oil and gas struggles
In early 2012, Richard Miller was still an Elbert County planner. Miller was consulting with Jerry Dahl, a lawyer who specializes in representing Colorado counties when they conflict with the state of Colorado over land use regulatory law.
Dahl had given Miller advice in writing a new zoning law for Elbert County to regulate oil and gas operations. Dahl believes that Colorado counties should regulate oil and gas operations because the Colorado State Legislature gave Colorado counties land use regulatory authority, and an oil and gas operation is a land use.
The problem with Dahl’s broad interpretation of county land use regulatory authority is that it is unlimited. All human activity occurs on land, in water, or while flying in air. The vast majority of it occurs on land. According to Dahl, any use of land falls within the regulatory scope of a Colorado county. Did the Colorado Legislature really mean to give counties in Colorado absolute control over what happens on Colorado land? Not likely in America.
So Miller and Dahl wrote oil and gas zoning regulations for Elbert County to govern oil and gas land use operations.
Since then, these regulations have morphed into different legal structures, but they’ve retained several key rules that, once enacted, will probably conflict with state regulations. Jake Matter of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and the Attorney General’s Office has repeatedly warned Elbert County planners since January of 2012, by letters and in person, of the potential for several operational conflicts in Elbert County’s regulatory proposals.
Today, two days before the Elbert County Planning Commission is scheduled to conduct a public hearing about their proposed oil and gas regulations, at least two points of expected operational conflict are still in the proposal – a provision to regulate open water pits, and a provision to regulate water produced from an oil well when used for dust mitigation.
Even though Richard Miller has moved on to other employment, the philosophy introduced by Dahl of challenging state regulations with conflicting county regulations, continues in practice by Elbert County planners.
In January of 2012, Dahl explained at a Planning Commission meeting how operational conflicts between county and state regulations get resolved. Basically, a lawsuit between a county and the state provides a forum to hear evidence about a claimed operational conflict. Interestingly, county vs. state lawsuits are what Jerry Dahl does for a living.
Basically, Dahl sent Elbert County planners down a regulatory trail that has generated repeated warnings from the state about potential operational conflicts, with full knowledge that the process to resolve such conflicts is a county vs. state lawsuit in Dahl’s specialty.
Jerry Dahl has every right to do what he can to generate litigation business for himself to advance causes that he believes in. We have 1st Amendment guarantees of that freedom.
But should Elbert County be used in this manner to advance a political agenda held by one man, or by a special interest minority such as an environmentalist lobby, in an “evolving area” of law?
Litigation is very expensive while Elbert County is cash poor. Previous Boards of County Commissioners have been excoriated over litigation that occurred under their terms, regardless of whether or not they had anything to do with starting it.
And now the same vocal minority who screamed most loudly over the expense of past county lawsuits are the ones pushing an oil and gas regulatory proposal that is headed toward some really expensive litigation with the state to ferret out operational conflicts.
A key question people should think about is whether the proponents of the new oil and gas regulations are bona fide. Are they acting in good faith?
Have they pushed us into a tortuous legal path against the state that is expensive, and perhaps most importantly, time consuming, in order to bring Elbert County into some higher state of compliance with their environmentalism objectives?
Or does environmentalism merely provide cover for these folks to exploit any available technicality to buy time to completely frustrate oil and gas development in Elbert County? They play an image for public consumption of being cooperative and working within the system; meanwhile, endless procedural delays make sure nothing ever happens.
But so long as the right people sit on the BOCC, we probably won’t hear much about how much this is costing all of us.
Costs of litigation, costs to energy developers, opportunity costs of lost revenue to mineral owners, none of these will rise to the level of a material concern while an agenda lies on the table.
Tuning out the clamor of agenda pushing usual suspects can be difficult in Elbert County. They control most of the print media in the county, they have a significant web presence, and they virtually run the county at all levels – the BOCC, the Planning Commission, the CDS Department, and a host of subordinate committees and public/private forums.
The silent majority of Elbert County citizens, however, the ones you won’t see published and won’t hear much from at any public meeting, are people who have enough struggle just getting through their daily lives. They do not seek to further burden life in Elbert County with more struggles, no matter what the cause.
This silent majority have every right to expect their public officials to act in a manner to mitigate struggles, to avoid expensive litigations, to act frugally, and to not be legal spendthrifts in service of a minority agenda.
Let the Jerry Dahls go find some other county to milk.
B_Imperial
References:
Jake Matter’s latest warning of Elbert County re dust mitigation
BOCC Studies Oil & Gas
Energy In Depth
Sane, sound, source facts for oil & gas. Frack check the activists here:
What’s EID?
Launched by the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) in 2009, Energy In Depth (EID) is a research, education and public outreach campaign focused on getting the facts out about the promise and potential of responsibly developing America’s onshore energy resource base – especially abundant sources of oil and natural gas from shale and other “tight” reservoirs across the country. It’s an effort that benefits directly from the support, guidance and technical insight of a broad segment of America’s oil and natural gas industry, led in Washington by IPAA, but directed on the ground by our many affiliates — and IPAA’s more than 6,000 members — in the states.
What’s so new about harvesting oil and natural gas from rocks deep underground? Not a whole lot, actually. First you need to drill a well, then you complete that well via the hydraulic fracturing process. Our industry has been doing those two things for decades, with fracturing technology safely applied to more than 1.2 million wells over the past 60 years.
But there’s one little wrinkle when it comes shale: To make it economical to explore, you have to somehow find a way to access a greater share of the reservoir underground by drilling fewer wells. That’s where horizontal drilling technology comes in, allowing producers today to tap roughly 10 times the amount of energy we did in the past with – get this! – one-tenth the number of wells. Obviously, that’s good for the environment: fewer wells means less disturbance to land. But fewer wells are also good for business. Those things are really expensive.
On this site, you’ll find fact sheets and videos and charts and graphs — some boiling down the steps involved in the development process, others straightening out the myths you may have heard about what we do and how we do it. You’ll find letters and quotes from state and federal regulators testifying to the safety of the process – from drilling and completing the well, to managing and recycling the water, to bringing that well-site back to its original condition. And you’ll also find studies – some on jobs, others on safety, and even a few about how the shale “revolution” in the United States is impacting our “friends” in Russia and Iran.
So welcome to EID. Feel free to take your coat off and stay a while. And don’t hesitate to give our supporting members a shout as well – their links and logos are included here below.
Associate Members
—————————————————————————————-Oil & Gas edit committee, MOU
current O&G reg draft
Oil & Gas Edit committee 4-2-13
Sometime prior to this meeting, Ric Morgan sent a copy of the draft Oil & Gas regulations to Jake Matter at the Attorney Generals office for his review. Jake Matter also represents the COGCC. Matter responded to Morgan’s email ex-officio with respect to his COGCC duties. Morgan shared this response with Carolyn Parkinson, who then distributed it to other Oil & Gas Edit Committee members. Matter’s analysis apparently raised the issue of an operational conflict with COGCC regulations on the issue of Elbert County banning open pits.
The edit committee struggled with this new information. Committee members Crisan and Corrado lobbied for the regulation to be written in an adversarial progressive direction, notwithstanding that the majority of edit committee members thought that litigation with the state would likely ensue from that approach. Environmentalists in the audience agreed with the adversarial approach. As Mr. Blotter put it, such an approach might deter him from going on the “attack.”
Carolyn Parkinson spoke to the duty of the edit committee to produce a regulatory document that the BOCC could sign with some assurance that doing so would not open the county to litigation. Several others experimented with language that would preserve a county disposition against open pits without putting in place an outright ban to trigger the operational conflict.
It would be interesting to see this letter from Jake Matter that caused so much kerfuffle in the meeting.
Taking a step back, what was notoriously under-represented on the edit committee, and absent in the environmentalist (all but one person) audience, was a non-presumptive attitude toward the whole business, grounded in objective science. For the majority in the room, conclusions have been made, future negative outcomes are beyond doubt, and the agenda reigns supreme.
regulators unhinged
- In the first snip we get an f-bomb and a great expression of dogmatic superiority.
- In the second segment, we see a regulator’s frustration and real disappointment over having to accommodate reality.
- In the third segment, we get an outright dismissal of industry knowledge. . .What do they know anyway? – They just do this for a living. – We know what’s best for Elbert County!
You couldn’t make this stuff up.
O & G Edit Committee 3-26-13
Part 2
Part 1
O & G Edit Committee 3-19-2013
Part 2
Part 1
O & G Edit Committee 3-12-2013
ELBERT COUNTY ZONING REGULATIONS
Oil and/or Gas Operations – Special Use Permit
This is a little confusing. Part 1 was not originally webcast due to technical problems (user error by me), and it’s pretty key. Parts 2 and 3 were webcast.
Part 3
Part 2
Part 1
ElCo Oil & Gas Edit committee
If you missed the broadcast, what I saw behind the video camera was kind of interesting from a sociological perspective. At a gross level, there were 3 interests – the county regulators, the environmentalists, and the industry proponents.
The county regulators were difficult to observe. Their job appears to consist of taking any fact pattern that they can conceive might some day occur, and plumbing it for every opportunity they can imagine might provide an excuse to make some sort of regulatory process for controlling it. It’s a very low standard, subject only to their flights of fancy, political whims, prejudices, malleable linguistic flyers, and a firm belief that what they do will lead to a more perfect society.
The environmentalists were also difficult to observe. Their shtick was to load as many hyperbolic expressions into short sound bites, and never to allow a reasoned rebuttal to put them off track from their prejudgments.
Probably the easiest to observe were the industry proponents. With their abundant experience, they walked a fine line between the other two groups, stroking the vanity of the regulators as necessary to keep them happy, and skillfully avoiding confrontations with the environmentalists who never stopped trying to provoke them.
The game was interesting, but definitely not for idealists. The regulators have no clue of the unintended consequences they ambitiously set in motion. The environmentalists are reality challenged. And the industry proponents actively sell to both of these groups somewhat like used car salesmen.
And so went the sausage factory writing the law last night that we will all have to obey some day. This was government in action. It was not a pretty sight.
Next installment next Tuesday the 12th. Same time, same channel.
B_Imperial
ElCo commissioners missing
Governor John Hickenlooper
136 State Capitol
Denver, CO 80203-1792
February 19, 2013
Dear Governor Hickenlooper:
Thank you for rising above the partisan squabbling that has unfortunately heightened a national oil and gas debate. Scientific evidence is being overpowered by an emotional public debate and your leadership will help us overcome this unjust polarization.
We appreciate that you are using your influence as Governor to seek a sensible energy balance – one that ensures rigorous regulation and enforcement, but in a way that is applied consistently and efficiently so that Colorado remains an attractive place to do business. Real political leadership is a rarity in the current environment. On energy issues, you have shown it, and you can be assured that a great majority of citizens, and many local elected officials, appreciate that leadership.
Those who have expressed criticism to your decision to take legal action against Longmont’s overreaching and illegal oil and gas rules do not speak for all local governments, or the thousands of people who support the energy industry statewide. The energy industry is vital to our economic stability and in reality; the majority of citizens and local governments support the industry.
The proposed Longmont regulations will create a de facto ban on oil and gas production in large segments of their community. If left unchallenged, those regulations open the flood gates for other additional regulatory responses. The resulting chaos would create unclear expectations for local governments, and would discourage future investment in energy development in Colorado.
As you well know, Colorado doesn’t take lightly its responsibility to manage, regulate and oversee oil and gas development. Our state has the most stringent, comprehensive oil and gas regulations anywhere in the country. Love them or hate them, these rules are widely acknowledged to be the most aggressive regulatory framework in the nation. Additional regulations are simply unnecessary.
Your position is backed by common sense. Colorado cannot have a quilt of hundreds of different sets of oil and gas regulations if the state is genuinely committed to a thriving oil and gas sector.
As local elected officials who actually represent an energy producing area, we share your view of the importance of the energy sector, and we applaud your authentic bipartisan leadership on oil and gas issues.
Sincerely,
Commissioner W.R. “Skip” Fischer, Adams County
Commissioner Alice Nichol, Adams County
Commissioner Erik Hansen, Adams County
Commissioner Rod Bockenfeld, Arapahoe County
Commissioner Nancy Doty, Arapahoe County
Mayor Dick McLean, City of Brighton
Councilmember Wayne Scott, City of Brighton
Councilmember Chris Maslanik, City of Brighton
Councilmember Kirby Wallin, City of Brighton
Councilmember Cynthia Martinez, City of Brighton
Councilmember Rex Bell, City of Brighton
Councilmember Lynn Baca, City of Brighton
Councilmember J.W. Edwards, City of Brighton
Councilmember Wilma Rose, City of Brighton
Councilmember Ken Lucas, City of Centennial
Mayor Terry Carwile, City of Craig
Councilmember Don Jones, City of Craig
Councilmember Gene Bilodeau, City of Craig
Councilmember Joe Bird, City of Craig
Councilmember Jennifer Rily, City of Craig
Councilmember Ray Black, City of Craig
Councilmember Byron Willems, City of Craig
Councilmember Benedict Lujan Sr., Town of Dinosaur
Councilmember Lando Blakely, Town of Dinosaur
Councilmember Toby Cortez, Town of Dinosaur
Councilmember Guy Stults, Town of Dinosaur
Councilmember Devonna Wilzek, Town of Dinosaur
Councilmember Richard Blakely, Town of Dinosaur
Councilmember Bruce Long, Town of Dinosaur
Mayor Chad Auer, Town of Firestone
Councilmember Sam Susuras, City of Grand Junction
Commissioner Don Rosier, Jefferson County
Commissioner Faye Griffin, Jefferson County
Commissioner Steve Johnson, Larimer County
Councilmember John Fogle, City of Loveland
Councilmember Hugh McKean, City of Loveland
Commissioner John Justman, Mesa County
Commissioner Rose Pugliese, Mesa County
Commissioner Tom Mathers, Moffat County
Commissioner Tom Gray, Moffat County
Commissioner Audrey Danner, Moffat County
Mayor Judith Beasley, Town of Parachute
Trustee Junita Williams, Town of Parachute
Trustee Mary Allbee, Town of Parachute
Trustee Roy McClung, Town of Parachute
Trustee Tom Rugaard, Town of Parachute
Mayor Frank Huitt, Town of Rangely
Councilmember Brad Casto, Town of Rangely
Councilmember Elaine Urie, Town of Rangely
Councilmember Clayton Gohr, Town of Rangely
Councilmember Lisa Hatch, Town of Rangely
Councilmember Dan Eddy, Town of Rangely
Councilmember Joseph Nielsen, Town of Rangely
Commissioner Shawn Bolton, Rio Blanco County
Commissioner Kai Turner, Rio Blanco County
Commissioner Kenneth Parsons, Rio Blanco County
Commissioner Sean Conway, Weld County
Commissioner Barb Kirkmeyer, Weld County
Commissioner Douglas Rademacher, Weld County
Commissioner Mike Freeman, Weld County
Mayor Joe Foltmer, City of Wray
Councilmember Ronn Akey, City of Wray
Councilmember Butch Hassman, City of Wray
Councilmember Jodi Brady, City of Wray
Commissioner Trent Bushner, Yuma County
Commissioner Dean Wingfield, Yuma County
Commissioner Robin Wiley, Yuma County
Source: Letter to John Hickenlooper
Oil & Gas edit committee 2-12-13
Note: The above MOU and Addendum were not discussed this evening, though many subjects discussed sound in both the MOU and the surrounding zoning law.
The following streams contain discussions of the proposed enabling zoning law, of which the MOU is one component.
The next edit committee meeting will be Feb 26th.
2-12-2013 Part 1
2-12-2013 Part 2
MOU trouble in paradise
MOU impact excerpt
Full Session
almost invisible transparency
Colorado drilling activity
Environmentalists, with a basket of scare tactics, have evidently decided to carve out Elbert County from the modern world of energy harvesting . Meanwhile, Denver Basin aquifers were successfully protected through thousands of oil and gas drilling installations across the front range. (click graphics to enlarge) It is time for sound science to control the local regulatory process.
Rick Blotter of Agate
He doesn’t want it, so no one should have it.
good intentions run amok
Rio Grande County oil and gas decision delayed again
Posted: Thursday, Jan 24th, 2013
By Judy ApplewhiteDEL NORTE—First Liberty Energy, Inc. is seeking conditional use permit to drill for oil in the Old Woman’s Creek area near Del Norte.
The company has already received a permit from the Colorado Division of Oil and Gas, COGCC. Rio Grande county commissioners called a public hearing on Jan. 16 to give the locals a chance to weigh in on the decision process. . .
See whole story: Rio Grande County oil and gas decision delayed again
Now see:
The previous blog post about the planning commission activities last night showed a promising forum between government, industry experts and the public that could produce a practicable working arrangement that might protect all stakeholders’ interests in the development of oil and gas in Elbert County. Nothing is certain but things appeared to be moving toward a compromise solution.
Why, then, did the BOCC decide to create an oil and gas citizens advisory committee now, just when things appear to be on track in the planning commission?
Was the planning commission process we witnessed last night too reasonable? Too scientific? Insufficiently corruptible? Inadequately manipulable for political objectives? Did the planning commission not come up with the right answer?
Take a hard look at the above story out of Rio Grande County yesterday, for it is predictive of what our BOCC is setting up. Our BOCC apparently wants an ongoing scenario where, after all state and local regulatory burdens have been met, after all available science and best management practices have been satisfied, further approval will be thrown into a kangaroo BOCC court to be punched around for who knows how long.
Even with the regulatory scheme contemplated in Elbert County’s currently proposed “O&G Zone + MOU” device, modifications to the standard MOU, after confirmation by all the planners and experts, still must pass under the magic pen of the BOCC. Is this where the proposed citizens political advice takes over? The planners say this will only add 2 weeks to the expedited MOU approval process, and rumor has it they have beachfront property out by the Blotter place in Agate for sale..
If the end game in this deal is merely to create grist for the BOCC mill, then let’s skip all the expensive foreplay and get right to the main event.
B_Imperial
oil & gas planning
Continuation Part 2: here
(Note: A couple minutes of discussion between parts 1 and 2 were lost due to a degraded system that began repetitive disconnects. Not sure if it was the internet link or webcast software, so I re-initiated all elements and that cleared up the problem.)