In his Oil & Gas regulus opus, Christopher Bailey assumes too much.
In a first-pass careful reading, the assumptions I noticed are:
- Operators intend to pollute to the extent regulations permit.
- Drinking groundwater may be contaminated at the surface.
- Drilling of water sampling wells is a cost-free option.
- Regulations can compensate for imperfect knowledge.
- Because something is permitted to happen, means that it will happen.
- Things that might happen, will happen, without any historical evidence.
- Any information an Operator produces is contaminated by its personal interest.
- Water loaded to pits is not sampled and tested.
- Well casing integrity is not tested and is assumed to leak.
- Regulatory exceptions are cited without any historical evidence of usage.
- Regulatory exceptions are cited without any citations.
- If regulations aren’t duplicated within each regulatory body, they go away at some point.
- The logical outcome of any argument against a COGCC rule construct is assumed to exist in fact, without any evidence.
- Possible harms are treated as proven.
- Temporal harms are treated as permanent.
- Suppositions are treated as findings.
Local enviros will love his analysis because it affirms all of their prejudices. They seem to be an earnest bunch but their standards for proof, logic, and evidence, need considerable work. It’s too bad the New Plains’ attempt to sell Bailey’s essay did not address any of the substantive weaknesses of his analysis.
Oh, and Bailey’s regulatory MOU suggestions are in operational conflict with COGCC regs.