Site search
sponsored by
Home
News
Two of Garfield County's elected leaders, commissioners Trési Houpt and John Martin, are split in their feelings concerning a new film about the oil and gas industry in Colorado.
They also are divided about what position the county should take regarding proposed legislation that would affect the industry.
And it appears that the third commissioner, Mike Samson, may be called upon to fulfill the role of mediator and, possibly, tie-breaker in the resulting standoff, which was one of the principles he ran on when elected in 2008.
Samson currently is in Florida on county business, and could not be reached for comment.
Houpt and Martin, reached by telephone, differed significantly in their assessments of the film, “Split Estate” by documentarian Debra Anderson, that was shown in the commissioners' meeting room on Oct. 12, to a reportedly packed room.
The film tells the stories of several families in western Colorado and northern New Mexico who say their lives and health have been negatively affected by gas industry practices.
“I think it was a very important movie,” said Houpt this week. “It shows the story of people who have been personally impacted by energy development.”
She noted that some believe the film is one-sided, taking the viewpoint of people who live near gas wells and say they have been harmed by the industry.
“I don't think that's uncommon in a documentary,” Houpt mused.
And, she said, “I think this is a story that hasn't really been told before. It's an important topic for people to contemplate.”
But, she added, “I'm not discounting the strides that many in the industry have taken” regarding public safety, environmental protection and other values dealt with in the film.
What the film did, she said, was underscore the need to keep a close watch on the industry, the environment and the public's welfare, to be sure the necessary safeguards are in place.
Martin has a different perspective.
“It was a lot of old stuff that I've seen before,” said Martin, chair of the board of county commissioners. “I understand the points of view that were there … I don't agree with all of them.”
He said the film did not take into account the “new approaches the industry is making” and changes in the state's regulations, which are stricter now than they were a year ago.
Martin specifically mentioned industry advances in the handling of storage pits that hold fluids brought to the surface during drilling; the “flaring” of gas from well heads; and efforts to prevent contamination of ground water during the drilling process as examples of improvements in industry practices.
As far as the county's position and policies concerning the industry, “We have to be a little more careful, which we've done,” Martin said.
The two commissioners also differ in their views of the FRAC (Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals) Act, a bill introduced in Congress last summer that would place a controversial gas drilling procedure under federal oversight.
Currently, the procedure, known as hydraulic fracturing or “frac'ing,” is exempt from the federal Safe Water Drinking Act, an exemption that would be removed by the FRAC Act.
The industry maintains that the FRAC Act is unnecessary and would create a burdensome new layer of bureaucracy, in an area that is now in the hands of the states where intensive oil and gas drilling is taking place.
Supporters of the FRAC Act acknowledge that some of those states, such as Colorado, have enacted fairly strict regulations to govern the industry, but say that others have not. As a result, say supporters of the bill, there is no uniformity in how the industry is regulated, and in particular there is a lack of requirements that the industry reveal exactly what chemicals are used in the “frac'ing” process.
Frac'ing, which is used in most drilling operations in the U.S., involves the high-pressure injection of millions of gallons of a slurry, made up of water, sand and chemicals, into a well bore. The process breaks up the deeply buried rock surrounding oil and gas deposits and enables the fluids to flow to the surface.
Critics of the industry have argued that the chemicals used are carcinogenic and that not enough is known about the possible contamination of ground water as a result of the frac'ing process.
The FRAC Act would require that all the chemicals used in the process be revealed to government regulators and health officials in some situations.
Martin has said vehemently that he believes Colorado's regulations, enforced by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, are sufficient to protect the public's health and welfare.
Houpt, who serves on the COGCC, has argued with equal vehemence that stricter regulations are needed on the federal level, specifically to provide a national framework that requires disclosure of the chemicals used in the frac'ing process.
She said she has long favored eliminating the industry's exemption from the SWDA.
And, she said on Thursday, the FRAC Act would pose stricter disclosure requirements than the COGCC regulations.
According to Martin, the board is due to discuss its position concerning the FRAC Act at the Nov. 2 meeting, and Samson is expected to present a proposed resolution for consideration by the other two.
“That's not my understanding,” said Houpt today. She said the board needs to take some time to talk about the matter, and noted that several proposed resolutions already have been submitted by such disparate organizations as the Grand Valley Citizens Alliance, the Club 20 (a Western Slope business group), and the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission, an industry lobbying group.
“I think the three of us need to figure out where everybody is on this issue” before voting on a resolution, she said.
jcolson@postindependent.com
They also are divided about what position the county should take regarding proposed legislation that would affect the industry.
And it appears that the third commissioner, Mike Samson, may be called upon to fulfill the role of mediator and, possibly, tie-breaker in the resulting standoff, which was one of the principles he ran on when elected in 2008.
Samson currently is in Florida on county business, and could not be reached for comment.
Houpt and Martin, reached by telephone, differed significantly in their assessments of the film, “Split Estate” by documentarian Debra Anderson, that was shown in the commissioners' meeting room on Oct. 12, to a reportedly packed room.
The film tells the stories of several families in western Colorado and northern New Mexico who say their lives and health have been negatively affected by gas industry practices.
“I think it was a very important movie,” said Houpt this week. “It shows the story of people who have been personally impacted by energy development.”
She noted that some believe the film is one-sided, taking the viewpoint of people who live near gas wells and say they have been harmed by the industry.
“I don't think that's uncommon in a documentary,” Houpt mused.
And, she said, “I think this is a story that hasn't really been told before. It's an important topic for people to contemplate.”
But, she added, “I'm not discounting the strides that many in the industry have taken” regarding public safety, environmental protection and other values dealt with in the film.
What the film did, she said, was underscore the need to keep a close watch on the industry, the environment and the public's welfare, to be sure the necessary safeguards are in place.
Martin has a different perspective.
“It was a lot of old stuff that I've seen before,” said Martin, chair of the board of county commissioners. “I understand the points of view that were there … I don't agree with all of them.”
He said the film did not take into account the “new approaches the industry is making” and changes in the state's regulations, which are stricter now than they were a year ago.
Martin specifically mentioned industry advances in the handling of storage pits that hold fluids brought to the surface during drilling; the “flaring” of gas from well heads; and efforts to prevent contamination of ground water during the drilling process as examples of improvements in industry practices.
As far as the county's position and policies concerning the industry, “We have to be a little more careful, which we've done,” Martin said.
The two commissioners also differ in their views of the FRAC (Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals) Act, a bill introduced in Congress last summer that would place a controversial gas drilling procedure under federal oversight.
Currently, the procedure, known as hydraulic fracturing or “frac'ing,” is exempt from the federal Safe Water Drinking Act, an exemption that would be removed by the FRAC Act.
The industry maintains that the FRAC Act is unnecessary and would create a burdensome new layer of bureaucracy, in an area that is now in the hands of the states where intensive oil and gas drilling is taking place.
Supporters of the FRAC Act acknowledge that some of those states, such as Colorado, have enacted fairly strict regulations to govern the industry, but say that others have not. As a result, say supporters of the bill, there is no uniformity in how the industry is regulated, and in particular there is a lack of requirements that the industry reveal exactly what chemicals are used in the “frac'ing” process.
Frac'ing, which is used in most drilling operations in the U.S., involves the high-pressure injection of millions of gallons of a slurry, made up of water, sand and chemicals, into a well bore. The process breaks up the deeply buried rock surrounding oil and gas deposits and enables the fluids to flow to the surface.
Critics of the industry have argued that the chemicals used are carcinogenic and that not enough is known about the possible contamination of ground water as a result of the frac'ing process.
The FRAC Act would require that all the chemicals used in the process be revealed to government regulators and health officials in some situations.
Martin has said vehemently that he believes Colorado's regulations, enforced by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, are sufficient to protect the public's health and welfare.
Houpt, who serves on the COGCC, has argued with equal vehemence that stricter regulations are needed on the federal level, specifically to provide a national framework that requires disclosure of the chemicals used in the frac'ing process.
She said she has long favored eliminating the industry's exemption from the SWDA.
And, she said on Thursday, the FRAC Act would pose stricter disclosure requirements than the COGCC regulations.
According to Martin, the board is due to discuss its position concerning the FRAC Act at the Nov. 2 meeting, and Samson is expected to present a proposed resolution for consideration by the other two.
“That's not my understanding,” said Houpt today. She said the board needs to take some time to talk about the matter, and noted that several proposed resolutions already have been submitted by such disparate organizations as the Grand Valley Citizens Alliance, the Club 20 (a Western Slope business group), and the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission, an industry lobbying group.
“I think the three of us need to figure out where everybody is on this issue” before voting on a resolution, she said.
jcolson@postindependent.com
