Chieftain article misled on rationale behind proposed state oil and gas rules revisions

Summary: The Pueblo Chieftain misleadingly stated that proponents of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission's proposed new rules for energy development "say they are needed to protect the state's scenic beauty." In fact, the regulations address other specific issues that proponents publicly have discussed as well, including pollution, public health, and wildlife preservation.

Reporting on the southern Colorado organization Action 22's complaints against a state ballot initiative to increase severance taxes and the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission's proposed changes to the state's energy development rules, a June 11 online article in The Pueblo Chieftain noted that "[p]roponents of the new regulations ... say they are needed to protect the state's scenic beauty." However, the Chieftain omitted that the proposed rules address specific concerns regarding such issues as pollution, public health, and wildlife preservation. In contrast, numerous media reports have detailed that proponents support the commission's proposed revisions because of those issues.

From the June 11 online article by Charles Ashby in The Pueblo Chieftain, "Action 22 against mineral tax change":

DENVER -- Action 22 doesn't like the idea of changing the way the state deals with oil and gas companies.

The Southern Colorado group of government and civic leaders came out Monday against proposed new regulations governing the industry and a possible ballot question that would increase the amount of taxes it pays, said Cathy Garcia, executive director of the group.

Garcia said that individually, the two ideas have merit.

Together, however, they would create serious problems for the industry that could hurt the local economy through lost jobs and a lower tax base, Garcia said.

Currently, the Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission is considering sweeping new rules governing how and where new wells can be drilled that consider impacts to the environment. The industry argues that the proposed changes, to be voted on by the commission later this summer, will increase costs for drilling new wells. Proponents of the new regulations, however, say they are needed to protect the state's scenic beauty.

The Chieftain failed to report that several of the new regulations proposed by the commission on March 31 deal with concerns beyond "scenic beauty," including the following examples addressing pollution, wildlife, and public health:

• One proposal requirement deals with a Pollution Prevention Checklist stating that "[o]perators with oil and gas facilities in the Piceance geologic basin ... shall demonstrate on-going compliance with requirements relating to stormwater management, protection of surface water drinking water supply areas, odor management, management of exploration and production waste, and maintenance of a chemical inventory."

• The plan also calls for the participation of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and the Colorado Division of Wildlife in "development of the Comprehensive Drilling Plan" and further states: "[T]he Director [of the commission] shall foster the responsible, balanced development, production, and utilization of the natural resources of oil and gas in the State of Colorado in a manner consistent with protection of public health, safety, and welfare, including protection of the environment and wildlife resources."

• In addition, under the proposed regulations, oil and gas facilities operators must in good faith consult with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment when "[a]n operator requests a well density increase" or the commission "develops a basin-wide order that can reasonably be anticipated to have impacts on public health, welfare, safety, or environmental concerns or protections."

In contrast to the Chieftain's omission of environmental concerns beyond "scenic beauty," several other Colorado newspapers have noted that proponents of the commission's proposed rules changes are also concerned about the protection of public health and wildlife in areas affected by oil and gas development.

For example, on June 4, the Craig Daily Press reported the Colorado Environmental Coalition's (CEC) support of the new oil and gas development regulations and highlighted the group's "concerns brought about by drilling, such as the health concerns in drilling areas, the socioeconomic consequences of the surrounding counties and the effect on native wildlife":

[CEC Northwestern campaign coordinator Luke] Schafer got the opportunity to voice his group's contentions to the public Tuesday at the Center of Craig.

The CEC presented an informational slideshow that gave data on the restructuring of draft rules for oil and gas drilling in Colorado. The organization's stand on the issue is that the drilling industry needs stricter regulations to protect the environment and communities within the state.

Schafer opened the seminar by discussing concerns brought about by drilling, such as the health concerns in drilling areas, the socioeconomic consequences of the surrounding counties and the effect on native wildlife.

[...]

After Schafer's discussion of the possible hazards involved in drilling, CEC Northwestern organizer Sasha Nelson briefly talked about the group's goals in updating Colorado's drilling laws.

These actions include better planning of natural gas fields, the requirement of moving drilling implements near buildings from a 150-foot range to 1,000 feet, and the full disclosure of toxic chemicals involved in drilling.

"It's a real chemical cocktail underground," Nelson said. "We'd just like to know what kind of materials they're dealing with before they start drilling." [emphases added]

Furthermore, on May 22 The Denver Post quoted Dave Neslin, the commission's acting director, explaining the benefits of the proposed rules as "enhanced protection for the state's water, air, wildlife and public health." The article further reported:

It was difficult to place a dollar value on the benefits, Neslin said, but among them, according to the [commission's cost-benefit] analysis, are:

• Reducing air pollution and odors.
• Avoiding ground and water contamination by better lining of pits.
• Protecting drinking water by limiting drilling near water supplies.
• Protecting wildlife by limiting land disturbance and closing key wintering or breeding areas for 90 days.

In addition, a May 22 Glenwood Springs Post Independent article similarly noted the public health and safety concerns of environmental groups in reporting that the Colorado Oil & Gas Association (COGA) filed a motion requesting that the commission "make a decision on some rules during its current rule-making process and to rule on other regulations at a later time." The article further reported:

The state is drafting new rules because of passage of house bills 1298 and 1341 last year. Those bills required that the COGCC expand its focus to consider public health and wildlife impacts, and require the use of best management practices to minimize harm from oil and gas development. The agency released a set of draft rules March 31. They immediately drew criticism from the energy industry in Colorado.

The Colorado Environmental Coalition (CEC) filed an objection to COGA's motion, saying the trade group is asking the COGCC to drop from the current rule-making "many of the proposed rules that would increase substantive protections for public health, the environment and public safety." [emphasis added]

Further, a May 12 article in Natural Gas Week (accessed through the Nexis database) reported, "Colorado regulators are proposing a new set of oil and gas drilling restrictions for upcoming years that would place three-month seasonal production bans during wildlife breeding and hibernation periods in areas populated by at least one of more than a dozen species, including elk, mule deer, bighorn sheep and sage grouse." The article further reported:

Wildlife conservationists have said that 90-day bans are a good start to protecting imperiled populations, but that if the rules are passed, drilling would still take place on important habitats the other nine months out of the year.

"Over time that still means the wells and roads are going in there and that's a permanent impact," said Josh Pollock, conservation director for Denver-based Center for Native Ecosystems, a group that often submits formal comments about land management policies. "So on its own it doesn't solve the problem. But it's a piece of the bigger picture of what we need to do to make sure we aren't permanently damaging wildlife habitat with new drilling of oil and gas."

The Conservation Commission will vote on the proposed rules this July, which also include a few other added regulations: increased insurance requirements, odor control measures for well materials near buildings in the San Juan and Piceance basins, notification requirements for chemicals used at wells, and restrictions on production near public water supplies.

Conservationists are generally happy about the plan because, they say, the new rules would encourage land managers to look at wildlife protection comprehensively instead of on a well-by-well basis. "One thing we see here a lot in Colorado, given the pace of development, is a lot of times companies are leasing up lands in large chunks but they are permitting the wells individually," Pollock said. "So if agencies are only looking at the impact on each individual well they are going to miss the big picture. They are going to miss the fact that we are chipping away bit-by-bit at entire ecosystems." [emphases added]

—C.H.