News
Sports
The Garfield County commissioners have until Nov. 10, or so, to decide whether or not they want to formally intervene regarding Antero Resources' plan for significantly increased gas-well density in the Silt Mesa area.
That, at least, is the recommendation from the county's oil and gas liaison, Judy Jordan, in a memo inserted into the board of county commissioners agenda packet for a meeting on Nov. 1.
Antero has filed a request with the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission [COGCC] for permission to drill for gas at a density of one well every 10 acres, rather than the existing allowed density of one well per 160 acres.
Industry representatives and officials from the COGCC have noted that the “10-acre” drilling would not mean one gas rig physically situated on every 10-acre parcel. Instead, officials have said, with directional drilling the company can sink numerous well bores from a single well pad.
In a memo to the BOCC, Jordan noted that a number of residents on Silt Mesa have expressed anger and disappointment at the recent appearance of four Antero gas wells in the neighborhood.
Jordan pointed out that Antero had drawn up a “Rifle-Silt-New Castle Community Development Plan in conjunction with the community in 2006, but some residents were not individually familiar with the document and others believe that Antero's plans diverge from the declarations in the plan.”
Some area residents showed up at a COGCC meeting in Rifle on Oct. 21 and “asked COGCC to deny Antero's request to increase well density,” Jordan reported.
The COGCC was set to hold a hearing that day on Antero's request, but a company representative asked that the hearing be postponed until the next COGCC meeting, on Nov. 29 in Denver.
Activists in the community already have announced their intention to travel to Denver for that hearing, to renew their own request that Antero's plan be rejected based on concerns for the public's health, safety and welfare, and the environment.
But Jordan wrote in her memo that the COGCC rules, while permitting intervention by Garfield County based on public health, safety and welfare concerns, also call for consideration of Antero's request “solely on the basis of ‘the application's technical merits.'”
The rule, she wrote, “does not refer to HSWE [health, safety, welfare and the environment].
“Based on past interaction with the COGCC regarding hearing requests and on the discussion between commissioners and the hearing officer, Carol Harmon, last week, it appears that the COGCC is interpreting the rules to disallow formal consideration of HSWE at any hearing on density.”
She added that county officials believe the COGCC allows “public HSWE concerns only in a hearing on [a] specific well or location application. This interpretation effectively denies the opportunity to protest oil and gas operations that affect public HSWE because the majority of these concerns focus not on one particular well but on the cumulative effect of a high density of wells in a given area.”
But, she continued, the COGCC has been overruled by the courts in the past when it “applied its rules in an overly restrictive manner.” She specifically cited a suit by the Grand Valley Citizens Alliance, a local grassroots organization, over COGCC's refusal to consider testimony from the GVCA concerning drilling permits.
“While the COGCC may argue that the county could not raise public HSWE issues at a density hearing,” Jordan wrote, “both logic and precedent would stand in favor of the county's position on appeal.”
Jordan's memo is to be discussed at the Nov. 1 meeting of the BOCC, during the 8 a.m. segment of the day-long meeting, which will be held in the administration building, 108 8th St. in Glenwood Springs.
jcolson@postindependent.com
That, at least, is the recommendation from the county's oil and gas liaison, Judy Jordan, in a memo inserted into the board of county commissioners agenda packet for a meeting on Nov. 1.
Antero has filed a request with the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission [COGCC] for permission to drill for gas at a density of one well every 10 acres, rather than the existing allowed density of one well per 160 acres.
Industry representatives and officials from the COGCC have noted that the “10-acre” drilling would not mean one gas rig physically situated on every 10-acre parcel. Instead, officials have said, with directional drilling the company can sink numerous well bores from a single well pad.
In a memo to the BOCC, Jordan noted that a number of residents on Silt Mesa have expressed anger and disappointment at the recent appearance of four Antero gas wells in the neighborhood.
Jordan pointed out that Antero had drawn up a “Rifle-Silt-New Castle Community Development Plan in conjunction with the community in 2006, but some residents were not individually familiar with the document and others believe that Antero's plans diverge from the declarations in the plan.”
Some area residents showed up at a COGCC meeting in Rifle on Oct. 21 and “asked COGCC to deny Antero's request to increase well density,” Jordan reported.
The COGCC was set to hold a hearing that day on Antero's request, but a company representative asked that the hearing be postponed until the next COGCC meeting, on Nov. 29 in Denver.
Activists in the community already have announced their intention to travel to Denver for that hearing, to renew their own request that Antero's plan be rejected based on concerns for the public's health, safety and welfare, and the environment.
But Jordan wrote in her memo that the COGCC rules, while permitting intervention by Garfield County based on public health, safety and welfare concerns, also call for consideration of Antero's request “solely on the basis of ‘the application's technical merits.'”
The rule, she wrote, “does not refer to HSWE [health, safety, welfare and the environment].
“Based on past interaction with the COGCC regarding hearing requests and on the discussion between commissioners and the hearing officer, Carol Harmon, last week, it appears that the COGCC is interpreting the rules to disallow formal consideration of HSWE at any hearing on density.”
She added that county officials believe the COGCC allows “public HSWE concerns only in a hearing on [a] specific well or location application. This interpretation effectively denies the opportunity to protest oil and gas operations that affect public HSWE because the majority of these concerns focus not on one particular well but on the cumulative effect of a high density of wells in a given area.”
But, she continued, the COGCC has been overruled by the courts in the past when it “applied its rules in an overly restrictive manner.” She specifically cited a suit by the Grand Valley Citizens Alliance, a local grassroots organization, over COGCC's refusal to consider testimony from the GVCA concerning drilling permits.
“While the COGCC may argue that the county could not raise public HSWE issues at a density hearing,” Jordan wrote, “both logic and precedent would stand in favor of the county's position on appeal.”
Jordan's memo is to be discussed at the Nov. 1 meeting of the BOCC, during the 8 a.m. segment of the day-long meeting, which will be held in the administration building, 108 8th St. in Glenwood Springs.
jcolson@postindependent.com
