Colorado newspapers repeatedly have misled on oil and gas commission, debate over proposed new regs

Summary: In coverage of the restructured Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and its pre-draft changes to state regulations, the Colorado media have repeated unsubstantiated conservative or industry talking points in opposition to the commission and the upcoming rules changes.

In the Colorado news media's past coverage of the newly restructured Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) and its pre-draft changes in the state's oil and gas industry regulations, Colorado Media Matters has identified instances in which several newspapers and the Associated Press have repeated unsubstantiated conservative or industry talking points in opposition to the commission and the upcoming regulations, or failed to provide full context regarding statements made by opponents of those changes.

With the commission releasing its new draft rules on March 31, Colorado Media Matters reviews the numerous examples of misinformation it has identified in the media related to the pre-draft proposed regulations.

Energy companies will "look outside Colorado for business"

The Daily Sentinel of Grand Junction and the Rocky Mountain News have reported uncritically assertions that oil and gas companies were considering leaving Colorado in response to the potential regulations:

• On January 23, the Daily Sentinel reported, "Colorado's oil and gas industry is hopping mad about new energy development regulations being written by the state, so much so that industry members say it could force them to look outside Colorado for business." The Daily Sentinel did not provide any input from members of the commission or any non-energy industry sources, repeating a practice that Colorado Media Matters noted in a December 13 Daily Sentinel article reporting on industry opposition to energy rules that the commission was developing.

• On March 5, the Daily Sentinel uncritically repeated state Rep. Cory Gardner's (R-Yuma) assertion that he had heard "uncertainty about forthcoming rules for issuing drilling permits has pushed [energy companies] to shift their business to Kansas and Nebraska." The article did not identify any companies that had done so and did not quote Gardner as identifying any.

• A March 17 Daily Sentinel article, headlined "GOP legislators blast picks for gas board," uncritically quoted state Sen. Greg Brophy (R-Wray) asserting that Colorado is "observing oil and gas companies voting with their wheels," adding, "They're moving over to Kansas and Nebraska right now." But the article identified no companies that had taken those steps, and it did not report that Brophy named any.

• A March 18 News article similarly reported the unattributed assertion that during the Colorado Senate's confirmation of Gov. Bill Ritter's (D) nominees to the COGCC, Sen. Chris Romer (D-Denver) "mollified environmentalists who previously wanted to drive the industry out through a citizen ballot initiative." Like the Daily Sentinel, the News provided no information to support its statement.

In contrast, the Daily Sentinel reported on March 22, "[I]ndustry insiders say that assertion" that companies will leave Colorado "probably does not hold true for most energy companies operating in Colorado." The newspaper further reported:

"We are not going to pull up stakes and leave. That's not what we're saying," said Doug Hock, spokesman for EnCana in Colorado.

"We're not going to pull out of Colorado," said Jay Still, executive vice president with Pioneer Natural Resource operates primarily in southern Colorado.

Still, who also is chairman of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association executive board, said he could easily see his and other companies continuing to work in Colorado despite regulatory changes that would stiffen the requirements for drilling.

Nonetheless, he and Hock said, the industry remains nervous about what could happen if Colorado clamps down on operators and increases its tax on natural gas and oil.

Moreover, in a news feature on the March 26 broadcast of KCFR Colorado Public Radio's Colorado Matters, KCFR reporter Anna Panoka noted that "[s]ome of the larger companies operating in Colorado say they don't plan on leaving":

PANOKA: It's not just the oil and gas industry that's concerned about new regulations. Business groups on the Western Slope have voiced their opposition to some of the ideas under consideration. And Republican state Representative Cory Gardner of Yuma says adding a new layer of oversight could slow development, and that would hurt his Eastern Plains district that's benefiting from the energy boom.

GARDNER [audio clip]: If you make it more expensive to extract the resources because of a bureaucratic process, most likely those companies will look to Kansas and Nebraska, and say, "We're not going to do business in Colorado anymore. We can do it cheaper in Kansas and Nebraska, and we'll leave." And that is my greatest fear.

PANOKA: Some of the larger companies operating in Colorado say they don't plan on leaving, but there could be less investment. Cher Long says EnCana is spending more on drilling in Wyoming and Texas, but not in Colorado, partly because of the uncertainty over the new state rules.

Media reported "protest" of rules, but not industry contributions to those protesting

In reporting state legislators' opposition to the pre-draft regulations, several Colorado newspapers omitted that many of those same lawmakers have received thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the energy industry.

As Colorado Media Matters noted, January 30 articles in The Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News reported that 11 state legislators -- nine Republicans and two Democrats -- sent a letter to Ritter protesting proposed regulations on oil and gas development in Colorado. Versions of an Associated Press article about the letter also appeared January 30 in The Gazette of Colorado Springs (accessed through the newspaper's electronic edition) and January 29 on the Post, News, and KCNC CBS4 websites. None of the articles, however, noted that each of the signers had received campaign contributions from energy industry political action committees (PACs), and that "six of the 11 letter signers received a total of $8,200 from energy industry donors and political committees last year," as a January 29 article (accessed through the Factiva database) in the Daily Sentinel reported.

Colorado Media Matters further noted that January 31 articles in The Gazette and The Pueblo Chieftain, as well as a January 30 Associated Press article that appeared on the websites of the Post and the News, reported on the dispute between Ritter and the same 11 lawmakers, but similarly failed to mention their campaign contributions from the energy industry.

As the Daily Sentinel reported on January 29:

According to state campaign finance filings, six of the 11 letter signers received a total of $8,200 from energy industry donors and political committees last year.

Gardner and Rep. Frank McNulty, R-Highlands Ranch, accounted for the lion's share of the contributions, taking in $2,500 each. Rep. Josh Penry [R-Fruita] pocketed $1,400 from energy industry donors, lobbyists and political organizations.

In contrast, three Western Slope lawmakers who did not sign the letter -- Reps. Bernie Buescher, D-Grand Junction, Kathleen Curry, D-Gunnison, and Ray Rose, R-Montrose -- received a total of $400 from energy industry-related political committees, lobbyists and donors.

Rep. Al White, R-Hayden, who also did not sign the letter, received $1,850 in energy-connected contributions last year.

Carrie Doyle, executive director of Colorado Conservation Voters, said the oil and gas industry's support of those public officials protesting the rule-making process makes the letter questionable.

"It's a profitable industry. They make generous political contributions," Doyle said. "It's not a surprise that elected officials who received a lot of oil and gas industry support are crying foul before this process has had a chance to get going."

McNulty, however, bristled at Doyle's suggestion, calling it the typical politics you see "anytime the radical environmentalists find themselves in a box." [emphasis added]

Furthermore, according to a search of the Colorado Secretary of State's campaign finance database, each of the legislators who signed the letter had received campaign contributions from energy industry PACs.

Failure to ID industry critic

In addition to uncritically reporting the Republican talking point that oil and gas companies might flee the state, the Daily Sentinel reported in a February 21 article (accessed through Factiva) on a rift within the Western Slope's Club 20 organization over a resolution "advising" COGCC on its proposed drilling rules, but failed to identify Club 20's chairwoman, Kathy Hall, as the Western Slope representative for the Colorado Oil & Gas Association (COGA) -- the industry's main trade group in the state. Instead, the article -- by Gary Harmon -- simply noted, "The final product might take a less strident approach, however, as Club 20 Chairwoman Kathy Hall agreed to meet with industry critics to work on different wording."

The oil and gas commission publicly released its draft rules on March 31. In a March 31 online article, the News noted that "[p]roposed rules for oil and gas development address many of the concerns voiced by industry over the past several months, state regulators said as they unveiled the draft regulations today." The News continued:

The much-awaited rules have been the subject of frequent complaints from industry officials, who said the state's early proposals would force drillers to wait too long to get permits approved, give neighboring landowners too much say in drilling and apply rules where none are needed.

But of 21 topics addressed by the rules, 17 have been modified to address industry complaints, regulators said.

[...]

Key changes in the rules from earlier drafts include:

Neighbors within 500 feet of a drilling site will be notified of development, but won't be given the opportunity to seek a hearing on the matter, which industry argued could create too great a slowdown.

Regulators have done away with the idea of a new form that required energy companies address 17 issues. Instead, the information will be sought as part of an existing form, and less data will be required.

Wildlife protections that could, in theory, have left an area off-limits to drilling for most of the year, won't run beyond three months. No restrictions at all will be required if an operator substantially reduces its drilling footprint within a region.

—C.H.