|
Comments on the
COGCC Rule Making Process |
|
Thank you for this opportunity to provide additional personal commentary regarding the continuing rule-making process. I thank you sincerely for your thoughtful time and inclusive dedication devoted thus far to this extremely important issue.
The comments I intend to provide are not meant to offend, and I apologize in advance if they do so. I respectfully ask that you take into consideration that we are increasingly under intense pressure from industrial development near our home and surrounding communities and therefore intimately witness the far-reaching and complex impacts this industry continually manifests. This increasingly attempts to rob me of the objectivity I constantly strive to preserve. As development continues to take a toll on local families and environmental resources, the investment in this state's sustainable future grows increasingly marginalized and threatened. Therefore, my comments to you will be straight-forward, from me to you - exactly as I interpret the gravity of the situation and being as politically sensitive and personally polite as I can muster under these conditions. I also apologize for the length of these comments. I know that reading can be tedious, so thank you for granting me unlimited space in which to share our concerns - for they are many and there are reasons for that.
In considering the arguments presented to you by the natural gas industry, please consider that corporate concerns of preservation and sustainability are outside the legitimate scope of corporate concern and therefore corporate capacity to wholly address. As you are doubtlessly quite aware, corporations operate according to a profit margin which is often determined by short-sighted market conditions within an environment which seems to only superficially tolerate demands associated with sustainable living and community concerns.
Among our local citizen communities, personal economic interests can cloud sound judgment and discourage consideration for the whole in the interest of one. Individual interests can be short-sighted, and even when self-destructive, based on centrist need. In this way, we and corporations can emulate one another's baser motives and actions. Even when people are moved beyond personal interests to consider the affect upon the whole, folks often cannot fathom the impacts of industry because it occurs on such a large scale, it is often removed from immediate attention and it is often isolated in its effect or effects on individuals.
Sadly, the same could be said for public officials. Many of them are not aware of the truly empirical influence of the oil and gas industry in Colorado, nor, consequently, the pending resource crises in our state, as air, soil and water quality are increasingly threatened.
Yet, the onus, must be on developmental policy set forth by representatives which falls to congress, the states and local government. The fate of our environment - the health of our communities and the vitality of our biologically diverse wildlife populations resides with policy-makers. They must guard against the disproportionate threat of industrial influence on all the precious resources which make our state a valuable local and national treasure.
Taking a page from the corporate playbook, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission must be clear in their mission, far-seeing in their vision, supportive in their culture, and effective in their strategies. Above all, they should be agile in implementing all of the above at times critical to their absorption.
Performance standards such as those strongly favored by industry can only be expected to be effective when there is sufficient incentive to comply and when there is sufficient oversight to manage and enforce. As development occurs further outside of populated areas, there is a higher probability of non-discovery of non-compliance.
In selecting our path forward, we have to design our approach according to a hierarchy of priority and hold it against a framework of attainable objective. That is, we should examine what we'd like to achieve and ways and means of doing so, while holding to strict guidelines of resource preservation. Because, while we may desire to produce and use an excess of monetarily inexpensive fossil fuel, we would be misgiven to do so at the expense of life-sustaining resources or air, water and soil.
I believe that much of what perplexes us today, during this process, has been caused in large part by an industry allowed by policy to operate at an excess of subsidized profit within a culture of conquest and in an environment of greed which is hostile to landowners and other resource users.
In your review of pending rule changes, you must embrace the complexity, scope, intimacy, immediacy and intensity of this industry's impact to everything from property values and personal lives, to public land usage, economies and precious resources of air, soils and water.
My family moved to Colorado in 1979, and twenty years ago permanently settled at our current home - an extraordinary place on West Divide Creek. It consists of nearly 60 acres we have dedicated as a wildlife sanctuary. It is listed with the National Wildlife Federation, Brooks Bird Club and it is under contract with the USDA as a protected riparian zone. With diverse topography of cliffs, forest, meadows and water features, this extraordinary land is also home to an abundant and diverse array of flora and fauna. It is also the location of an ancient Ute burial ground and ceremonial site.
My family first became acquainted with the Colorado oil and gas industry in 2003 when we fought in the face of overwhelming odds to bring balance to an outrageously unbalanced situation. We were clearly out-numbered, as state and federal laws heavily favored industry. County commissioners were completely ignorant of any impacts and nourished an utterly hands-off approach. It seems that no one would listen to our desperate efforts to draw attention to what was an increasingly grave situation. Explosions; bull-dozed, unlined waste pits; trespass and leaking toxins followed this industry into our quiet, pastoral landscape, as responding to the latest crises consumed our world day and night. We literally and repeatedly begged the COGCC to slow down the development. To no avail.
In the spring of 2004 gas began bubbling up in Divide Creek. My father applied a lit match to the water, combusting the gas, to demonstrate to the field inspector the gravity of the situation - which still seemed to only slowly sink in. It also began bubbling up in other areas. Benzene continues to spill into the creek, but it is measured up and down stream where those measurements register non-detect.
EnCana continues to mitigate the situation, but the systems in place rely upon man-made management - which we all know is prone to failure. The seep, however, may outlast us all. And in the absence of infrastructure support, the seep remains an imminent threat to the health of Divide Creek and, of course, all the life dependent upon this unique bio-zone. Right now, our beloved mountain home carries an arrow through its heart. It has been mortally wounded by careless aim. It's prognosis is perilous at best, but as long as no one pulls out the arrow that has pierced it, it may continue to live a while longer.
For the two years following the seep discovery, the COGCC placed a moratorium on drilling. But that time is behind us. EnCana is resuming with plans to drill 40 wells within a mile of our home over the next year or so. A little less than a month ago we signed a lease with EnCana allowing them to pursue our minerals with directional drilling and securing, along the way, at least some continued monitoring of our water well and a no-surface-use provision, granting this very special ground very long-sought sovereignty.
The extractive industry poses unique challenges to ground water, surface water and even atmospheric vapor. Fugitive dust contributes to the atmosphere as do VOC's, increasing the likelihood of rain and creating the potential for acid rain - and acid snow. This directly threatens our already threatened pine forests, other life and watershed basins. Unlike the north-east, we do not enjoy the level of rainfall and rich soils that enable rapid reforestation. Such pollutants threaten our rivers, the life that depends upon those rivers and the public's drinking water supply. The dewatering of aquifers and deep ground-water sources threaten the geophysical superstructure of the Earth itself, as well as millennia-old deposits of a once-reliable resource. Overflow from pits and poorly constructed pads threaten water supplies with toxic spills of everything from drilling waste to diesel and condensate - used in the manufacture of jet fuel. Fracing - the sole technology that allows the pursuit of drilling in our highly faulted and fractured geology threatens to create pathways of escape for methane and other hydrocarbon compounds already elevating in the atmosphere as they release from soils in thawing polar regions. Clearly, the threat this industry poses to Colorado's water supply is all-encompassing of the hydrosphere and cannot be overstated.
Industry's negative effects on wildlife, physical infrastructure, and social and economic stability are as widespread.
When faced with such challenges, nature stands at the ready to provide a model of solution. Key to interpreting that model however, lies in recognizing the Earth as a cohesive organism -- the sum total of systems often viewed through a scientific lens of specialized and too-narrow inquiry. Earth's water, like the land and air are integral components of other systems which, when taken together, paint a clearer picture of the comprehensive threat posed by the extractive industries. And it is clear that the health of our water, land and air depends upon the health of other, symbiotic Earth systems.
Nature's solutions have always centered round the enduring principals of diversity and moderation, balanced distribution, interdependence and evolution. These are proven methods as old as the universe itself, which come the closest to creating interdependent sustainability - order out of chaos.
If we mean to mitigate the onslaught of energy development, we must bring these same principals to our discussion and planning. For Colorado, this means controlled, phased development based on innovative technologies as a component of a larger energy resource mix.
It may mean allowing natural gas development to occur based on a lottery system of participation and encouraging the research and development of alternative energy sources based on a similar model.
In the 5-year aftermath of unfettered development, we can now recognize this industry as a pestilence upon the landscape. It has dawned a new dark age in a time of increasing environmental awareness. If we fail to meet and negotiate the challenges before us, there will come a time when words and contemplation become meaningless. The time is now for educated, organized and deliberate action.
Those of you considering these rule-changes have been tasked by the legislature to change the paradigm - to create dynamic momentum toward a future we can all live with.
As you ponder the content of my and others' comments, and you strive to contend with the scope of the challenge. As you debate potential solutions and face political controversy, please remember that we must not divest our interest and our means in the true science necessary to understand the circumstances we face in accounting for and preserving the integrity of Colorado's precious resources. You must, as policy makers and enforcers, be willing to assume leadership in protecting the public's health and safety.
In the past, the role of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and the role of the Division of Wildlife have been wrongly minimized as natural gas development was allowed - even encouraged - at their expense. And this practice continues. The public, our environment and our state's wild creatures depend upon a better model of genuine cooperation, with qualified, unbiased reasoning leading policy decisions.
Consciousness is the catalyst of will. Every conscious action changes the course of our future. It impacts our trajectory and our momentum - reinforcing or disrupting our ability and desire to move forward. Circumstances are always present among us. Affecting us and awaiting our acknowledgement and our decision to turn our future in a direction toward sustainable living. All we have to do is stand up, open our eyes, and connect the right dots in a complex and out-of-focus picture that demands conscious awareness.
My faith and hope lies with all of your unique abilities to do exactly that.
Following are aspects of the draft rules I would like to see strengthened.
Comprehensive Planning and Best Practices These should be made mandatory as they represent the best tools for sharing information across multiple agency jurisdictions and would also provide a guiding document for local land-use planners. Further, they would require industry to stand up and demonstrate some concern for the current environmental, social and economic state as well as future condition of a community. Some in industry are quick to funnel public relations cash into certain projects, but folks who really live in a community and want to stay there for longer than the current job market dictates, tend to want to invest across the board in the long-range livability of a place, not just in a few pet projects designed to create good will, fuzzy feelings or cause verbal constipation in political discourse. Mandatory best practices are common sense - and required in other areas of the world - like Canada. Industry snubbing their noses at good environmental stewardship and pitching a fit about "cost" only demonstrates that while preservation of air, water and soil quality is important in other countries, America, and Colorado in particular, is just not worth it. This is an attitude I flatly reject.
Industry generally argues against what they have presented as adverse economic impacts - and this has at least two out of our three county commissioners raising 'industry-advocating' concerns over how these rules might impact oil and gas (economic) development in our state - most notably in Garfield County. Doing things right will only help ensure more jobs in our county along with greater and necessary economic diversity.
Further, This industry is infamous for its resource waste. A climate of rushed development only encourages more of it. If industry is so concerned about cost control, then they should better manage the resources committed to various phases of exploration development and production. One gentleman I know of was paid to sit around on the tailgate of a truck waiting to reclaim a pipeline installation. He quit that job based (if you can believe it, on moral grounds). This isn't the only story I've heard like this - but most folks don't quit, they just lap up the gravy. A more responsible assessment of fraud, waste and abuse within the industry would, I would be willing to bet, yield enough savings to offset any possible losses complying with the new COGCC rule change proposals.
The COGCC has a legislative responsibility to conserve Colorado's oil and gas resource. Allowing irresponsible, pedal-to-the-metal development does little to ensure a responsibly developed and marketed national supply, and it only encourages waste within an industry complaining about costs. There may be costs to doing business the way it's been conducted - but it is waste that is recoverable through responsible development.
The fossil fuel industry tries to convince us that more drilling will mean less expensive energy for the consumer. This is simply an untruth. Our area is at the epicenter of drilling, and on May 31st I paid $4.15 per gallon for regular gas at a station in Rifle. Advocating more drilling as a means to energy independence is like expecting Jaba The Hut to go on a diet, which he has promised to do…. after eating the world. This latest boom has cost Rifle in terms of infrastructure demand, rapid population growth, increased crime, and a loss of labor. Only twenty short years ago Rifle underwent an energy bust - which left fish in the tanks of over-priced homes as the last U-Haul that could be found for two hundred miles rolled out of town. The answer to allowing the oil and gas industry to conduct business and contribute to Colorado's economy is in implementing common sense rules that protect the public health, the environment and Colorado's wildlife - while exploring alternative energy sources and allowing Rifle and the surrounding region to develop stable economies together with other diverse economic opportunities.
ADJACENT LANDOWNER INVOLVEMENT The Good Adjacent landowners and those living within 500 feet of a proposed pad will be given individual notice of development and can submit comments to the COGCC to be taken under consideration during the permitting process. Whoooohoooo! Seriously, Whooooohooooo!
The Bad But, what level of representation does that really afford? Will those comments be genuinely considered? Well, to be fair, maybe. But hang loose for the ugly....
The Ugly The hearing of a landowner's voice may depend upon... now, I don't want to shock anyone here, so, hang on to your hat... political will. Yes, that's right. "POLITICAL WILL". Just like now, it appears to even a blind mouse feeling its way around an elephant, that landowners are enjoying unprecedented levels of acknowledgment (not necessarily sufficient, but certainly unprecedented) within our state government. But, what happens if - gasp - republicans take over the capital again! And we have a republican Governor - oh wait! - not just a republican, but maybe even a former oil and gas industry lobbyist - like former Governor Bill Owens. Under the newly proposed rules, the COGCC gives landowners the option of petitioning our county for representation at the table. This is a great premise, but again, political will determines the extent to which our elected officials will take our concerns before the COGCC.
Adjacent landowners need a broader avenue through which to approach the COGCC. Even if allowed to petition the local government, this will pose an increased burden to even the most hands-off of commissioners. Just having to say "no" all the time is bound to become tedious and tiring.
Unlike urban areas where shared roads and water sources are governed by a municipality, in rural areas, responsibility for such infrastructure is often shared among neighbors. An absentee owner who is gung-ho for mineral development with a 'take the money and run' attitude can leave his or her neighbors to bear the burden of lost or damaged infrastructure, not to mention degraded or compromised resources of air, land, water and wildlife. This aspect of rulemaking simply does not go far enough to advocate for the individual landowner who is far too powerless in the face of intense rural development to hope for much in the way of consistent representation under the draft rules.
WILDLIFE The Good There are a set of criteria by which the industry must consider the needs of wildlife. If industry wants a waiver from these stipulations, they must undergo consultation. Again, there is an incentive for industry to comply with these stipulations if they want expedited permitting.
The Bad In any case, even with consultation, the permitting process can whip through in 40 additional days with alternative mitigation options on the table and conflicts promptly 'settled' by the COGCC. So there is no extension beyond what industry is already working with. This may be an insufficient disincentive to encourage planning.
And what does 'settled' mean? Threatened lawsuits by industry and landowners who couldn't care less about preserving anything but more and more profits? Please decide in advance what such a scenario might look like, because these folks really do exist - mostly in the form of absentee surface owners who also hold a big stake in the mineral wealth. And some of them own enough land to encompass a significant portion of diverse habitat. We're not just talking 40 acres here and there. We're talking hundreds or thousands of acres. But hopefully, DOW can present, stand behind and enforce recommendations that benefit wildlife. That should be the bottom line. DOW must have the authority to inspect an area - even on private property. Individual landowners should not stand in the way of habitat assessment when large animals require contiguous habitat to sustain themselves.
There are ways to protect wildlife and the environment and develop gas resources simultaneously. We must not be forced into a position to have to choose. People and planetary systems have co-evolved over millions of years, and our recognition of our need for the fragile systems on which we depend as well as our disruption to those systems are typically underestimated.
Sufficient study and inventory of area wildlife and habitat will determine what is necessary to preserve our wild resources which will allow industry and others to pursue bonafide solutions.
I've asked the DOW and BLM to assess our herds and their habitat for five years, but it has yet to be done. Meanwhile, our herds suffer. This winter, cow elk were shut out from their traditional calving grounds while EnCana pushed dirt around and expanded the Schwartz site into a mega pad suitable for more intense development. This spring, I watched the final exodus of that same herd from our valley, but saw no calves. Did they abort them? Abandon them? Absorb them? What happened? We don't know, and there has been no effort on the part of any state or federal agency to find out.
Sadly, the no-surface use clause we secured during our lease negotiations with EnCana doesn't mean much when this kind of activity is allowed to occur all around is. For all of our efforts to preserve wild and critical habitat, the environmental value of our land is diminished greatly when surrounding development disrupts the habitats of large species like bear, lion, elk and deer which rely upon a much larger range of contiguous habitat resources.
The Ugly There needs to be more than a maximum three month protective period for wildlife. In the case of the elk that rely upon our property, they depend upon forage during part of winter, and cover and forage for calving the rest of the winter into spring. Since winter stipulations cannot be stacked (that is three months tacked onto three more months), I wonder which circumstance will win preference? Access and protection of winter forage, or calving grounds? Or either? This winter we've seen NO protection for the elk that utilize the Schwartz property. And what will happen if two species compete for protection, and their need for stipulations overlap? Which species will win favor? Will we have to sacrifice some species, under certain conditions which would otherwise fall within their normal use of the land? You know, it seems to me that this shouldn't even be an issue, but the DOW is being forced to decide - forced to prioritize in a potentially lose/lose situation. Industry should be leading the way in providing for voluntary measures to protect critical habitat. I think industry can give a little in this regard. Colorado already has some of the most lax rules when it comes to energy development.
The protection of bald eagles should extend to golden eagles as well, and be at least a half mile. It has taken two years for the eagles to return after the moratorium was put in place. They are disturbed within a quarter mile. Even a half mile is probably not enough to encourage nesting.
We don't have to sacrifice wildlife for natural gas, and we shouldn't be asked to. But it is going to take a committed COGCC to bring appropriate balance. Minimum, adequate and non-negotiable restrictions protecting all of our wild populations need to be in place.
Industry has wrongly convinced Garfield County that allocation of rigs capable of directional drilling will be jeopardized under new rules. Please be aware that all of the rigs in use are capable of directional drilling. Even when directional drilling is used, there are often only 6 wells per pad (for whatever reason).
Not all land is critical habitat - and rigs can operate at higher elevations during times of year when critical habitat must be preserved. Resources can be reallocated to other, less sensitive areas during times of protections.
RECLAMATION Along these lines, the whole idea of reclamation needs to be revisited. There need to be standards instituted to assure interim reclamation - that is, the period of time between development and the duration of production. We are sitting downwind of a massive dirt berm that continually blows across our land. I've seen pitiful reclamation attempts where a company planted twenty or so young pines on a berm only to have them dry up and die. Same scenario around an entire pad. All the trees died (and for a time, they were watered.) This has happened in our area at least twice. Now, the berms just blow dust. Current 'efforts' at reclamation are a joke. Reclamation must include maintenance, otherwise these often toxic mini-dustbowls only nurture non-nutritive invasive weeds, and wildlife continue to suffer. Given the semi-arid nature of our region, the amount of wind we receive and the proliferation of pads and roads, the state needs to be ready to address serious dust bowl scenarios in the very near future - even with reclamation standards. Because of this, the state should also reconsider its bonding requirements, and make sure they are adequate to meet future need.
Successful reclamation should be required. A possible solution to this is that native species should used to as great an extent that xeriscaping methods can be fully utilized. Beyond that, industry is simply going to have to pay someone to take care of an area until it can naturally recover.
HEALTH STUDIES The Good Nothing to report.
The Bad Looking at existing studies is insufficient in determining the effects this industry is having on people and wildlife who live with it. The CDPHE extended an invitation a few months ago to 'let us know' if landowners are experiencing any suspected problems. I took this to mean the CDPHE really did want us to let them know, so I called and shared information about the 'gunky eye' thing my mother deals with and which we suspect is linked to diesel fumes. We never did hear back. Health studies (or any other scientific study) need to be comprehensive and taken over an extended period of time accounting for multiple variables and reflecting a compilation of unbiased, accurate and precise data. They, further, should arise from a pattern of complaints which are categorized in order to develop a relevant approach and resulting conclusion. By the way, I just heard a great line the other day. It goes, "A conclusion is when you get tired of thinking.". It seems to me that the state is readying to look at conclusions when they don't even have a handle on what the question is. That's a big disappointment as we go on living with industry and literally absorbing through our air, water and soils the fouled effluence of their trade.
Folks are flakin' off and breaking down and a lot of reasonable people are looking around and saying' "Huh... benzene in the air... huh. Ozone. Asthma. Rashes. Methane, fumes, passing out... two and two..." One study regarding air quality suspects that we may be underestimating the long-term effects of these kinds of exposures. But the money is hot. The sexy dope of development stuns a lot of folks right out their senses.
A neighbor said she went to a dermatologist with a weird rash on her arms and legs and they told her it was some funky thing associated with the gas patch, and brought in by workers who, themselves, get immunized against this stuff - but, of course, none of us do. I can't say whether any of this is actual fact, but it was shared with me, and while I don't like to repeat hearsay, the stakes are pretty high and there's a big organized and well-funded barrier to slowing the growth of development. With thousands of wells in the area and a bunch more loading into the pipeline we really need to develop an open discourse about what a lot of folks are talking about in private. The state health department should lead that effort.
I am less than impressed with the recent air quality meetings and the county health department's "Community Air Quality Program". It is estimated that some 85% of the pollution now happening in Garfield County is due to industry. Yet, the county health department and the state health department are hinting ever more firmly that wood-smoke and vehicles are a source of air pollution which need to be stamped out. I cannot see taking home heating away from folks who may not otherwise be able to afford the high costs of energy just to keep their families warm when industry is allowed to belch out all kinds of toxic crap into the air.
Here's a message for the county health department: you're targeting the wrong people and pointing the finger at families trying to simply survive. You need to be looking at a subsidized industry exempted from pollution-generation and raking in billions in profit at the expense of citizen's health. That's the real problem health department folks - in case you can't see the obvious.
I keep hearing that the county can't afford to conduct studies or cannot afford the equipment to monitor. You know what? I'm not buying it. Why is the county sitting on a rainy-day fund worth some thirty million dollars when people are begging to know what is in the air that they believe is making them sick? Where are the priorities?
Rigs, which are considered temporary fixtures should be held to the same standards of polluting as fixed sources. These things cause all kinds of problems - none of which are being looked at.
The Ugly A few months back there was a physician who purportedly was so fed up with getting nowhere when he raised legitimate scientific question about the weird maladies that were appearing in his clinic - that... whoops, big surprise, he and his family relocated to Virginia. We lost a conscientious physician truly interested in his patients' wellbeing. But, clearly, he was also concerned for the wellbeing of his own family. And in an environment of "speak no evil" his actions speak volumes.
The state needs to be addressing air quality. In the Northeast, acid rain nearly ruined old-growth and new-growth forests. There, they enjoy significant moisture and habit conditions which promote more rapid recovery of forests. We don't have that luxury here. Yet, acid rain and acid snow are real threats and the kind of pollution we are talking about can devastate the high country and other areas which act as airsheds. Recovery? Who knows when or if it will even be possible.
So, while the state doesn't want to be bothered with undertaking new health studies (or apparently even developing a system of logging complaints) the fire-hazard condensate tanks and all their nasty off-gassing toxic fumes are still outside of common sense consideration and regulation. As a component of jet fuel and an increasingly valuable commodity, condensate should be required to be piped away from homes. Just like natural gas and produced water.
WATER The Good Protection of drinking water supplies is not mentioned in the current rules, nor was it mentioned in the initial proposal - but it darned sure came up in stakeholder meetings. From the newly proposed draft rules: "Draft rule prohibits construction of oil and gas activities within 500 feet of sources of drinking water for a distance of 5 miles upstream of a public water supply intake. It also requires performance standards for activities with 1/2 mile of such sources. Draft Rule 317B"
The Bad Please see "The Ugly"
The Ugly West Divide Creek (and gas seep) April 01 2004 through today. The Gode well. Garden Gulch. La Plata County Natural gas seep. Fruitland Outcrop. Take your pick. Drilling and fracing activities in highly faulted areas doesn't make a whole lot of sense as our situation and many others demonstrate. Yet, drilling goes on. Some technologies - like fracing need to be prohibited in certain geological situations. And drilling needs to be a greater distance from water sources - for all of us and for the wildlife that also depend on it. Driving to Grand Junction from Rifle, it makes me sick to see the kind of development allowed adjacent to the Colorado River. We were 'lucky' to find the seep going on in Divide Creek. Who is around to notice these things on public lands or on lands owned by industry and absentee owners - or those who prohibit government access to their properties which are essentially offered up for exploitation to the highest bidder? Let me tell you folks - we haven't even begun to see ugly. I predict the health of many of our rivers will be substantially compromised within the next three to five years, even with the proposed rules in place. I predict little of the damage will be occurring and corrected under our noses. It will be higher up along streams and tributaries - far upstream of water supplies. It will be in the watersheds and transported through the air and contaminated snow, rain and run-off. That's when we're really going to see ugly. And once the wells are tapped out and a fat percentage are left abandoned, how will the state address the damage done? Will Garfield County be the equivalent of a Brownsfield? "Welcome to Beautiful Colorado - Superfund Site".
Our rivers, tributaries, watersheds and groundwater must be protected. Sufficient setbacks are essential - as are limitations on the use of any technically feasible means to extract a resource, which may otherwise poise a threat to the environment or people in it. The botched frac job on the Schwartz well created multiple problems scattered almost a mile away. Waste pits and toxic chemicals should be prohibited near any drinking water supply - including those that wildlife must depend upon. And they should be prohibited in fracing operations. If COGCC decides to allow the use of toxic chemicals, full disclosure should be required. There is no such thing as "proprietary" when it comes to tumor growth.
RIG and PAD SETBACKS from HOMES The Good So far no operator has tried to set up a rig in someone's living room (although the county is considering offering up other areas of someone's private land as little as 150 away so contingencies of pad workers have somewhere to live, too).
The Bad At 150 feet away, the fumes, filth and all the magnificent ilk that blossoms on and around well pads that the workers are generally protected from by OSHA standards drift right into living room windows so kids, pets and families can experience the full effect of the energy industry from the comfort of their own living rooms.
COGCC in all their former and glorious concern for the lives of Colorado citizens allowed the placement of rigs up to within 150 feet of homes so that if the rig fell over there was less likelihood of it smashing through someone's roof. Of course, now the newer rigs are even taller. But the set-backs remain the same.
The Ugly That a rig can be established only 150 feet from a home is the dumbest, most invasive, dangerous and irresponsible allowance I've ever seen. It is an outrage beyond all reason or reasonable argument.
Some folks are advocating 1000 foot setbacks. But that is a bit of an abstract ideal, which is only a reasonable beginning. In attempting to mitigate the noise, dust, light pollution and noxious odors that plague families living with industry, regulations need to be adopted which pertain to operations on the pads which apply directly to specific and often dangerous nuisances like those noted above. Closed-system or pitless waste operations (odor mitigation) / combustors (odor mitigation) / piped or tankless condensate systems (odor, toxic fume, explosion and fire mitigation) / baffles (light mitigation) / electric vs. diesel rigs (fume and noise mitigation) / rig floor baffles (noise, light mitigation) / rubber mats for offloading pipe (noise mitigation) / limited traffic, shared roads and dust control are reasonable, easily implemented and cost effective measures which could go a long way toward lessening the impacts to families next to these heavily industrialized operations. The fact that setbacks nor pad-site operations have not been addressed by rule-making folks? I can't even conceive of this failure to consider public health and human impacts, yet, these abuses have been going on despite public complaint for the last five years. Just yesterday Gov. Ritter signed into legislation stronger waste pit regulations. Of course this is an important move forward. But, I bet no one who worked on that bill was aware that sometimes these pits are ignited. The fluids evaporate or combust, since sometimes, a thin film of condensate can skim around on the surface. When the pits burn, the plastic liners - no matter how thick they are - burn off. Unless those liners are replaced (and I have pictures of them just sitting there burned off), when the fluids rise, those fluids come into direct contact with soils. The point here is that each and every activity conducted by this industry is complex, and common scenarios can reach beyond what you may be able to reasonably conceive. Please consider that when you consider implementing rules. Talk to folks who live with this industry - not just those who make a living from advocating for or against it.
THE BOTTOM LINE I deeply regret that the tone of this commentary is sometimes harsh. I truly do regret that. I am certainly not accusing any folks (including industry) who are genuinely considering the best interests of the public and wildlife populations in their deliberations and endeavors. And I am so very grateful that you are taking these issues under consideration. But, for us, it's been five years of state-sponsored neglect supported by county ineffectuality. And I continue to see a great deal of pressure and even inaccurate information proffered to those in a position to effect positive change and balance to an industry that absolutely has a right to operate and a place in Colorado's economy.
But, this region is a national energy sacrifice zone. And we feel that sacrifice - personally. Because of this insufficiently and therefore improperly considered federal designation, does it mean we must sacrifice everything? Our health? Our families? Our drinkable water? Our ground that stands to be contaminated from potentially toxic coagulants in undisclosed pit locations? Our wildlife with nowhere to turn for reliable habitat and migratory pathways? Breathable air that won't erode our lungs from excessive ozone and expose us to benzene? The balance that the COGCC can bring to this situation is desperately needed. Industry and their associations may try to tell you otherwise, but their interest isn't in building and sustaining livable communities around preserved precious resources. Their interest is to get the money and run. That's why they're here. They don't plan on being here after profits dry up. We on the other hand are trying like hell to hang on for the long haul. We love this state, our land - and all Colorado represents. All we can do is hope you do to.
Thank you sincerely for your on-going considerations of these issues. Lisa Bracken
|
|
All contents of this site, unless
otherwise noted are copyrighted by Lisa Bracken, 2007-2008. All rights are
reserved. |