“What on earth has happened to democracy if the opinions of mere fractions of the electorate are allowed to dominate the economic self-interest of far more? Who is to create a “controversy” out of thin air next?”
frackchecking
“Let’s put some facts in those minds and see what happens.”
reason v emotion
Ric Morgan and Rick Blotter on setbacks.
Consider that Mr. Blotter made his preference known moments after Mr. Morgan had described the consequences of the proposed setback. Blotter, without hesitation, had completely filtered out the foregoing analysis in favor of his agenda for stopping all drilling. This is very typical of the Left. They’ll engage in endless dialog under the pretense of seeking truth. But it’s not truth they’re after.
industry not asked
Weld Commissioners Call for Dismissal of Setback Ruling
By Jennifer Finch, Information Specialist, Weld County Office of County Commissioners
Thursday, January 17th, 2013, 4:02pm
Reposted from littleton.kdvr.com
The Weld County Board of Commissioners passed a resolution on Wednesday, January 16, 2013, calling upon the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) to dismiss its recent decision to increase setbacks for oil and gas facilities and to convene “a meaningful stakeholder process that will consider the need for a close working and coordinating relationship between local governments and the COGCC…”
The resolution cities numerous issues with the COGCC rule-making process including: the lack of stakeholder outreach by the COGCC to the Local Governmental Designees (LGD’s) of three of the highest producing counties in the state, including Weld County; the violation of C.R.S. 24-4-103(4)(a) regarding the rule-making process of the COGCC ruling; and the underestimation of the comparison of the probable costs and benefits of the proposed rule to the probable costs and benefits of inaction as is also required by Colorado Revised Statue (C.R.S. 24-4-103(4.5)(IV)).
“The process we witnessed last week at the hearings was government at its worst,” said Weld County Commissioner Barbara Kirkmeyer. “To rush this rule change through in the manner they did, without allowing the public to view and analyze the language and the impacts of the change, is irresponsible.”
The resolution also states that the Board of Commissioners has “…no intention of changing Weld County’s setbacks merely to mirror those setbacks set by the COGCC without any scientific or technological basis, which…the Proposed Amendments and new Rules lack…”
“County government, our municipalities and the oil and gas industry have worked together for decades to develop setback regulations that work for Weld County,” said Commissioner Douglas Rademacher. “The proposed change, which is not based on science, will have a substantial negative impact on our farmers, our ranchers, our schools, our fire districts…these changes will negatively impact the entire state of Colorado.”
The misunderstood MOU
“Under Bowen/Edwards, state preemption by reason of operational conflict can arise where the effectuation of a local interest would “materially impede or destroy the state interest.” Bowen/Edwards, supra, 830 P.2d at 1059.” (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/co-court-of-appeals/1394587.html)
At Thursday’s Planning Commission public meeting, in response to a question about the material differences between items in the proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and COGCC regulations, Richard Miller said that (paraphrasing), “If it’s in the MOU then it is a higher standard than called for by the COGCC.”
There are at least 22 such items and some of them cost drillers, developers, and mineral rights owners substantial sums of money and lost property.
In addition, Best Management Practices (BMP) references in the proposed MOU have no definition. When asked what authority is responsible for defining these standards, Mr. Miller said that their incorporation into the MOU came about through informal discussions by the editing committee.
Informal discussions? No ISO? No ASTM? No ANSI?
The Bureau of Land Management is one source of definition for these standards. A scan of the Air Resource BMPs pdf shows a wide range of operational practices that may not be congruent with COGCC regulations.
The Natural Resources Law Center at CU Boulder publishes the Intermountain Oil and Gas BMP project. These standards appear to be closely coupled to objectives generally found in the environmentalism rubric.
Elbert County’s proposed MOU incorporates numerous expensive and open ended directives that are undefined by any measurable standard that could provide a means to enforce them. By its own terms, the MOU contract fails for lack of specificity. Moreover, this game of hiding county zoning dictats inside a compulsory agreement in order to sidestep COGCC’s occupation of the field of oil and gas regulation reeks of petty magisterial hubris. “Yeah, that’s the ticket, we’ll call it a contract. . .”
On the proposed setback scheme alone, Ric Morgan’s analysis presented at Thursday’s planning commission illustrated that all drilling would be preempted in most of Elbert County. Moreover, the impact of drilling envelopes on subsequent property development, post oil and gas development, has not even been addressed.
“The mission of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) is to foster the responsible development of Colorado’s oil and gas natural resources.” It is fair to say that Elbert County’s proposed MOU completely frustrates this mission, and this represents an operational conflict in toto.
All of this MOU environmentalism, however, is probably a moot point because, as the COGCC representative indicated after the meeting, “Not a driller in the country would accept these terms.”
This means that the special use review, 6-month long, expensive, planning roadblock is the only ostensible means to get an oil well approved in Elbert County. Compared to approval time frames in other parts of the state and country measured in days rather than months, Elbert County is effectively closed for oil and gas business.
Since, as one planning commission member recently noted, the county has already been closed for business for the past 5 years, this should come as no surprise.
A year ago, Arapahoe County, similarly situated to Elbert County today, made the right decision by shutting down a local oil and gas planning process that had run amok, and affirming COGCC authority.
In Elbert County, it is not enough to end the MOU madness and default to special use review. We already know that special use review is a deal killer too.
Will Elbert County be able to break the stranglehold the environmentalist no-growth movement has on the county and do something economically beneficial for the citizens? Based on the preliminary moves made by the new BOCC majority floated on a tide of regulation seeping through CDS and the Planning Commission, don’t bet on it.
B_Imperial
Proposed Oil and Gas Taking
5th Am. to the U.S. Constitution:
No person shall be. . . .deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Oil and Gas Cover Letter from ElCo Webposting 1-2-2013:
An “Oil and/or Gas Development Permit” may be obtained following one of two Special Permit review Processes:
Major facilities will follow the standard Special Use Review process as provided for in these regulations. (Approximately 5-6 month process)
or
Minor facilities may choose to apply as a standard Special Use Review process or may choose to follow an administrative process, provided a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Elbert County is approved in conjunction. (Approximately 30-45 days)
It shall be Elbert County’s policy to encourage the use of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with individual oil and gas production companies that are active within the County and are proposing a Minor Oil and/or Gas Facility.
OIL & GAS DRAFT REGS – Final for Public Hearings SUR PERMIT ZR PART II SECTIONS 26 1-2-2013:
Section 26.2 – Application Review & Permit Processing
B. POLICY STATEMENT – MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (for Minor Oil and/or Gas
Facilities only)For those oil and gas production companies that choose not to enter into a MOU with Elbert County; the requirements of Section “E”, below, will apply.
E. PROCESSING OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR A MINOR OIL AND/OR GAS FACILITY (When the production company does NOT have an executed MOU with Elbert County) & FOR A MAJOR OIL AND/OR GAS FACILITY
The Special Use Permit process for a Minor Oil & Gas Development Permit in Elbert County when the oil/gas production company chooses not to enter into a MOU with Elbert County, or for obtaining a Major Oil & Gas Development Permit is as follows:
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING O&G 1-2-2013 Final for Public Hearings:
ADDENDUM “A”
1. There shall be a minimum of 1,320 feet between the wellhead and any residential structure, domestic well or platted building envelope.
5 . . . Only closed-loop drilling systems shall be permitted in Elbert County for drilling and completion operations rather than open earthen pits.
Summary:
Terms in Elbert County’s proposed MOU are more restrictive than COGCC regulations.
Nothing prohibits Elbert County from seeking a voluntary agreement between energy developers and the county for more restrictive conditions of development. But this is hardly a voluntary agreement.
The above scheme threatens a longer (5 to 6 months), and much more expensive planning process for companies that do not agree to the more restrictive conditions in the MOU for their minor Oil and Gas facilities–the majority of the facilities. Community and Development Services is proposing treating all minor facilities under the process for major facilities if the developer does not kow tow to the terms of the MOU.
Where is the “just compensation” to developers and mineral interest owners who do not agree with Elbert County’s more restrictive Oil and Gas development conditions? Not only is there no “just compensation,” there are in fact penalties–added procedural costs and the lost time value of potential earnings.
For those developers who accept CDS’s coercive scheme, the MOU appears to have a few weak links–the adhesive forced circumstances constructed by Elbert County government that create a take-it-or-leave-it superior bargaining position, the requirement of the additional expense of closed loop systems, and the opportunity costs from land taken out of production due to the greatly expanded setbacks. Where is the “just compensation” for these takings?
While paying lip service to the governing regulatory laws of the State of Colorado promulgated by the COGCC, this sham MOU contract is clearly intended to subvert state regulatory authority.
This proposed scheme appears ripe for legal challenges from developers, stakeholders and the state. Didn’t Rowland and Ross both campaign on the claim that the (then) current BOCC had a propensity for spawning litigation against the county? It seems they’re rushing headlong into a much deeper quagmire.
B_Imperial