Public chimes in on drilling rules
Decision on new oil, gas policies due in August
Gargi Chakrabarty
Published June 23, 2008 at 1:12 p.m.
Updated June 23, 2008 at 10:03 p.m.
Photo by Preston Gannaway / The Rocky
Ed Ingve, owner of Renegade Oil & Gas, talks with employees, subcontractors and ranchers Monday during a break from the hearings before the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission at the Paramount Theater in Denver.
Do you think Gov. Bill Ritter's revised draft rules are fair to the oil and gas industry?
Nearly 2,000 people crammed into the ornate Paramount Theater downtown Monday for a final opportunity to comment on Gov. Bill Ritter's efforts to overhaul oil and gas drilling rules.
More than 100 people spoke before Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation commissioners, whose staff is rewriting the rules. A final decision by the commission is scheduled Aug. 12. If commissioners approve the rules, most of them will take effect by Nov. 1.
State Sen. Chris Romer, D-Denver, urged the commission to narrow its focus to wildlife- and public health-related issues, given the short timeline.
"I really hope you focus on those two issues," Romer said.
He said later that proposed rules regarding fees, fines, bonds, local stakeholders and surface water were going beyond what the legislature had approved last year when it directed the commission to rewrite the rules.
"If you reach too far, everybody gets upset and you can't find a quality decision in the middle," Romer added.
For the past 10 months, the commission has been drafting rules aimed at mitigating the impact of drilling on communities and the environment. The commission this month held the first public hearing in Grand Junction, which drew an even larger crowd.
Harris Sherman, director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, which oversees the commission, promised Monday that public input would be considered in the final decision.
"It's not a popularity contest," Sherman told the audience. "There's no need to clap, there's no need to applaud and certainly no need to interrupt a speaker."
"No, Director Sherman, this is not a popularity contest," said Rep. Frank McNulty, R-Highlands Ranch. "These people are concerned about their jobs, about putting food on the table, about health care benefits."
Colorado's $23 billion oil and gas industry is fighting the proposed rules, warning that the uncertainty is driving companies to bypass Colorado and pour new investment - worth about $1 billion - into other states.
Two influential industry groups - the Colorado Oil and Gas Association and the Colorado Petroleum Association - launched a weeklong advertising campaign June 16 to denounce the proposed rules, claiming they would displace 10,714 jobs.
Ernest Moltrer and his brothers own Las Animas-based Purgatoire Valley Construction Inc., which employs a few hundred workers. The company hauls water for oil and gas operators, and builds pipelines and gravel roads.
In past months, Moltrer said he has received invitations from operators in Texas and North Dakota to relocate the business in those states because of the uncertainty in Colorado. A fourth-generation resident of the county, Moltrer said he doesn't want to leave - unless he's forced to make money somewhere else.
"I want my kids to graduate from Primero High School, the same high school as I did," he said. "The rules are going to force us to make a decision that I don't want to make."
The commission watered down the rules last Wednesday, saying it was "taking a more surgical, a more nuanced approach."
For instance, it clarified that companies that consult with the Colorado Division of Wildlife or develop a comprehensive drilling plan would not be subject to timing restrictions until January 2010.
Also, only operators on the Western Slope's Piceance Basin would have to install odor control devices on condensate tanks emitting a certain amount of pollution and in certain areas.
Josh Joswick, a former La Plata County commissioner who works with the San Juan Citizens Alliance, said his community has endured the social and environmental impacts of oil and gas development over the past 20 years.
"Water wells have been contaminated, houses have exploded and coal-seam fires have raged," Joswick said. "Every time there has been any county or state rule- making, we hear the same thing from the industry: 'This is going to drive us out of the county and the state.'
"And it hasn't. The industry only has prospered under new rules that have gone into effect."
chakrabartyg@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-2976
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
June 23, 2008
1:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
MattGuyver_007 writes:
As a whole, the Oil and Gas Industry does a much better job reducing or eliminating the impacts they have on the environment. It's not like times of old where companies come in with 'guns blazin' only to strip the land leaving an enviro disaster behind. Instances of coal seam fires, contaminated water and explosions are RARE.
Today, every facet of the process is managed by a team of environmental engineers who work to ensure minimal impact. I believe there is a happy-medium here whereby the environment and aesthetics thereof are protected within reason and the tax dollars reaped through production greatly benefit the surrounding communities in many different ways.
June 23, 2008
2:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
RainbowWarrior writes:
Matt, you must be in Denver and don't have to live with the situation next door or in you back yard.
Oil and gas is a limited resource, the longer we wait to exploit it, the more money it will generate for the gas companies, taxes and restoration funds after production.
Let them go some where else and lust over Colorado's resourses for a while... they'll be back!
June 23, 2008
2:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Devo332 writes:
Houses blowing up? For God's sake people, get a grip. I was at the meeting today and heard both sides' case and as an impartial observer. I have to say these environmentalists, while well-meaning were for the most part totally oblivious to the fact that there are already strong regulations in place to deal with water pollution. To hear the pony-tailed Boulderites tell it, Energy companies are akin to the character on "There will be blood" with crude spraying everywhere, bald eagles falling from the sky and streams turning red with the blood of dying deer.
Everyone wants clean water and air and their houses not to blow up, but we also need to have an economy with jobs and the energy sector is one of the few bright spots in a bleak local economy. When bad things happen, these energy companies get sued and the victims get money (and lots of it usually). Colorado is battling for attention with every other western state to get a finite pool of resources. Creating bottlenecks with overlapping agency responsibilities and stacks of additional red tape will kill the golden goose and the people of Cheyenne, Tulsa, Wichita and other regional centers are going to send us a big thank you card for bowing to under-infomed environmentalists by Ok'ing these needless regulations. Be careful what you wish for hippies....but what do you care...you run your love-bus on hemp oil anyways!
June 23, 2008
2:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
Right to Work states WY, TX, OK, KS, UT, SD, ND and NE are open for business on the fossil fuel front. It is so bad that rumors have it the WY governor has stated he loves Colorado's screw-ups, they have brought in an additional billion $ into WY.
Ok greenies, unionists and other tax raisers. Here is your opportunity to shout out how the WY governor is a radical GOPer, a tool of business, a union-hating man of the rich, a nasty anti-enviromental scumbag, the lil'b_tch of oil/gas, a racist, etc.
You probably have documentation tying him to Enron, Exxon, Shell, VP Cheney, Hallibuton and Iraq. Post your whines starting now!
June 23, 2008
2:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
LingLingfor_prez writes:
Probably thought there was free gas.
June 23, 2008
3:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Brain writes:
I hear there is some prime pristine land in upper Alaska that will never see drilling, maybe some of you that don't want drilling/exploration can move there?
June 23, 2008
3:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
dakar writes:
Because of the low price of oil (comparatively) a few years ago, many oil drilling rigs were shut down and scrapped, with some being sold to China. Now there is definitely a shortage of them. Its a huge capital investment to make those and you have to be sure they will be in use for several years and not sitting around idle. The cost of drilling is huge and despite all the technology, they still have many dry holes. The cost of oil exploration, increased demand and uncertainty of supply, and have all increased the price of oil.
They can do it efficiently and w/o harm to the environment and they should be allowed to do so. Instead every company has to employ an army of lawyers, land men, lease analysts, division order analysts etc. to get thru all the red tape and that adds significant time and money to the process.
June 23, 2008
3:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
rainbow46 writes:
Oil and gas drillers have had their way in CO for years. If not for the addition of 2 environmental voices on the commission, this discussion might not be taking place. Simple rules like the 300' margin for riparian zones and shutdowns for wildlife migration are not a big burden and represent perhaps 5% of the terrain. O/G driller's pouting and threats to leave town are codswallop. At the current prices for crude/NG, these rules are hardly an impediment to development. O/G is a finite resource and if they do go elsewhere, they will be back and pay more in the future. Shame on drillers for busing employees to these meetings to express "their" opinions.
June 23, 2008
4:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
O_TRAIN writes:
Jacka - good, bad or otherwise - the Governor of WYO, Dave Freudenthal, is a Democrat.
WYO is also experiencing a CBM (coal-bed methane) boom. Unlike other states, WYO has more money than they know what to do with.
June 23, 2008
5:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
farsidefan writes:
The devaluation of the dollar around the world has helped create the high cost of fuel. Less value, they have to charge more per barrel to get like amount of value as before.
Big catch 22.
Dollar goes lower, oil goes higher to compensate.
Dollar is lower because of the huge deficit. Don't start with the immigration issue and all those links. I bet we had the same number of illegals when Clinton was President, but he left us with a large surplus.
This certainly isn't the only reason, but it is one contributing factor.
Saudi's agreed to increase their supply by 200 K. Big Whoopee ! Token gesture for PR only.
Are the oil companies building any new refineries ? I think this may be a contributing factor. Maybe they should reinvest in new refineries to increase their output.
I know they will scream about environmetal issues, but wouldn't they make more in the long run ?
June 23, 2008
11:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Retread writes:
The Drilling area west of Trinidad is saturated, they came into the area (Evergreen) and said we will just keep the one well in a ten mile square, it was then turned to one every five, now there are different well owners (Pioneer, excel, and others) and they are drilling almost every square mile. Busting private water wells, dumping their water from the gas wells on the highways to hold down dust from the traffic, and now pumping it back into the earth causing minor quake activity (remember Rocky flats?). Then after they finnish they will desert the infrastructure in place, rotting pipelines, wells seeping, the surface owners holding the bag, and the gas companys laughing all the way to the bank...
Jobs are fine, but they are not Union scale, they are using a uninformed, untrained, and uneducated workforce from a depressed area. Accidents waiting to happen..
June 24, 2008
7:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
soccermom writes:
It is important to understand just what they are trying to achieve with the timing restrictions in certain core wildlife habitat. It is for grouse lekking and nesting areas, big game wintering sites, etc. Although some species can adapt to the impacts of o&g drilling, others may not and once lost these species will never recover. As one industry rep said at the rulemaking meetings, "we move equipment around all the time." So industry is exaggerating when they say that they can't drill for months at a time.
During the stakeholder group meetings many of the rules that had duplications were eliminated. Many, many suggestions for additional species were removed. For example the Important Bird Areas in Colorado are not mentioned. Water protections had to be added because the Energy Policy Act of 2005 exempts oil and gas producers from certain requirements of the Safe Water Drinking Act. Why should they get special treatment when protection of our water resources is at stake? We live in an arid/semi- arid climate and all water is critical.
New rules have to be made and enforced because of the great increase of o&g activity. The impacts are greater and we need to keep in mind that although they are an important part of Colorado's economy, so is tourism and agriculture and those are renewable sources of income.
June 24, 2008
8:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
wyominggirl writes:
The environmental lobby in Colorado is sophisticated, well connected within CO govt and well funded. If you don't believe that the COGCC rules won't have an effect, just look at what's happened in Montana. The people-who-are-smarter-than-everyone-else turned what once was a thriving energy-ranching-manufacturing economy into a retail nightmare. The western MT enviros got their way and have split the state in two - western half is wealthy out of staters in their starter castles and eastern half barely exists on $6 an hour jobs with no benefits. The tax base collapsed and their schools and infrastructure are crumbling while their goofy gov whistles. The people in eastern MT are starving and leaving, commuting to WY for good jobs. Don't bet it won't happen in CO.
June 24, 2008
9:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
mmannino writes:
Big_D,
The Democrats are doing everything to keep gas prices high. We have had major restrictions on energy exploration and refining capacity for 30 years. Bush has not been able to pass his energy plan through Congress so do not blame him. It is the failed policies of Democrats and a few RINO allies that prevent increases in domestic supply of oil and natural gas. Increased supply means lower prices in the long term. If you like $4 per gallon gas (and almost $5 per gallon diesel), vote for Democrats. If you want to increase domestic supply of oil and natural gas with minimal environmental impact, vote for conservative Republicans. All the Democrats can offer is blame (speculators, oil companies, Haliburton,...), lawsuits (OPEC), more taxes (windfall profits), more regulation, and more subsidies for failed alternatives (corn-based ethanol). Drill here, drill now, pay less!
June 24, 2008
10:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
rainbow46 writes:
Proponents of drilling at all costs to the environment should get a grasp of economics in the energy market. Now that O/G interests have found what they believe is the $4 pain theshold for gasoline, they purport more drilling as the way to cheaper fuel. A 20% upturn or downturn of CO production won't move the price of crude oil one dollar. CO had an excess of natural gas until a new pipeline carried it to other markets. Natgas now ~$13/mcf up from $7. You can drill in ANWAR and XOM will ship it to Asia. You can remove all impediments to exploration in the lower 48 and you will still never see $2 gasoline again. There is no downside to reasonable conservation measures, other than maybe a 1% change in Williams Co's gross margin. As a stockholder I am willing to live with that.
June 24, 2008
10:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
jbowen43 writes:
Seems like the industry is trying to force a choice between jobs and clean water and air. Which can people do without?
June 24, 2008
12:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
mmannino writes:
rainbow46 and other leftists,
You present a false choice. The energy situation demands a wide range of actions including conservation, exploration, and research on alternative fuels. The high price of oil and natural gas promotes a wide range of actions. Individuals and organizations should be allowed to invest in a variety of ways to address the energy situation.
There is no reason to restrict responsible energy development. No other country has put off limits huge potential deposits of oil and natural gas. Canada permits oil sand development, Brazil permits offshore development, and Norway permits North Sea development. We have oil development off the gulf states coasts with only minor environmental impact. Cuba with outside assistance will be drilling for oil just off the Florida keys in the near future.
Your assertion that increased supply will not impact price is ridiculous. The left has no reluctance to ask OPEC to increase supply. The potential for increased supply from energy development in ANWR, the Rocky Mountains, and the Outer Continental Shelf is substantial. With tight energy markets, even relatively small sustained increases in supply will lower prices.
The left should consider the children in this debate. Many school budgets are in difficulty because of the rise in diesel costs. School districts across the country will reduce bus service to control budgets. If one child could be spared the potential danger of walking to school through lower fuel costs, wouldn't it be worth it to allow for increased energy development?
Leftists may be happy about high energy prices but the average person is furious. The average person depends on reasonable energy prices to live well. Is the left so cold-hearted as to condemn the poor and middle class to a greatly reduced standard of living due to high energy prices?
June 24, 2008
2:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
jaymoveonorg writes:
The commission is looking to restrict drilling at a time where we have increasing prices at the pump and for natural gas. So how is this going to help us to keep energy costs lower?
Yes, if we drill here the oil will be shipped to the world market, but the part you forget is that we currently are letting other countries drill and we can continue to buy oil from them. So instead of creating jobs for Americans, receiving taxes from the oil companies, royalites, and lease payments here in the United States we will keep shipping our money to other countries. We have an opportunity to actually make money off of other countries like China but instead we want to keep the energy production the same here.
I will meet you in the middle. Take the shackles off of the oil companies and let them drill. Take the money from the taxes and royalites the government will receive and use it for tax incentives to encourage renewable energy. How does that sound?
June 24, 2008
3:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
soccermom writes:
If you believe that the environmental groups are well funded, it sure would be nice to know who these people are. Most of us go to meetings, hearings etc. on our own dime. No salaries, no lunches, not even bus money. Industry has the leases and they are going to drill as long as it remains profitable. All we are asking is that they respect the locals and the environment when they do it. What else should we expect when they are drillling in State Wildlife Areas? These sites were bought with state money with the intention of keeping the wildlife communities intact.
June 24, 2008
3:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
soccermom writes:
It seems like the oil and gas industry is pretty well connected in government. And it was real nice that the industry folks car-pooled it in a bus from the western slope so they could hoot and holler in the back seats at the hearing yesterday. Bet they got paid.
June 24, 2008
11:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
grmolts writes:
RETREAD NEEDS TO DO HIS HOMEWORK. I EMPLOYEE HUNDREDS IN LAS ANIMAS COUNTY. WE REQUIRE ALL OUR EMPLOYEES TO HAVE SAFETY TRAIN, AND A GOOD PERCENTAGE ARE TRAINED AS EMTS AND FIRE FIGHTERS. IT IS NOT LIKE THE OLD DAYS, GET REAL WITH THIS, I AM SICK OF PEOPLE WHO DO NOT EDUCATE THEIRSELVES. I WISH I HAD THE MONEY THAT I SPENT ON TRAINING MY PEOPLE I WOULDNT EVEN BOTHER READING THE NEWSPAPER BECAUSE I WOULD BE RETIRED AND WOULDNT HAVE A CARE IN THE WORLD.
June 25, 2008
7:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
nurdco writes:
When it comes to the impact of the Rules... Safety should be the larger of all distances and NOT the shortest, therefore an eighth of a mile.
In response to drillers... If it was affecting your property and health you wouldn't take a distant view, But as a driller sure its your livlihood BUT what about YOUR workers health - Long term vs the short term view. Economic return is the Short term and does not AFFECT immediately, in fact it has no immediate effect on your travel let alone heating or cooking. The Energy producers have maipulated the econonics by restricting the availability of the Oil and Gas resources since 1970's. What you see is the Oil companies doing what Enron and Electric companies did in the recent years. keep the resources which the public OFFLINE till they get their Economic WAY. WE the public - consumer, suffer... as will the property owner. protection the LIVING is more important than pocket linings of the few... You don't LIVE you can't even USE what you gathered... Industry never paints their Health or OSHA ramifications to their employees.
Review each side, remember to cleanup after the game / job is over... WHO pays then. The property owner and the worker for the Industry who is the AFFECTed ones, Industry is the winners economically.
We look always in a narrow pinhole with ONE EYE, where is the FULL view with TWO EYES...
June 25, 2008
2:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
info writes:
Maybe the Joe-Bobs can understand the notion that, in wilderness is the preservation of the world. In other words, if we care for the enviornment, it will support human existance on earth. If we pollute our water and air, we as a species will die. Get it? Its not that difficult to understand this simple idea. But I guess JBs haven't thought that far -- too busy with TV and bowling. These Americans who are so concerned about their jobs should get off their duffs. Aquire 21st century skills they can compete in a world energy economy. Their lack of effort is not our problem, survival of the species is.