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%
November 06, 2013 01:05 PM UTC
28 Comments
"moratoriums"
Uh, no. moratoria
According to this, either one works. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/moratoriums
Well, what do you expect from a free dicitionary? Ya get what ya pay for, eh?
Back in the day only moratoria, referenda, etc. would have been considered correct and they're still classier.
I read the other day that the word "literally" can now be defined to mean "literally" or "makes me think of 'literally'"
Depressing.
Literally!
Hickenlooper might end up harming his O&G buddies big time. I'll bet we may see a fracking ban as a constitutional amendment next year on the ballot. And with numbers like this, it could pass.
If Hick keeps fighting the bans in place, that could be what leads to it being banned state-wide.
I got a chance to see the Fort Collins moratorium support campaign first-hand, and they were very fired up and enthusiastic – congratulations to them for a well-fought campaign. The campaign members are people who you would want supporting you, not opposing you. Hick and other state leaders (I'm looking at you, House Majority Project) better take notice.
Question–what are we all expected to do once fracking is outlawed? Over 90% of the wells in Colorado are fracked. Is that la-la land where none of us need fossil fuels anymore? I am all for other sources of energy and I am also all for continuing to investigate fracking and find ways to make it as safe as possible, but what happens if it is banned and we stop domestic oil production? Not to mention the economic impact.
In order to " investigate fracking and find ways to make it as safe as possible " energy companies would have to disclose what they are actually doing and what chemicals they are using, which, they won't.
If you can't tell me what you're actually doing on my land, you can't tell me its safe either. If you can't tell me its safe, then get the fuck out.
Sounds reasonable.
Ok, so pass a law that requires them to disclose that information. Fracking has been going on for decades so I guess I just don't understand the sudden freak-out, seems pretty knee-jerk and illogical to me.
This is no knee-jerk reaction. This battle has raged for years in the outlying areas of our state. Now it is a front range issue.
mtboneiii, ever hear of "The Disclusure Act"?
2 words republican obstruction.
Next?
I'd love a law that requires them to disclose that information. I'd also like a state-funded (or federally-funded) health study on the long-term exposure risks to the chemicals they use. And I'd like a fully-funded army of inspectors, to make sure the well-heads are fully operational and undamaged. And requirements for methane capture. And best-practices for waste retention (e.g. no open pits for wildlife to get into). And increased bonds for damage to surface properties, and for post-operation cleanup. And increased setbacks for residences, schools, and floodplains. And increased severance taxes so we can extract some reasonable benefit for the people of this state for this activity.
And – the big one, that hGfg alludes to – we need a level playing field on damage claims between surface property rights and subsurface mineral rights. Right now, mineral rights are considered "primary" which means, as far as I can tell, "we screwed up your land – oh, well. We'll just take our profits and leave, thank you."
Finally – no, "fracking" as currently understood has not been going on for decades. The horizontal drilling techniques are all new – from the past decade or so (they require huge amounts of computational power, which only has become widely available recently). These techniques, combined with increased fossil fuel prices, have enabled extraction in many tens of thousands of places where it was not previously considered feasible.
It's not like that hasn't been attempted. And such a law at the state level would have to get passed Hick.
Maybe the freak out is due to bad experiences over time. These aren't all bastions of tree hugging liberalism, you know. Maybe these are people who didn't oppose it before because it took a while for their experiences with it to start causing them concern.
There are millions of acres of land where gas leases already exist. This is not a national defense effort…this is profit making by opportunistic people and companies. If you own minerals in a place that shouldn’t otherwise be drilled, I will tell you the same thing split estate owners have been hearing for decades.
Too bad…you lose. Who says we all have to subsidize bad investments by mineral owners?
@ mtboneiii-we know that one thing that will happen is that people will be able to breathe on their homestead
What happens?
For starters, no new cases of cancer linked directly to fracking. Another's no new cases of flammable water being lit on fire when it comes out of the faucet.
Where've you been?
By the way, another topic…………………….where are you on Keystone?
This is gonna be fun.
I think frackwhore may have not realized s(he) is talking to people who are actually paying attention, and has left the building.
Same tired argument. If we can't destroy your community, your health, and land, where are we ever going to get our energy !
Sorry to bother your eco-chamber. I am simply bringing up some points that I think are good to discuss.
Some good points above, but still nobody has answered me as to what we all do when we don't have this energy source. I assume that all of you don't drive cars or use plastics?
I agree that we need to be concerned about "what we all do when we don't have this energy source." Your point about plastics is particularly important. It is a matter of when, not if, we have to stop burning fossil carbon. And, it is very nearly criminal that we burn it rather than conserve it for other uses (plastics especially, but also other essential chemicals). We need a much stronger push in renewables and energy storage. Just doing the "drill baby drill!" routine is going to really hurt us all, including the proponents of that mindset.
If it takes fracking moratoria and significant regulation to approach this conversion – count me in.
You got lazy in your trolling and failed to do your due diligence re: The Disclosure Act.
The anti-fracking sentiment is only exacerbated when the industry aggressively fights disclosing what the fluid's made of.
When you run the "if we don't spoil the ground, we'll have no energy" con and don't realize the industry through it's republican surrogates are refusing to let us know what our kids are drinking, you come off as either naive to the point of dumb, complicit, or both.
Next time you post, know what you're talking about. This ban is common sense. Letting people know what's in the fluid is the way to get it ok'd……….if it's safe. Right?
Some day we won't. What's wrong with changing the focus to developing a new kind of energy economy now?
Time is running out for someone to step up and primary governor Frackenlooper. Anyone who believes he will change his POV regarding “fracking” and stand up to his “Oily Boy” buddies is seriously deluded.
These guys are like a mafia when it comes to loyalty.
The Time article up on the fracking votes mentions again that the Gov loves fracking so much he even drank fracking fluid. No disclaimer, of course, that the Gov later retracted and admitted (not in these words) that he was merely a tool in a Halliburton PR stunt, that no such substance is actually depolyed in the oil and gas fields next to people's homes and water wells.
The only way the "drink the fracking fluid" trick would impress me would be if Hick or an oil energy exec would be willing to drink the fluid that comes *out* of the well, or is reinjected after fracking.