Question on Colorado prop 112 and how it might affect federal (public) lands

[geriggs]

I am struggling with how to vote on this one. I am good with everything else, but this one is really got me thinking. Does anyone believe that if this is voted into regulation that we could see a huge uptick in drilling on federal lands in colorado? I dont know how it couldnt increase. About 80-85% of land (outside of federal land) is now going to be un-drillable (sp?). They have to go somewhere, its either other states or other lands within colorado which would be federal lands. Look i would not want a fracking site 500 feet behind my house or 350-500 feet to my kids football field. I am totally sympathetic to those who have to deal with smells or sounds or possibly dangerous chemicals in the air. I would hate that. I also am sympathetic to those who might lose their job or career due to layoffs. But i certainly dont want a sh!t ton more drilling to take place on federal lands.

I am guessing because its a totally different set of regualtions (federal), that its a totally different process and it may not increase the drilling on federal lands at all. I just dont know.

I understand this is a very polarizing ballot initiative and I am not trying to start fights, but just trying to get more educated and appreciate informed opinions on this very sensitive topic. Thanks.

 

[5MilesBack]

It's very interesting when you see both liberals and conservatives on commercials ALL saying what a bad idea this proposition is for Colorado. Makes you really wonder........IF the liberal are against it, AND the conservatives are against it........just where the heck did it come from and who's peddling this thing. That's an instant "NO" in my book. Of course most of the crap they come up with these days to add as a Constitutional Amendment or add to our regs gets a "NO" vote from me because it's always some special interest group pushing for it, rather than being good for EVERYONE.

 

[geriggs]

Fair point, but i dont trust the oil and gas industry overall and if you look at how much they have spent over the "other" guys its astronomical. When Oil and Gas is putting a lot of weight/money combating this it wouldnt surprise me that they have payments to everyone out there to denounce it. I also dont have anything in common with most of the backers of this proposition. Quite a conundrum. Appreciate the opinion.

It's very interesting when you see both liberals and conservatives on commercials ALL saying what a bad idea

this proposition is for Colorado. Makes you really wonder........IF the liberal are against it, AND the conservatives are against it........just where the heck did it come from and who's peddling this thing. That's an instant "NO" in my book. Of course most of the crap they come up with these days to add as a Constitutional Amendment or add to our regs gets a "NO" vote from me because it's always some special interest group pushing for it, rather than being good for EVERYONE.

 

[TXCO]

Besides looking out for their own economic interest, which is what every company is doing when they are getting into politics, why dont you trust the oil and gas industry?

Ill admit Im biased and work in the industry but I think the set back rule is crazy. Its fair to look at California restrictions on production and power and then see how much their energy costs and how much fuel and electricity is imported from other states and the high costs associated. Its not a good sign.

Ive shot seen and watched many deer, elk, antelope and game birds next to pump jacks. The animals do fine and if a company follows the rules, there are almost always zero environmental issues today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ElkElkGoose]

This is going to be long but Ill title each section so you can read what you are interested in.

My Background
I wont go into detail into what I do on the internet but I work across many industries and have varied exposure from ground floor operations up to the C Suite depending on what I'm doing. I have done work off and on for oil companies but am not reliant on the industry. If it was gone tomorrow I wouldn't be impacted from a professional standpoint. So Id like to think I have a pretty level headed and educated view on this topic.

Where 112 Came From
Colorado is a unique state in that if you get enough signatures you can pretty much get anything on the ballot including constitutional changes. So, if you have a special thing you are passionate about you can hire an outside firm to come in and gather signatures. You can also say pretty much anything you want to get those signatures. Once you have them, boom, its on the ballot. At the national level, our forefathers made it much, much, much, harder to pull this off with the U.S. Constitution. I think they foresaw the need to protect the foundation of the country from the whim of the day of the masses. So, there is a group from Boulder that is very anti oil and gas and did pretty much what was explained above. They got an outside firm to come in to gather signatures, gathered them by stating over the top things such as "Do you want babies to be killed by their drinking water?" (This is an actual one that was said to me during this time) and it is now on the ballot.

What is the Impact
The pro 112 people continue to reiterate that 112 is for new development only. But they are hiding some things. This will effectively shut down the entire industry in Colorado and here is why. Existing wells have a rapidly decreasing yield curve compared to wells from 20+ years ago. What this means is that you get a vast majority of your oil out of a well in the first couple of years. So, if all new development is shutdown the industry becomes unsustainable very quickly within as few as 3-4 years. Companies that operate only in Colorado will shut down or buy assets in other basins. Companies that operate in other basins will shutdown Colorado operations. Even if all of that production was allowed to move to federal lands I don't think companies would risk dealing with Colorado at that point as it would only get worse.

So yes, the industry would implode and that is the end goal of 112 and it is disguised as "Reasonable Setbacks". They are FULLY aware of what they are doing. As a result, rural counties would pretty much go bankrupt over night because of evaporating tax revenue. Hundreds of companies that support oil field operations would cease to exist. Thousands of people would lose their jobs gradually over the next few years. I am curious what the fed would do because it would be a hit to the national oil production and I'm sure they have some sort of concern from a national strategic/security objective. I have no idea what that would look like though.

How/Why companies are Fighting it
Yes, oil companies are fighting it by running political ads, etc. But, so are entire communities, workers, outside groups etc. There are not under the table payments going out to get people to jump on board at least from the high level people I've been exposed to. Honestly, it really is that devastating and over the top that people have been mobilized that usually don't involve themselves to this level.

Federal Development
The impact of this would be substantially less than the development of winter habitat for housing, condos, resorts. etc. I used to actually have the opportunity to hunt on Chevron land back in TX. It was always a huge win if you knew a company man that could take you with him because there was always better game numbers than people's farm or the state land that was swarmed with people. They don't let you do that anymore but that was always a good time.

But, I don't think this would be able to happen to the extent needed to support the industry. Also, the oil fields would be sub par as well.


Other Various Ramblings
The setbacks have become an issue over the last few years as Colorado's population has exploded and as a result development has pushed into historical oil and gas fields. The oil and gas fields haven't moved but developers have. I don't understand how none of this flareup has been directed back to the developers. When they buy a piece of land to put an entire neighborhood on it they know that oil ops are near by and they can look at permits waiting to be acted on. But they build it anyways, sell it to someone, and then a drilling rig pulls up and pops a hole in the ground. For some reason, no one ever looks back at the developer who just made off like a bandit and ask him why he didn't share this info with them.

Much like the gun politics, this is a situation where as Colorado becomes deeper and deeper blue the line will continue to be pushed inch by inch. They will get the oil and gas industry out at some point either through restrictive regulation or other tactics.

 

[TXCO]

This is going to be long but Ill title each section so you can read what you are interested in.

Phenomenal write up and summary. Thank you.

 

[geriggs]

Thanks, good info. I agree that new developments should have rules as well. I just know i would be pissed if they drilled a well 500 feet behind my house and i had been living there for a while so i understand that kind of outrage, but you bring up many good points. Thanks, again.

 

[3forks]

Nice summary ElkElkGoose.

I'm always amazed that some homeowners say they were shocked to find out that a well could be located in an area close to their home.

For most, their home is the largest purchase they will make their lives. To think that someone would spend several hundreds of thousands of dollars and not look into what in their immediate area could affect the property or resale values of their home is unbelievable.

Another factor in this issue is that cities like Erie, CO (their mayor and majority of their city counsel were elected on an anti-oil and GA's platform) can't fund their infrastructures without allowing developers to build in areas where there are current and will be future oil and gas operations. The last figure I saw showed Erie almost $100 million dollars in debt. Cities like Erie have very little commercial/retail developments and are starved for tax revenue. Those cities allow development of homes close to existing oil and gas operations because they need the revenue generated from housing developments and are in fact promoting developments in an effort to create enough housing to lure in commercial business that would serve those developments. If cities like Erie were really so concerned for their resident's well being, why would they allow developers to build near existing oil and gas operations?

As ElkElkGoose has pointed out, 112 is one more example of a misguided effort like what we're facing with gun politics.

*By the way, I don't work in oil and gas. I owned a home in Erie and didn't want to live in close proximity to a well, tank battery, or any other future oil and gas operation... In doing some basic research, it wasn't too hard to find a home that met my criteria.

 

[Hoot]

I shot my antelope right next to an oil well this year, and I've worked in the industry for almost 11 years, I've not seen an impact on the wildlife, in fact the deer and antelope seem to prefer the well pads for feeding once the initial drilling and production activity dies down...

Look at all the mayors and governors that are against 112, even Polis thinks it's too extreme for colorado. I'm not just worried about my job, I'm also worried about the housing market and the rest of the colorado economy. I can tell you if this passes, Ill be selling my house as quick as I can, and moving to wyoming or montana where hopefully politics won't affect my family and our way of life for quite some time...

 

[3forks]

I shot my antelope right next to an oil well this year, and I've worked in the industry for almost 11 years, I've not seen an impact on the wildlife, in fact the deer and antelope seem to prefer the well pads for feeding once the initial drilling and production activity dies down...

Look at all the mayors and governors that are against 112, even Polis thinks it's too extreme for colorado. I'm not just worried about my job, I'm also worried about the housing market and the rest of the colorado economy. I can tell you if this passes, Ill be selling my house as quick as I can, and moving to wyoming or montana where hopefully politics won't affect my family and our way of life for quite some time...

Hoot makes a good point about the affects 112 could have upon Colorado's economy. I think it's important to note that a lot of people now residing in Colorado haven't lived here long enough to have a perspective on the boom and bust cycles that Colorado and other western states have been so affected by.

 

[oldgoat]

I think your fears are fairly unfounded! Stuff like fracking has been going on for a very very long time. The not in my backyard mentality really pisses me off when I see those people utilizing items that are all products made possible by the use of petroleum products.

 

[BuzzH]

I have zero comments on the setbacks and the initiative in question, haven't researched it enough to comment critically.

That said, anyone that makes the claim that oil and gas development doesn't impact wildlife habitat negatively is simply denying reality and the science.

The roads required remove a lot of available habitat. I don't see serviceberry, bitterbrush, sagebrush, grasses, forbs, etc. that big-game and small game utilize for food and cover, growing on graveled road surfaces or well pads. There are also many of these developed areas that have invasive and/or noxious weeds that spread into surrounding habitat that reduce the amount of forage/forage potential.

Another way these roads impact ungulates, game birds, etc. is they provide fast, easy access to hunting. Animals that stand around roads, well pads, etc. have a pretty short life expectancy IME. Its also been noted and brought up in various conversations, technical reports, etc. that poaching increases in these developed fields, again because of the easy access. Pretty easy for an unscrupulous sort to whack a pronghorn, deer, etc and quickly wing it in the back of the truck and speed off. I've talked to numerous wardens across Wyoming that have experienced this.

Finally, the Wyoming Migration Initiative is showing that mule deer, elk, and pronghorn all avoid traveling through developed oil fields, housing developments, etc.. I also believe that emerging data will show similar things with large wind farms.

Using the "Well, I saw a buck standing by a pump jack" is not a valid argument. I saw a nice buck mule deer in the Walmart parking lot in Laramie, but that doesn't lead me to believe that the parking lot has not had a negative impact on wildlife and wildlife habitat.

I'm also of the opinion that there are solutions to mitigate out some of the impacts if all interested parties sit down and make concessions with the idea of keeping migration corridors, habitat, and wildlife in the forefront of reasoned discussion. Responsible development and keeping the best interest of wildlife in mind isn't something that is impossible....it just isn't easy.

 

[Hoot]

I have zero comments on the setbacks and the initiative in question, haven't researched it enough to comment critically.

That said, anyone that makes the claim that oil and gas development doesn't impact wildlife habitat negatively is simply denying reality and the science.

The roads required remove a lot of available habitat. I don't see serviceberry, bitterbrush, sagebrush, grasses, forbs, etc. that big-game and small game utilize for food and cover, growing on graveled road surfaces or well pads. There are also many of these developed areas that have invasive and/or noxious weeds that spread into surrounding habitat that reduce the amount of forage/forage potential.

Another way these roads impact ungulates, game birds, etc. is they provide fast, easy access to hunting. Animals that stand around roads, well pads, etc. have a pretty short life expectancy IME. Its also been noted and brought up in various conversations, technical reports, etc. that poaching increases in these developed fields, again because of the easy access. Pretty easy for an unscrupulous sort to whack a pronghorn, deer, etc and quickly wing it in the back of the truck and speed off. I've talked to numerous wardens across Wyoming that have experienced this.

Finally, the Wyoming Migration Initiative is showing that mule deer, elk, and pronghorn all avoid traveling through developed oil fields, housing developments, etc.. I also believe that emerging data will show similar things with large wind farms.

Using the "Well, I saw a buck standing by a pump jack" is not a valid argument. I saw a nice buck mule deer in the Walmart parking lot in Laramie, but that doesn't lead me to believe that the parking lot has not had a negative impact on wildlife and wildlife habitat.

I'm also of the opinion that there are solutions to mitigate out some of the impacts if all interested parties sit down and make concessions with the idea of keeping migration corridors, habitat, and wildlife in the forefront of reasoned discussion. Responsible development and keeping the best interest of wildlife in mind isn't something that is impossible....it just isn't easy.

Oil and gas developments are executed differently in different areas, your experience in Wyoming may be valid, but not necessarily valid for all oil and gas fields. Weld County CO doesn't have migration corridors or a sage brush sea. Most of the county had grid roads before the the oil and gas was developed. Most of our development is on private land, and I as well as many ranchers in the area have actually seen an increase in wild life on the ranches, due in part, to how/where we place facilities, and also how we reclaim old facilities.

As far as attributing oil and gas developments to poaching, that may be the case in Wyoming, but I'd bet that has more to do with the people in wyoming or the locations than the oil and gas developments themselves. I'd like to see these "technical reports" that suggest that, got any links? I'd have some serious doubts that, if true, it's not an isolated thing. Again, Weld County CO is mostly private land, so that could be the reason we don't see the poaching you do?

 

[elkduds]

Follow the $. Opposition ads for this issue have cost 3 times more than every other political advertising campaign in CO, combined. The $ is almost entirely coming from out of state, big oil deep pockets. That pisses me off, nonresidents paying heavily to buy our election. And as a landowner influenced by lack of adequate setbacks, I know the risks; noise, social upheaval, environmental degradation, high drugs/crime. Lies aside, intensive gas/oil development has not benefitted the Piceance deer herd, formerly the largest in the state, now a shadow of its former self. As a sportsman and landowner, the first circle I'm filling in will be YES on 112. How much dark $ do you think was paid to Elway, Salazar, Norton, the 2 combat veterans, the featured teachers, and every other talking head big oil bought for their commercials? Aren't record profits year after year enough for the industry? The industry still pays a small % of private property lease rates for royalties off public lands, which is a massive, ongoing subsidy from the pockets of taxpayers to benefit the struggling oil corporations, drillers, pipers and refiners. Not to mention their massive corporate tax cut this year. A rant, well justified.

PS, big oil is pushing 74 as well, I'm opposed. Follow the $. In politics, nothing else matters.

 

[Hoot]

My company's headquarters is in Houston, but we've operated in Colorado, safely, for 30+years. While technically the money can be called big oil out of state money, I think thats a little misleading. Our oil and gas doesn't just stay here in Colorado, it goes to other states, where other companies benefit from it, why wouldn't you expect them to come to Colorado to help fight this bad proposition?

"Lack of adequate setbacks" "environmental degredation" "high drugs/crime"

Colorado has some of the most stringent environmental controls and regulations on oil and gas development in the world. Our current setbacks are 500' and 1000' depending on the structure, how is that not adequate?

I don't work out on the west slope so I won't comment on the deer herd, but I'm sure people who are interested could find information on the CPW website about predator removal studies, and some biology about that particular deer herd.

As far as the drugs/crime comment goes, I can't hear myself think over my own laughter, care to share with me how oil and gas brings high drugs and crime? You sure that wasn't the legal marijuana?

 

[George]

Google Williston ND oil boom and crime to see how oil and gas brings high drugs and crime.

G

 

[5MilesBack]

Follow the $. Opposition ads for this issue have cost 3 times more than every other political advertising campaign in CO, combined. The $ is almost entirely coming from out of state, big oil deep pockets. That pisses me off, nonresidents paying heavily to buy our election. So, when someone gets enough signatures to put an initiative on the ballet to end hunting in Colorado, and all those out of state pro-hunting groups pay for opposition ads, you'll be voting YES??????? Because that's the only logic you used for your argument, so that's the logical deduction.

As a sportsman and landowner, the first circle I'm filling in will be YES on 112. As a sportsman, landowner, and lifelong Colorado resident for 53 years.....I filled in "NO" on all the measures and proposals.

Not to mention their massive corporate tax cut this year. A rant, well justified. All the corporate tax cut did was put the corporate tax rate closer to where it should have been for the past many decades and the future for being able to compete in the worldwide marketplace.

Follow the $. In politics, nothing else matters.

That's part of the problem these days. In politics, government, and even life........following good logic and reason should be the only things that matter. And that logic and reason should always lead right back to "what makes the most sense for our nation as a whole".......not how it affects just "me" or a small section of our population or special interest group.

 

[ElkElkGoose]

Follow the $. Opposition ads for this issue have cost 3 times more than every other political advertising campaign in CO, combined. The $ is almost entirely coming from out of state, big oil deep pockets. That pisses me off, nonresidents paying heavily to buy our election. And as a landowner influenced by lack of adequate setbacks, I know the risks; noise, social upheaval, environmental degradation, high drugs/crime. Lies aside, intensive gas/oil development has not benefitted the Piceance deer herd, formerly the largest in the state, now a shadow of its former self. As a sportsman and landowner, the first circle I'm filling in will be YES on 112. How much dark $ do you think was paid to Elway, Salazar, Norton, the 2 combat veterans, the featured teachers, and every other talking head big oil bought for their commercials? Aren't record profits year after year enough for the industry? The industry still pays a small % of private property lease rates for royalties off public lands, which is a massive, ongoing subsidy from the pockets of taxpayers to benefit the struggling oil corporations, drillers, pipers and refiners. Not to mention their massive corporate tax cut this year. A rant, well justified.

PS, big oil is pushing 74 as well, I'm opposed. Follow the $. In politics, nothing else matters.

Every initiate has dollars behind it and for a myriad of reasons and perspectives. What exactly occurred that you were impacted by oil development? You obviously are having a strong emotional response to some event.


Everyone thinks their own rant is justified, myself included

 

[ElkElkGoose]

That's part of the problem these days. In politics, government, and even life........following good logic and reason should be the only things that matter. And that logic and reason should always lead right back to "what makes the most sense for our nation as a whole".......not how it affects just "me" or a small section of our population or special interest group.

Studies have shown that people think logically as individuals. However, as groups, decision making turns illogical.

 

[5MilesBack]

Studies have shown that people think logically as individuals. However, as groups, decision making turns illogical.

If that was the case, then individuals would think logically before their voting. They don't vote as a group. Yet every election you have a very large % of the people that ignore logic and reason when they cast their votes. That's either intentional, or they're very misguided. But if they're misguided.....then logically they should be trying to fix that.

Your last sentence makes me laugh because I've always said that politics is defined as "Knowing or having the best possible logical solution, and then picking something else instead". That's exactly what our Congress does all the time. But I believe the reason is because not everyone is good with logic........identifying it or using it. So what usually happens in a group is compromising on something other than the best logical solution because half of the people don't understand the logic. And if they can't understand that.....then they certainly shouldn't be in a position to govern......which goes back to my point in paragraph one. We keep electing people incapable of understanding simple logic and the follow through and eventual path of their bad illogical decisions that affects all of us, as a state and as a nation.