Obama Administration to Industry: Frac-As-Usual on Public Lands

Briana Mordick, Staff Scientist, San Francisco
With the release of its revised draft rules for hydraulic fracturing, BLM signaled to industry that it's business-as-usual when it comes to oil and gas drilling and fracking on public lands.
And it also signaled to the people who live, go to school, get their drinking water from, and work on or near public lands that they'll be protected by the same outdated, inadequate rules that have been on the books for more than 30 years. Which is to say, they won't really be protected at all.
The impacts are far-reaching. The rules would not only be used to oversee fracking in many of the country's last remaining wild places, but also in places that supply drinking water for millions of Americans, including private wells (when the federal government owns mineral rights below private property) and watersheds that supply drinking water for Washington, D.C., Denver, and parts of California's Monterey, Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties. And oil and gas companies have already leased an area of public land larger than the entire state of Florida.
This new proposed draft rule is largely unchanged from a version that was leaked earlier this year. As I and my colleague, Matt McFeeley, blogged then, the leaked draft was even weaker than the proposal released in 2012. The changes between the 2012 proposal and today's release include:

• Limiting the scope of the rule, so that it applies only to hydraulic fracturing and not to other forms of well stimulation, like acidizing - which can pose similar risks.
• Not requiring operators to submit the results of tools that are used to tell how effectively the steel casing and cement are isolating drinking water, called cement evaluation logs (CELs), until *after* the well is drilled and fractured, or in some cases not requiring them to even use these tools in the first place. This defeats the purpose of CELs, which are used to identify and fix any problems with the well that may endanger drinking water *before* fracturing begins.
• Allowing operators to submit generic, rather than well-specific, information to receive multiple permits to frac. This means that regulators will be making decisions to issue permits without critical information about drilling and fracturing operations, and therefore without a complete understanding of the environmental risks.
• Gutting chemical disclosure requirements by allowing industry to continue to keep the identity of some fracturing chemicals a secret from both regulators and the public, thereby preventing them from fully understanding the risks to the environment and human health.

However, this new draft also contains some potentially problematic changes that didn't appear in the leaked draft. One such change is a significantly revised "variance" provision, through which big chunks of State or Tribal lands that overlie federal minerals could be exempt from parts or all of these new rules, as long as the State or Tribe has or proposes rules that the BLM claims, "meets or exceeds the objectives" of the BLM rules. This could mean that not all public lands are provided the same level of environmental protection.
Finally, as we feared, the scope of the draft rules remains unchanged, meaning that entire categories of regulation critical to reducing environmental risk, like well design and construction and waste water handling, will likely not be updated at all.
We will continue to analyze these new changes and the possible implications in the coming weeks.
But one thing is clear: It's business-as-usual on public lands, both for the oil and gas industry and for the American people who must live with its impacts.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/bmordick/obama_administration_to_ind

Obama Administration Energy Blueprint: paying companies to drill

Amy Mall, Senior Policy Analyst, Washington, D.C.
Last week the Obama Administration issued a new Energy Blueprint. There are some excellent elements in the White House proposal, including doubling renewable electricity generation by 2020, cutting energy waste, and supporting energy efficiency.
But there are also dirty and depressing energy proposals in the plan. Among them: "monetary incentives to get oil and gas leases into production." We haven't seen details on this yet, and need to learn more, but the oil and gas industry doesn't need more giveaways from the taxpayers.
In FY 2012, the BLM leased more than 1.75 million acres of federal oil and gas resources. That is in one year alone. So far in FY 2013, it has already has seven more lease sales across the country. This administration is already moving full speed ahead with dirty oil and gas leasing.
As I recently blogged, the BLM's own internal investigation found that the agency is unable to properly inspect oil and gas activities or enforce its own rules on the current leased areas. This investigation found a lack of enforcement, inadequate inspections, and overall low-quality environmental review as office struggle to keep up with exploration and production activity.
And as my colleagues have blogged, while BLM is going to be proposing new rules for fracking under federal leases, the rules may be much too weak to protect America's drinking water. As the largest manager of oil and gas resources in the U.S., the BLM needs to do better.
A new energy plan is needed, but the focus should be on efficiency and renewables so we can have a clean energy future, with clean air and clean water. America doesn't want the oil and gas industry's dirty energy future. The administration plan also includes an electronic, streamlined oil and gas permitting system; modernization is welcome, but any streamlining of permitting should not shortcut the necessary environmental review.
If you'd like to know where all this new oil and gas leasing is taking place, our intern Cathy Lu made a great map to show how many acres were leased in each state in FY 2012 alone:

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/amall/wh_energy_blueprint.htm

CalOSHA Investigation: Chevron Intentionally and Knowingly Failed to Comply with Safety Standards that Lead to Richmond Refinery Fire

Diane Bailey, Senior Scientist, San Francisco
The fifteen thousand people who streamed into Bay-Area hospitals knew there was something terribly wrong with Chevron's Richmond refinery when it caught on fire on August 6th, 2012. What they did not now is that, according to a CalOSHA investigation released today, Chevron USA "intentionally and knowingly failed to comply with state safety standards" leading to a catastrophic fire that put workers and the surrounding community at serious risk.
What happened on August 6th? A severely corroded pipe in one of the crude units (where they begin processing crude oil into gas and diesel) began leaking. Chevron chose not to shut down the leaking unit and instead ordered workers to remove insulation. The pipe then ruptured, igniting a massive fire. Luckily but narrowly, the workers escaped without serious injuries.
CalOSHA's investigation of the incident has resulted in a total of 25 citations, many of them with the highest classification of "willful serious" and totaling roughly $1 million in penalties, the highest fine of its kind in California history. Of most concern, CalOSHA found that:

• Chevron did not follow the recommendations of its own experts and inspectors who first began warning back in 2002 that the piping that ruptured should have been replaced.
• When that pipe began leaking, Chevron failed to follow its own emergency shutdown procedures, putting workers at the site and thousands of area residents at extreme risk.

The Chevron Richmond plant is the largest polluter in all of California, making the health and safety standards that much more important. In addition to all the pollution from this facility, there is a cloud of fear and anxiety hanging over the workers and the community of Richmond. When will the next accident happen? Will it be deadly? Is it safe for me and my family to live near the refinery?
While Chevron claims that it intends to compensate community members with "valid claims" (what does that mean?), monetary compensation will not address the ongoing health and safety concerns among workers and the community. As Chevron continues to use dirtier, higher sulfur and more corrosive grades of crude oil at the refinery, we can expect similar incidents and higher pollution levels.
As an engineer, it's shocking to see the photos and reports from CalOSHA and other agencies, showing pieces of piping that were corroded by 80 percent with little more than a shell of the original pipe holding things together. This kind of shoddy and seriously negligent maintenance is not what you expect to see from one of the largest companies in the world (Chevron Corporation earned more than $200 billion in revenue last year). It poses a deadly safety risk to workers and residents alike.
The Chevron Richmond refinery urgently needs a safety face-lift. Every recommendation from CalOSHA must be implemented immediately, and the use of dirtier, more corrosive and dangerous heavy crude oils must cease. Chevron needs to live up to its claims of caring about the environment and safeguarding its employees. The Richmond facility needs to be upgraded to meet modern safety and environmental standards to remove that cloud of pollution and fear hanging over workers and the community.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/dbailey/calosha_investigation_chevro

Fight Keystone XL Tar Sands Pollution and Protect the Climate

Rocky Kistner, Communications Associate, Washington, DC
Up in the pristine Canadian boreal forests and freshwater deltas of Alberta, home to caribou, whooping crane and native communities settled long before Europeans arrived, a poisonous sore is being gouged out of the carbon-rich soil, a massive tar sands oil mining operation that could have huge climate impacts for people across the globe.
New information shows that oil industry plans to more than triple production of tar sands oil in the coming decades will include additional dirty petroleum byproducts, making it even harder for Canada to meet its planned greenhouse gas emission targets. Right now there is one major project standing in the way of tar sands expansion-a roadblock that Canadian oil interests are desperate to crash through.
That roadblock is the Obama Administration's decision whether to grant a permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, a $7 billion project that would pump more than 800,000 barrels of toxic tar sands crude each day from Alberta's forests through America's agricultural heartland to refineries in the Gulf, where much of the oil would be processed and exported. The administration is expected to release a supplemental Environmental impact Statement soon, with the final Keystone decision expected in coming months.
You can help stop the tar sands devastation and protect the climate. Watch this video about climate threats posed by the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline and find out how to join the February 17 Forward on Climate Rally in Washington, DC.
Climate scientists warn that further development of fossil fuel energy sources like tar sands oil will spell disaster for the planet's climate, a point made clear in the release of the draft study of the National Climate Assessment this month. "If we fully develop the tar sands resources we will certainly lose control of the climate, we will get to a point where we can no walk back from the cliff," says University of St. Thomas energy expert John Abraham, who has studied the climate impacts of tar sands oil emissions.
That's because tar sands oil is particularly dirty--at least three times as carbon intensive as conventional oil--resulting in a refining process that includes carbon-intensive byproducts like petroleum coke-or petcoke-that can be burned like coal in refineries at the receiving end of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline in Texas. According to a new report released by Oil Change International, petcoke burned from tar sands oil would equal the climate pollution of five additional coal fired power plants, boosting overall carbon emissions from the Keystone XL pipeline by 13 percent. Oil Change International research director Lorne Stockman describes it this way:

"The refineries at the end of the Keystone XL pipeline are some of the biggest petcoke factories in the world today. By supplying them with tar sands bitumen, the petcoke embedded in the tar sands would find its way to the world market...petcoke from the tar sands is making coal fired generation dirtier and cheaper and this puts another nail in the coffin of any rational argument for further exploitation of the tar sands."

Oil industry supporters claim that if the Keystone XL pipeline is not built, tar sands oil will find its way to other markets through future North American pipelines built to the east or west coasts. But many researchers say those projects are mere pipedreams, since the tar sands industry faces major opposition from local communities on the east and west coasts, where residents are worried about tar sands oil spills and other environmental impacts. The Pembina Institute's Nathan Lemphers worked on a new comprehensive report that lays out the facts surrounding tar sands expansion and the Keystone XL pipeline, which he says is a crucial lynchpin in the development of the tar sands:

The Keystone XL pipeline is critical for further expansion of the oil sands. Major financial institutions in Canada have said that the lack of pipeline capacity is a rate limiting step for the oil sands...if it's (Keystone XL) not build, it'll start to moderate the growth of the oil sands and it will send a clear signal to the financial community and the oil sands community that they need to address the carbon emissions that come from the oil sands.

Tar sands processing plant in Alberta Photo: David Dodge, The Pembina Institute
But growing opposition to the Canadian tar sands is not just a not-in-my-backyard concern--everyone is hurt by higher emissions from the dirtiest oil on the planet. The scientific community is especially concerned about rapidly melting Arctic ice, rising sea levels and extreme weather events associated with climate change that we are already witnessing. In December, some of the country's top climate scientists sent President Obama a letter urging his administration to reject the Keystone XL pipeline, citing last year's recent record-setting temperatures and storms as evidence that we need bold action to cut global fossil fuel emissions.
Earlier in January, 70 groups wrote President Obama urging him to take bold and decisive action to help protect the nation against climate change's ravages. Danny Harvey, an energy and climate expert at the University of Toronto, said it best in our video: "Right now President Obama faces a critical choice. There's no better time to say no to further expansion, say no to business as usual, and to begin the process of turning things around."
On February 17, join people from all walks of life, from climate scientists to ranchers and farmers, who will gather in Washington, DC, to call for strong action to fight climate change. The Forward on Climate Rally will point the way for Obama to shape his climate legacy. One of the most important decisions he can make is to reject the Keystone pipeline and to tell the EPA to set carbon standards for power plants.
We the people have the power to demand action from our political leaders, to tell the lobbyists and oil industry fat cats that we're tired of their business-as-usual dirty energy campaigns. We want clean energy solutions that create new technologies and long-term job opportunities, including money-saving projects like NRDC's innovative plan to cut coal-fired power plant pollution.These are the kinds of investments that will build a more sustainable planet for all who inherit the Earth.
That's certainly worth fighting for. Because if we don't, who will?
For more information on how to sign up and participate in the February 17th march, check out the Forward on Climate Rally site.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/rkistner/up_in_the_pristine_boreal.h

Fight Keystone XL Tar Sands Pollution and Protect the Climate

Rocky Kistner, Communications Associate, Washington, DC
Up in the pristine Canadian boreal forests and freshwater deltas of Alberta, home to caribou, whooping crane and native communities settled long before Europeans arrived, a poisonous sore is being gouged out of the carbon-rich soil, a massive tar sands oil mining operation that could have huge climate impacts for people across the globe.
New information shows that oil industry plans to more than triple production of tar sands oil in the coming decades will include additional dirty petroleum byproducts, making it even harder for Canada to meet its planned greenhouse gas emission targets. Right now there is one major project standing in the way of tar sands expansion-a roadblock that Canadian oil interests are desperate to crash through.
That roadblock is the Obama Administration's decision whether to grant a permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, a $7 billion project that would pump more than 800,000 barrels of toxic tar sands crude each day from Alberta's forests through America's agricultural heartland to refineries in the Gulf, where much of the oil would be processed and exported. The administration is expected to release a supplemental Environmental impact Statement soon, with the final Keystone decision expected in coming months.
You can help stop the tar sands devastation and protect the climate. Watch this video about climate threats posed by the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline and find out how to join the February 17 Forward on Climate Rally in Washington, DC.
Climate scientists warn that further development of fossil fuel energy sources like tar sands oil will spell disaster for the planet's climate, a point made clear in the release of the draft study of the National Climate Assessment this month. "If we fully develop the tar sands resources we will certainly lose control of the climate, we will get to a point where we can no walk back from the cliff," says University of St. Thomas energy expert John Abraham, who has studied the climate impacts of tar sands oil emissions.
That's because tar sands oil is particularly dirty--at least three times as carbon intensive as conventional oil--resulting in a refining process that includes carbon-intensive byproducts like petroleum coke-or petcoke-that can be burned like coal in refineries at the receiving end of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline in Texas. According to a new report released by Oil Change International, petcoke burned from tar sands oil would equal the climate pollution of five additional coal fired power plants, boosting overall carbon emissions from the Keystone XL pipeline by 13 percent. Oil Change International research director Lorne Stockman describes it this way:

"The refineries at the end of the Keystone XL pipeline are some of the biggest petcoke factories in the world today. By supplying them with tar sands bitumen, the petcoke embedded in the tar sands would find its way to the world market...petcoke from the tar sands is making coal fired generation dirtier and cheaper and this puts another nail in the coffin of any rational argument for further exploitation of the tar sands."

Oil industry supporters claim that if the Keystone XL pipeline is not built, tar sands oil will find its way to other markets through future North American pipelines built to the east or west coasts. But many researchers say those projects are mere pipedreams, since the tar sands industry faces major opposition from local communities on the east and west coasts, where residents are worried about tar sands oil spills and other environmental impacts. The Pembina Institute's Nathan Lemphers worked on a new comprehensive report that lays out the facts surrounding tar sands expansion and the Keystone XL pipeline, which he says is a crucial lynchpin in the development of the tar sands:

The Keystone XL pipeline is critical for further expansion of the oil sands. Major financial institutions in Canada have said that the lack of pipeline capacity is a rate limiting step for the oil sands...if it's (Keystone XL) not build, it'll start to moderate the growth of the oil sands and it will send a clear signal to the financial community and the oil sands community that they need to address the carbon emissions that come from the oil sands.

Tar sands processing plant in Alberta Photo: David Dodge, The Pembina Institute
But growing opposition to the Canadian tar sands is not just a not-in-my-backyard concern--everyone is hurt by higher emissions from the dirtiest oil on the planet. The scientific community is especially concerned about rapidly melting Arctic ice, rising sea levels and extreme weather events associated with climate change that we are already witnessing. In December, some of the country's top climate scientists sent President Obama a letter urging his administration to reject the Keystone XL pipeline, citing last year's recent record-setting temperatures and storms as evidence that we need bold action to cut global fossil fuel emissions.
Earlier in January, 70 groups wrote President Obama urging him to take bold and decisive action to help protect the nation against climate change's ravages. Danny Harvey, an energy and climate expert at the University of Toronto, said it best in our video: "Right now President Obama faces a critical choice. There's no better time to say no to further expansion, say no to business as usual, and to begin the process of turning things around."
On February 17, join people from all walks of life, from climate scientists to ranchers and farmers, who will gather in Washington, DC, to call for strong action to fight climate change. The Forward on Climate Rally will point the way for Obama to shape his climate legacy. One of the most important decisions he can make is to reject the Keystone pipeline and to tell the EPA to set carbon standards for power plants.
We the people have the power to demand action from our political leaders, to tell the lobbyists and oil industry fat cats that we're tired of their business-as-usual dirty energy campaigns. We want clean energy solutions that create new technologies and long-term job opportunities, including money-saving projects like NRDC's innovative plan to cut coal-fired power plant pollution.These are the kinds of investments that will build a more sustainable planet for all who inherit the Earth.
That's certainly worth fighting for. Because if we don't, who will?
For more information on how to sign up and participate in the February 17th march, check out the Forward on Climate Rally site.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/rkistner/up_in_the_pristine_boreal.h

Struggles faced by one Montana community in the Bakken shale

Amy Mall, Senior Policy Analyst, Washington, D.C.
The Fall 2012 edition of the Montana Policy Review focuses on community responses to energy development. Among other topics, it discusses the challenges being faced by Sidney, Montana.
Sidney, with a population of 5,191 in 2010, is in eastern Montana. Some of the changes it has seen with the Bakken boom:

• The garbage rate has more than doubled.
• The crime rate has almost doubled.
• In one day, the volunteer fire department responded to three fires before noon.
• $55 million is needed for infrastructure, including fixing a waste lagoon and water and sewer mains.
• In this all volunteer city, city council meetings have gone from twice a month to four or five per month. The mayor states that the volunteer citizens for the fire department, variance board, and more are "all stressed out."
• In the 2011-2012 school year, there were 101 new students on the first day of school, an additional 184 added during the school year between September and May, and 150 who left after only a short stay. Twenty percent of incoming students need special education services. Others need extra academic assistance due to learning gaps that prevent them from achieving grade level, due to prior multiple school moves.
• The school district has worker shortages because it cannot compete with the salaries in the oil industry, and many workers cannot even find affordable housing.

Sidney is not receiving enough revenue from the oil industry to take care of all of its needs. The oil and gas industry does bring profits to some, but in its wake there are many who suffer, including small communities that cannot absorb the impacts.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/amall/struggles_faced_by_one_montana

Coal industry front group scapegoats EPA

Laurie Johnson, Chief Economist, Climate Center, Washington, DC
Today E&E reported (subscription required) a "study" by the coal industry front group American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE). The author of the report, ACCCE lawyer Eugene M. Trisko, calculates that household energy expenditures as a fraction of household income have increased in recent years. This, he falsely claims, is a result of EPA regulations on coal.
I almost feel sorry (not really...) for the author in writing this blog. I don't have time to deconstruct his distorted calculations, but a few observations should suffice to prevent any more credence being given to the report:
The author confuses nominal with inflation-adjusted prices

• The most glaring mistake in the report is the author's use of nominal, rather than inflation-adjusted, numbers. If an economist had done this, he would never get another job in his profession. This is a basic economic principle taught in every introductory economics course. Perhaps I should cut the author some slack because he is a lawyer...but don't lawyers take introductory economics?
• With this confusion, the author makes the case for the exact opposite of what he is trying to argue. He writes in the executive summary that "electricity prices have increased by 54% in nominal dollars since 1990, below the rate of inflation..." (emphasis added). This means that in real terms (inflation-adjusted), electricity prices have actually declined. That's *good* for households...Oh my.

The author confuses coal-related energy costs with other energy expenditures

• The author includes gasoline and other non-coal sources of energy in his calculation. Coal is used almost exclusively for electricity production and, as discussed above, those costs have gone down in real terms. Coal's real troubles are with natural gas, which is increasingly pushing coal out of the market because it is more competitive, not with environmental regulations.

The author distorts the data by presenting energy expenditures as a fraction of household income

• The author unwittingly provides inflation-adjusted household income levels, which have significantly decreased in recent years. Given his confusion with nominal versus real prices, perhaps he does not know he is revealing a major flaw in his analysis. Without doing the actual calculation, I would bet that much of the author's main result (increased household energy expenditures as a fraction of household income) is driven by the fact that nominal household income (which he uses in his denominator) is growing at a much slower rate than nominal total household energy expenditures (which he uses in the numerator). Had nominal household incomes increased more relative to household energy expenditures, household energy expenditures would have declined as a percentage of household income. Conveniently for the author, the statistics worked in favor of his distorted calculation.

These flaws in the analysis make the headline of the E&E article all the more disturbing: "COAL: Industry group faults EPA for higher electric bills." A more accurate headline would have read: "Coal industry front group scapegoats EPA."

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ljohnson/coal_industry_front_group_s

BLM assesses human health impacts from oil and gas development in Alaska

Amy Mall, Senior Policy Analyst, Washington, D.C.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) recently released a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for oil and gas driling in the Western Arctic Reserve, formally known as the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. "National Petroleum Reserve" sounds like a made-to-order energy sacrifice zone, but my colleague Chuck Clusen explains that, in the legislation that set this public land aside, Congress explicitly recognized the many natural values present in the Reserve that must be protected, including recreational, fish, wildlife, historical, and scenic values. Indeed, this land provides some of the wildest, most insanely beautiful and sacred wildlife habitat on earth for wolves, caribou, grizzly and polar bears, shorebirds, waterfowl and seabirds.
But there is something else about the Western Arctic Reserve that makes it important to protect: many Americans live in nearby communities and depend on it for their subsistence, including food, water, clothing and other personal needs, and their safety and quality of life.
In its analysis of the Western Arctic Reserve, BLM did the right thing when it worked in partnership with local communities, tribal interests, health experts, and the EPA to consider the potential health impacts of new oil and gas development plans on nearby populations, as well as mitigation options. There is growing evidence and analysis of the dangerous risks that oil and gas operations pose to human health.
NRDC has been saying for years (here is a blog post from 2008) that the BLM needs to conduct the same type of process in the lower 48. We know that oil and gas production can lead to toxic air pollution, drinking water contamination, destruction of wildlife habitat, and other health impacts including increased traffic accidents, diseases, pressure on health care services, and more.
Sadly, the BLM has not done this in the lower 48. It is instead ignoring local governments who have asked for the same thing as Alaskans. The BLM did not include a health impact assessment in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Colorado River Valley area, even though six local governments with official cooperating agency status requested that the BLM do just that. The BLM never even directly responded to their requests. The public therefore does not have the information needed to fully understand the costs and benefits of different alternatives.
The EIS process is governed by the National Environmental Policy Act. Under the regulations for this Act, agencies are directed to consider "the degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety" and to "Use all practicable means.....[to] avoid or minimize any possible adverse effects of their actions upon the quality of the human environment."
The BLM has worked toward fulfilling these requirements by considering health impacts of new oil and gas development in Alaska, but not in the lower 48, where new development of federal oil and gas reserves is often near where many people live, or the sources of their drinking water.
The BLM should be incorporating health impact assessments into NEPA analyses everyplace that it is approving oil and gas development. While this blog post doesn't discuss the substance or quality of the health impact assessment done for Alaska, it focuses on the need for the analysis to be done as part of the NEPA process.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/amall/blm_does_the_right_thing_in_al

Even Kids Get It: End Mountaintop Removal Now

Melissa Waage, Campaign Director, Washington, DC
Today our friends at Appalachian Voices present kids in Appalachia explaining why mountaintop removal mining is a disaster for people and the environment. (Blowing up mountains and dumping mine waste into streams is not a good idea: so simple a child can understand it.) They're asking the Obama administration to end mountaintop removal mining right away and support economic transition for Appalachian communities, here.
Departing Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson once said of mountaintop removal, "The people of Appalachia shouldn't have to choose between a clean, healthy environment in which to raise their families and the jobs they need to support them." In his second term, the president has a chance to show that this is true by getting serious about ending mountaintop removal.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/mwaage/even_kids_get_it_end_mountain

Oil and gas industry trying to stop citizens from testifying in Colorado--what are they afraid of?

Amy Mall, Senior Policy Analyst, Washington, D.C.
As I've blogged recently, Colorado is currently considering updating some of its oil and gas rules regarding setbacks from homes and schools, as well as rules for water testing and monitoring. This is the right thing to do; although state rules across the country are not strong enough, at least some states are updating their rules from time to time to catch up with some of the problems posed by oil and gas development.
The oil and gas industry almost always opposes new rules. We wish they wouldn't, because new rules are essential to protect health and the environment and are often in the industry's own interest, economically and otherwise. But in addition to the vast amounts of money the industry often spends to defeat sensible regulations, in Colorado it is now also attempting to muzzle citizens who have direct experience with oil and gas operations.
According to several news reports out of Colorado today, the oil and gas company lobbyists are working to block testimony from impacted citizens at public hearings next week. The Denver Post reports that the companies claim that testimony from Coloradans who live near drilling and fracking sites would be "....improper, 'abusive and harassing' or irrelevant."
It's not any of those things. The lawyer representing NRDC and our partner groups in this rulemaking process is Mike Chiropolis of Western Resource Advocates. As Mike told the Summit County Citizens Voice: ""It's undemocratic. It's a bullying tactic. They want citizens to be worried about whether they'll be allowed to speak." Mike went on to say: "They're worried that, if the truth comes out, the commission will vote for rules that actually protect public health."
The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel reports that the industry is even trying to block testimony from Tresi Houpt, who is not only a former Garfield County Commissioner, but also a former commissioner on the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission--the commission that will be holding the hearing. If anyone has expertise on this subject, it is Ms. Houpt.
The citizens who live next to oil and gas production operations and have these operations on their property also have relevant and significant experience and insight to share with decisionmakers. Colorado officials should reject industry claims that local citizens should be barred from testifying.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/amall/oil_and_gas_industry_trying_to