Environmental opposition to oil and gas work follows a pattern. It even repeats itself. For the second time, opponents of hydraulic fracturing of oil and gas wells in Colorado are petitioning for setback requirements that would preclude drilling in much of the state. Since 2013, Colorado has enforced some of the country’s strictest requirements for minimum distances between oil and gas activities and buildings or environmentally sensitive areas. But environmental activists aren’t satisfied.
Withdrawal by setback
In 2016, pressure groups sought an amendment to the state constitution mandating a 2,500-ft setback from any “occupied structure” or “area of special concern.” The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) in 2013 had increased the setback minimum to 500 ft from 350 ft. The 2016 proposal, according to a COGCC study, would have precluded oil and gas development from 90% of the state’s surface. In Colorado’s top five producing counties, the effective land withdrawal would have been 95%. The initiative failed.
The new proposal, subject of a signature campaign seeking placement on a November ballot, is for statutory change rather than a constitutional amendment. And it excludes federal acreage. A new assessment by the COGCC says adoption of the proposal would make 54% of the state’s total surface unavailable for new oil and gas development and 85% of its nonfederal land. In the top five producing counties, the withdrawal would amount to 61% of total acreage and 94% of nonfederal land.
The federal exemption in the new proposal and other study differences thus lower the percentages of affected land from the 2016 assessment. But the effect would be the same. A 2,500-ft setback mandate would stifle oil and gas drilling.
Why do this?
“A growing body of public health research shows that living too close to fracing operations, especially less than ½ mile, is a serious risk to health and safety,” declares a document by Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) cited by Colorado Rising, which leads the petition drive. “Grave risks clearly linked to the toxic emissions from fracing include cancer, respiratory problems, endocrine disruption, birth defects, low birth weight babies, and more.” Extremist propaganda always starts with fright. Frac fluid, most of which is water, is “highly toxic.” Frac products include “750 chemicals and other components.” Twenty-nine of those chemicals in 650 products “are known or possible human carcinogens” subject to federal regulation.
Concentrations and exposure methods and duration receive muted attention in the PSR document. But—aha!—risks increase more than fivefold “when chemical exposures are combined over a 20-month exposure period.” When anyone plans a 20-month frac job, please call Oil & Gas Journal to arrange technical coverage.
The research document goes on to warn of spills, fires, and explosions. In oil and gas work, such accidents happen. They should not happen, but they do. The risk to people or structures not operationally involved is, however, quite low. It does not represent the imminent peril to people in their dwellings that activists assert.
Like all such groups, Colorado Rising foments ground-level fear in pursuit of a soaring objective. Opponents of the Keystone XL crossing of the US-Canadian border used the same strategy. So, now, do opponents of pipelines throughout the US and Canada and of hydraulic fracturing everywhere.
The transcendent aim of all campaigns against pipelines and hydraulic fracturing is constriction of production and use of oil and gas. And the underlying reason is to force preemptive action of dubious efficacy against climate change attributable to humanity.
Fear and money
“Slowing climate change requires all sectors of society to transition rapidly to clean, renewable energy and to adopt land use practices that help stabilize the climate,” the PSR document concludes. Fear thus grabs attention, and climate mitigation grabs for money. That’s the pattern, which ends with political dissolution when costs become tangible. With their responses to the petition and maybe their votes, Colorado’s energy consumers at least can express their opinions about it. Again.
