did smog work from DU, he has all the equipment! I think they have some very valid points, I would just go about proving those points in different ways.
Getting a different politician elected isn’t a silver bullet, and members of that group have actually said that is their only hope for change. That sickened me worse than any fumes I have dealt with while fooling around on the Western Slope.
In either case, really: hiring acedemics or electing people. its a membership based group that takes its direction from its members, many of whom are dealing very directly with this activity. It is not an academic discussion for them, they understand the impacts. As citizens they are politically engaged, as a group they are a community-based advocacy organization, working to create better policy.
There are changes that need to happen now, and that is what GVCA is focused on. You only need to live around the gasfields to know that it brings tremendous impacts and numerous hazards along with it.
The realization almost drives them off the road on a regular basis, hangs like a shroud over the valley on cool mornings, thumps like a compressor through the night, and flares like a gas well that thinks no one is looking, etc. etc.
Better science is necessary, but so is better policy. That comes from better politicians. GVCA cannot be a group that does it all, they are focused on creating change. Industry should have to pay to ensure that they are not endangering public health, not small NGOs.
1. Why would the GVCA invest in such technology in the first place, as they did? I am saying they don’t even have to hire someone, just recruit a grad student to do some research.
2. GVCA put the neat document together and Antero signed on, I haven’t heard of others. The created the better policy but it did little to promote change. Asked point blank if there are other options than lawsuits, GVCA officials said “Get a new governor and president”. That shocked me, and I view that as a foolish and lazy statement. Innovate. Get some scientific evidence.
Besides, a report on the DOCUMENTED levels of pollution would help a politician more than a bunch of sob stories. Eventually GVCA has to move past colorful stories and anecdotes, even if they are based on facts. They have to start gathering facts, just as a good politician would do. Better policy without better science is just foolish in my opinion. Most of the regulations exist they just aren’t enforced. That should be the focus.
3. I am aware of all the little anecdotes you mention and I know what is happening in that region. You say “industry SHOULD” pay for this. That is a pretty big “Should”. I don’t see them volunteering to pay for research of impacts they claim don’t exist.
5. Lastly, no policy or politician can cure the mistakes of idiotic homeowners who bought land without checking to ensure the mineral rights came with it or who believed a real estate agent when they said it wouldn’t be a problem. They CAN work to make sure enforcement of existing regulations is occurring and if approached with documented evidence are in a much better place to take action.