"In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency estimated that 70 to 140 billion gallons of water are pumped into 35 thousand of fracking wells annually. What the gas industry is not admitting is that hydraulic fracturing uses water to an extent that ought to strike fear in countries that are counting on a shale gas boom, particularly as water becomes an increasingly scarce resource. Well contamination is also an issue to be considered. In January 2012, a Calgary-based company injected fluids at such a high pressure into a 1,800-metre-deep oil formation that they travelled more than 1.4 kilometres underground and ruptured an oil well near Innisfail, Alberta. There are also the documented facts of roads being destroyed through heavy machinery use and real estate prices dropping to ridiculous levels."
As long as I’m here, I might as well continue rebutting the Denver Post as well:
"With regulators willing to compromise, lawmakers should not meddle with drilling rules." - Denver Post, Our View editorial leader on Sunday. But regulators are NOT willing to compromise. See their letters to Routt, Douglas, Arapahoe and El Paso Counties insisting new draft county regulations for oil and gas be abandoned.
Scott, Sure, air pollution is multi-county, regional concern across 2 or 3 counties. But ground and surface water pollution is neighborhood, and very much a local jurisdiction's concern. And it makes sense to finish reviewing the health implications in the Garfield HIA. Economic goals are also a local jurisdiction concern. Moffat should be able to be settle for the COGCC baseline. Routt County should be able to be different than Moffat.
California is always at the front of vehicle standards and always has to fight industry to have a higher emission standard. That is wrong? Correlating examples with some level of mandate is more useful. There is a petition above against the bill that would strip local control. County level local control of car emissions in Colorado isn't likely or even sought.
Lizard, My letter asks Colorado to finish the study of the health impacts of Garfield County's spills - reporting the spills is NOT the end of concern.
My letter asks Colorado to use the EPA's upcoming study on fracking.
You offer a false choice on who should regulate oil and gas. Its all the above: the U.S., Colorado, and Routt County. The local areas should be able to exceed the larger baselines, but not fall below them. They should all be willing to protect Routt's air, water, and people from oil and gas impacts. COGCC is NOT willing to protect Routt. Denver is not willing to protect Routt (SB0088 above)
This letter from the San Juan Citizens Alliance:
"There is a problem with the COGCC being a revolving door agency. We feel this is not a trait that any state regulatory should be known for, but not only is there still a continuance of this dubious tradition, it has become one of the COGCC’s hallmarks. Some of the more pronounced examples of this are: • David Neslin current Executive Director: to work for Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP • Brian Macke former COGCC Executive Director: to Delta Petroleum • David Dillion, former COGCC chief engineer: to represent some of the companies he formerly regulated • Matt LePore, assistant Attorney General to the COGCC: to Beatty and Wozniak P.C.
The question is: At what point does the employee start working for the future employer and stop working for the interests of the current employer. It is an honest, non-rhetorical question, one that is on the minds of many non-industry Coloradans who look to the COGCC for assistance. In that vein, we ask that there is a verification of when contact began between Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP and Mr. Neslin about Mr. Neslin’s taking a position with the law firm. We also request that there be verification that none of Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP’s oil and gas industry clients were applicants for COGCC permits within the last year."
COGCC is a problem for Rout County. They think Rout and Moffat need the same level of oil and gas. They also have questionable intent if they would strip counties of self determination. Also see above revolving door.
If fracking is safe why do we still have its exemptions from the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Clean Air Act?
The plans do attempt to set strategies that deal with tourism. It may not have named tourism or coal as the industry being mitigated. Instead it called them growth and mitigated the impacts of growth. The concepts of urban and land use planning have risen significantly in 2 decades. The first Steamboat Springs Area Plan was a freshman event for us, and now we are seniors, having dealt with experiences such as RiverWalk, SB700 and Wildhorse Meadows.
Steve Lindsey, of Quicksilver said it himself as he responded to a Milner resident's complaint that Quicksilver was destroying her property's market value, paraphrasing, "We are no different than having Wal-Mart build beside you." You would suffer from Wal-Mart just as you'll suffer from us."
Mitigating the impacts are entirely appropriate, and allowing impacts that the well driller never bears is entirely the right question.
Brent, The blog is far cleaner than it used to be. I left for awhile, tired of the insults, but it got better. Thanks for the new policy.
I usually argue against anonymity. Mainly because none of my friends will post amidst strangers who malign, and most friends never read the threads for the same reason. And I've also once said anonymity should stay - I think after I saw something very difficult articulated well, and anonymously.
There is another reason people stay away. The lecturing rants. A few months back, I read a fascinating article on fanaticism. And much of it was a fitting description of a bad blog. Most notable was the concept that a fanatic is far more focused on his opponent than on himself. A fanatic is obsessed with teaching or destroying his opponent, rather than learning anything or saving himself. Maybe that's me sometimes. (I know I'd rather talk Wednesday about well permits in Routt County.)
I refer you to the comments below Lynn Abbot's letter today. Your problem is not entirely a question of anonymity.
A good editorial. The "game" offers an narrow context of the problem by fixing the general fund only in terms of cutting services to constituents. Administrative costs and the proportion they add to expenses are off the table.
Discretionary general fund spending choices by city council are also off the table. We are starting an area plan update. Council is contemplating a substantial rewriting of the community development code. I would nix both.
Steve Lewis: Is fracking safe?
Money matters. Water does not?
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/blog...
"In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency estimated that 70 to 140 billion gallons of water are pumped into 35 thousand of fracking wells annually. What the gas industry is not admitting is that hydraulic fracturing uses water to an extent that ought to strike fear in countries that are counting on a shale gas boom, particularly as water becomes an increasingly scarce resource. Well contamination is also an issue to be considered. In January 2012, a Calgary-based company injected fluids at such a high pressure into a 1,800-metre-deep oil formation that they travelled more than 1.4 kilometres underground and ruptured an oil well near Innisfail, Alberta. There are also the documented facts of roads being destroyed through heavy machinery use and real estate prices dropping to ridiculous levels."
http://www.calgaryherald.com/technolo...
February 11, 2012 at 10:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve Lewis: Is fracking safe?
Liz,
(You reposted. My response is now above your post...)
You consider this a level field. I don’t.
Oil and gas transports and injects “trade secret” fluids in this valley. They have exemptions from the Acts of Congress that protect me.
Want to discuss that?
February 8, 2012 at 12:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve Lewis: Is fracking safe?
As long as I’m here, I might as well continue rebutting the Denver Post as well:
"With regulators willing to compromise, lawmakers should not meddle with drilling rules." - Denver Post, Our View editorial leader on Sunday. But regulators are NOT willing to compromise. See their letters to Routt, Douglas, Arapahoe and El Paso Counties insisting new draft county regulations for oil and gas be abandoned.
Scott,
Sure, air pollution is multi-county, regional concern across 2 or 3 counties. But ground and surface water pollution is neighborhood, and very much a local jurisdiction's concern. And it makes sense to finish reviewing the health implications in the Garfield HIA. Economic goals are also a local jurisdiction concern. Moffat should be able to be settle for the COGCC baseline. Routt County should be able to be different than Moffat.
California is always at the front of vehicle standards and always has to fight industry to have a higher emission standard. That is wrong? Correlating examples with some level of mandate is more useful. There is a petition above against the bill that would strip local control. County level local control of car emissions in Colorado isn't likely or even sought.
February 8, 2012 at 12:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve Lewis: Is fracking safe?
Lizard,
My letter asks Colorado to finish the study of the health impacts of Garfield County's spills - reporting the spills is NOT the end of concern.
My letter asks Colorado to use the EPA's upcoming study on fracking.
You offer a false choice on who should regulate oil and gas. Its all the above: the U.S., Colorado, and Routt County. The local areas should be able to exceed the larger baselines, but not fall below them. They should all be willing to protect Routt's air, water, and people from oil and gas impacts. COGCC is NOT willing to protect Routt. Denver is not willing to protect Routt (SB0088 above)
This letter from the San Juan Citizens Alliance:
"There is a problem with the COGCC being a revolving door agency. We feel this is not a trait that any state regulatory should be known for, but not only is there still a continuance of this dubious tradition, it has become one of the COGCC’s hallmarks. Some of the more pronounced examples of this are:
• David Neslin current Executive Director: to work for Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP
• Brian Macke former COGCC Executive Director: to Delta Petroleum
• David Dillion, former COGCC chief engineer: to represent some of the companies he formerly regulated
• Matt LePore, assistant Attorney General to the COGCC: to Beatty and Wozniak P.C.
The question is: At what point does the employee start working for the future employer and stop working for the interests of the current employer. It is an honest, non-rhetorical question, one that is on the minds of many non-industry Coloradans who look to the COGCC for assistance. In that vein, we ask that there is a verification of when contact began between Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP and Mr. Neslin about Mr. Neslin’s taking a position with the law firm. We also request that there be verification that none of Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP’s oil and gas industry clients were applicants for COGCC permits within the last year."
COGCC is a problem for Rout County. They think Rout and Moffat need the same level of oil and gas. They also have questionable intent if they would strip counties of self determination. Also see above revolving door.
If fracking is safe why do we still have its exemptions from the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Clean Air Act?
February 8, 2012 at 8:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve Lewis: Is fracking safe?
The Colorado Senate has proposed SB088 wherein they propose to preempt all local County control to regulate the oil and gas industry.
If you think that is bad for Routt County, this petition is one way to say it:
http://www.change.org/petitions/the-c...
February 7, 2012 at 10:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Ben Beall: The missing piece
Private property rights are important.
Fracking, if it harms your neighbor's air and water, is not one of those rights.
February 4, 2012 at 10:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Ben Beall: The missing piece
The plans do attempt to set strategies that deal with tourism. It may not have named tourism or coal as the industry being mitigated. Instead it called them growth and mitigated the impacts of growth. The concepts of urban and land use planning have risen significantly in 2 decades. The first Steamboat Springs Area Plan was a freshman event for us, and now we are seniors, having dealt with experiences such as RiverWalk, SB700 and Wildhorse Meadows.
Steve Lindsey, of Quicksilver said it himself as he responded to a Milner resident's complaint that Quicksilver was destroying her property's market value, paraphrasing, "We are no different than having Wal-Mart build beside you." You would suffer from Wal-Mart just as you'll suffer from us."
Mitigating the impacts are entirely appropriate, and allowing impacts that the well driller never bears is entirely the right question.
February 3, 2012 at 3:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Brent Boyer: What's in a name?
Brent,
The blog is far cleaner than it used to be. I left for awhile, tired of the insults, but it got better. Thanks for the new policy.
I usually argue against anonymity. Mainly because none of my friends will post amidst strangers who malign, and most friends never read the threads for the same reason. And I've also once said anonymity should stay - I think after I saw something very difficult articulated well, and anonymously.
There is another reason people stay away. The lecturing rants. A few months back, I read a fascinating article on fanaticism. And much of it was a fitting description of a bad blog. Most notable was the concept that a fanatic is far more focused on his opponent than on himself. A fanatic is obsessed with teaching or destroying his opponent, rather than learning anything or saving himself. Maybe that's me sometimes. (I know I'd rather talk Wednesday about well permits in Routt County.)
I refer you to the comments below Lynn Abbot's letter today. Your problem is not entirely a question of anonymity.
January 29, 2012 at 11:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Lynn Abbott: Time for Pilot series
Its a coded conspiracy. Its an ideological trap. Its demeaning and humiliation of the oil and gas industry.
Or,
Its a list of questions.
January 29, 2012 at 10:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Our View: Dollar Game fun but don’t expect much
A good editorial. The "game" offers an narrow context of the problem by fixing the general fund only in terms of cutting services to constituents. Administrative costs and the proportion they add to expenses are off the table.
Discretionary general fund spending choices by city council are also off the table. We are starting an area plan update. Council is contemplating a substantial rewriting of the community development code. I would nix both.
January 29, 2012 at 9:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )