Colorado Election - Amendment Again Oil and Gas
David Zalubowski/AP Coloradans are mulling whether to tightly restrict where new oil and gas wells can be drilled, with Tuesday's vote mark the latest affiliate in a long, bitter and expensive debate that could have a ripple effect in other energy rich states.
Proposition 112 requires that new wells be at to the lowest degree 2,500 anxiety from occupied buildings and "vulnerable areas" such as parks, creeks and irrigation canals. It also allows local governments to crave fifty-fifty longer setbacks.
The state, which ranks seventh in the nation in domestic oil production and fifth in natural gas production, currently requires setbacks of 500 feet from homes and 1,000 feet from high-occupancy buildings such equally hospitals and schools.
"First and foremost, the intent of this ballot mensurate is to ban oil and gas development in the state," said Karen Crummy, a spokeswoman for the industry funded group Protect Colorado. "There's no proof that a 2,500-foot setback would take any greater protection than we have at present. It's kind of a number they picked out of a hat."
Analysts with the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Committee, which regulates the industry, say the measure volition put nigh 85 percent of non-federal land in the land off-limits to drilling and will prevent free energy development on large swaths along the Front Range urban corridor — a conclusion supporters of the proposal say is overstated and misleading.
The proposal doesn't apply to federal land, which makes upward about 36 percent of the state.
Protect Colorado, which has raised nearly $38 million in the fight compared to only about $one million by the proposition's supporters, warns that if it passes, other businesses that rely on the oil and gas industry — from restaurants to construction companies to hotels — also will take a hitting.
- You've Got Prop 112 Questions. No Worries. We've Got Prop 112 Answers
A consortium of business groups released a study in July last that by 2030, there would be up to 147,800 fewer jobs in Colorado, up to $ane.1 billion in lost tax revenue for land and local governments and up to $141 billion in lost oil and gas production if the measure passes.
But the dire warnings didn't stop backers from collecting an estimated 123,000 valid signatures to put the proposal on the election. They contend bigger setbacks volition better protect people and the surround and volition requite property owners more certainty virtually the location of new wells.
Anne Lee Foster with the grouping Colorado Rising said the predicted effect on jobs is "grossly overestimated," and the state study terminal that well-nigh non-federal land would be off limits doesn't business relationship for directional drilling.
Directional drilling, which is often more difficult and expensive, involves boring hole-and-corner horizontally and could be used to admission pockets of gas from beyond a setback.
"It's not a ban. It's non going to shut downwards the industry. They'll still be able to extract minerals," said Foster, noting that Colorado has about 55,000 agile wells that are non afflicted by the proposal. "The numbers are wildly exaggerated. It'south scare tactics to avert even the simplest of rubber regulations."
She points to an analysis by Peter Maniloff, an assistant professor of economics at Colorado School of Mines who studies free energy and ecology policy. Maniloff concluded that 42 percentage of non-federal lands would still be available for new drilling if the proposition passes, bold operators could drill upwardly to a mile horizontally from any location.
Suggestion 112 is the outcome of seven years of work that included organizing at the state and local level, lawsuits, several failed attempts to get the result of the ballot and a trip to the Colorado Supreme Court. Information technology gained traction as more than and more people moved into once isolated areas dotted by wells and crisscrossed by pipelines, and some analysts say the newfound momentum could drain into other states that also are dealing with similar conflicts.
"It wouldn't surprise me if some of those states that maybe motion a petty more purple — the Ohios and Pennsylvanias out in that location versus Texas — might be looking at this a little more or seeing the potential for these types of issues to arise," said Tanya Heikkila, a Academy of Colorado-Denver professor who has been studying the oil and gas industry for about half dozen years.
She added that national environmental groups are likely paying close attention to what happens Tuesday and thinking virtually how to push for like limits in other states, especially where oil and gas walks up confronting urban areas.
Amendment 74
Colorado voters also are because a companion measure backed past the oil and gas manufacture that would arrive easier for holding owners to seek bounty from the government for actions that diminish their property'southward value.
Supporters debate that Amendment 74 could be used if expanded setbacks forestall drilling for oil and gas. But critics warned it would unleash litigation involving a broad variety of claims, including zoning changes, and taxpayers would have to foot the pecker.
"It's almost like anything government does that could potentially touch the value of someone'southward property, they would have a case to request compensation for that," said Heikkila, who describe the possible passage of the amendment every bit a political nightmare. "This could be the full-employment law for property lawyers."
Heikkila initially thought neither of the initiatives would pass, but seeing the intensity of the tv set ads and the politics on both sides, she said, "I honestly think information technology's a coin toss at this bespeak."
Read More than: Ag (And Energy) Run into New Protection In Amendment 74; Gov'ts Come across A 'Wolf In Sheep's Clothing'
Source: https://www.cpr.org/2018/11/05/prop-112-amendment-74-push-colorados-simmering-oil-gas-fight-to-a-boil/
0 Response to "Colorado Election - Amendment Again Oil and Gas"
Post a Comment