fracking in colorado - sierra club · 2017. 9. 18. · multi-well horizontal hydraulic fracturing,...
TRANSCRIPT
A Citizen’s Handbook on Environmental Impacts, Risks and Regulation
FRACKING in COLORADO
DENVER, OCTOBER 2016
Authors
This handbook was written by Andrea Reyes Blanco
and Harv Teitelbaum for the Sierra Club Rocky Mountain
Chapter, in Denver, Colorado, during the spring of 2016.
Andrea Reyes Blanco is a Chilean environmental lawyer,
LL.M. University of Dresden, Humphrey Fellow at Cornell
University 2015 - 2016, specialized in natural resources,
climate change and public policies.
Harv Teitelbaum is a member of the Beyond Oil & Gas
Team of the Rocky Mountain Chapter of the Sierra Club,
and an adjunct instructor of Environmental Science.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the help of the
following: Eric Huber; Bryce Carter; Jim Alexee; Catherine
Collentine; Hillary Larson; Lena Moffitt; Jonathon Berman;
Lauren Swain; Jonathan Cohen; Will Toor; Rebecca
Jacobson; Holger Wolff; David L. Kay, Eli Shanks.
The contents of this guide do not necessarily reflect the
views and opinions of those acknowledged above.
Legal Disclaimer
The authors have made every effort to ensure the
accuracy of the information contained in this document.
However, the authors cannot guarantee that all the
information provided is complete or without inaccuracies.
All users are advised to conduct their own research to
provide a higher level of confidence in all facts and details.
This is made available for educational purposes only as
well as to provide general information, not to provide
legal advice. No recipients of content from this site should
act or refrain from acting on the basis of content of the
site without seeking appropriate legal advice or other
professional counseling, and any person relying on this
publication does so at their own risk. Sierra Club expressly
disclaims all liability relating to actions taken or not taken
based on any or all of the contents herein.
1 - Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 - Basics about fracking activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
2.1 - What is fracking or unconventional oil and gas development? . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
2.2 - How long has fracking been around? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
2.3 - Is fracking a safe practice? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
3 - Main environmental impacts and risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1 - Freshwater consumption. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2 - Surface and groundwater contamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3 - Human health risks associated with fracking fluid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
3.4 - Air pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
3.5 - Operation accidents: explosions, fires, leaks, spills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
3.6 - Additional environmental impacts and risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
3.7 - Fracking in the era of Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
4 - Fracking Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1 - Fracking exemptions in federal regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2 - Colorado state regulation of fracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3 - Memoranda of Understanding: the transfer of power to the COGCC . . . . . . 11
5 - Opposing fracking in your community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3
1 Fracking in Colorado: A Citizen’s Handbook on Environmental Impacts, Risks and Regulation
“
INTRODUCTION
Energy development has long played an important part of Colorado’s history.
What began as mining for gold, silver, and other ores transitioned into
exploration and development of fossil fuel resources. From 2004 to 2014, due
to intense fracking activity (see section 2.1), crude oil production in Colorado
more than quadrupled, and in the same period gas production rose 51%.1 There have been major changes in the way oil and gas
in Colorado have been exploited in recent years, most
notably the shift from traditional drilling techniques to
multi-well horizontal hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.
Research-based concerns and uncertainties regarding
the associated environmental impacts of these new
techniques have led to strong opposition from many
communities who refuse to expose their health,
their quality of life and the environment to the risks
generated by these activities.
Thus, from 2012 through 2013 voters in five home-rule
cities in the state of Colorado elected to impose bans
or temporary moratoria on fracking. The arguments
in favor of these moratoria highlight the significant
environmental and public health risks associated with
fracking, and that citizens have a right to restrict it.
However, on May 2, 2016 the Colorado Supreme Court’s
twin decisions about the fracking ban in Longmont
and moratorium in Fort Collins affirmed that state
laws preempt local authority in regulating oil and
gas resources, and that therefore those measures
were “invalid and unenforceable.” The Longmont and
Fort Collins cases highlight that Colorado law clearly
fosters the development of the oil and gas industry.2
In this regard, the Court expressed in its Longmont’s
decision that “the virtues and vices of fracking are hotly
contested. Proponents tout the economic advantages
of extracting previously inaccessible oil, gas, and other
hydrocarbons, while opponents warn of health risks
and damage to the environment.” Even though the
Court respects these competing views, it was not about
to “weigh in on these differences of opinion, much less
to try to resolve them”. The Court clearly expressed
it was indeed “confronted to a far narrower, albeit no
less significant, legal question, namely, whether the
City of Longmont’s bans on fracking and the storage
and disposal of fracking waste within its city limits
are preempted by state law.”3 The answer was in the
affirmative, blocking Longmont’s ban on fracking.
Regarding these decisions, it’s important to keep in
mind deliberations for both cases did not involve
questions of whether fracking was safe or harmful,
or involve any other concerns for human and
environmental wellbeing. Rather, the questions were
focused on the formal legality of the moratoria when
confronted with state law.
Local control over fracking activity has been a recurrent
issue in Colorado in the past years. Many communities
have sought to establish limits on fracking. In 2012,
citizens of Longmont, voted to increase setback
distances of oil and gas infrastructure from occupied
buildings in order to protect public health and safety.
The COGCC first sued Longmont, questioning its power
to regulate energy development, but subsequently
dropped the suit. Later in 2014, the Boulder District
Court overruled the ban, “determining that the city did
not have the authority to prohibit what is permitted
throughout the state. The city motioned for a Stay
Pending Appeal and it was granted by the court – the
ban on fracking in Longmont will stay in effect until the
case is settled.”4
In 2013 in response to these local efforts, the COGCC
passed new setback rules for oil and gas facilities,
increasing the minimum setback distance from 150 to
500 feet from outdoor recreational areas and 1,000-
feet from high occupancy buildings. However, a recent
study conducted by student attorneys of the University
of Denver’s Environmental Law Clinic on behalf of the
Sierra Club, showed that from August 1, 2013—the date
the new COGCC setback regulations were implemented
—to January 2015, 181 permits were approved lacking
required information such as the number of wellheads
at the proposed site, what zone the well site may
be in, and any comments regarding the well site
location. These permits resulted in 951 wells, 1221 oil
and condensate tanks, and 932 separators throughout
Colorado. Counties like Garfield, La Plata, and Weld
account for most of the oil and gas development.5
2 Fracking in Colorado: A Citizen’s Handbook on Environmental Impacts, Risks and Regulation
The purpose of this handbook is to look at fracking
in a comprehensive way, providing a review of topics
which are relevant from the perspective of communities
that are already or will in the future be exposed to oil
and gas development. Our aim is to provide easy-to-
understand information regarding the characteristics
and main environmental impacts and risks associated
with fracking, as well as a description of the regulatory
structure that governs this activity, leading to better
informed and empowered communities across the state
of Colorado.
2- BASICS ABOUT FRACKING ACTIVITY2.1 - What is fracking or unconventional oil and gas development? How does it compare to traditional or conventional methods?According to the US Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) hydraulic fracturing, more commonly known
as “fracking,” is a technique used in “unconventional”
gas production—even though fracking is now used
in the majority of both oil and gas extraction in the
U.S.6 This technique pumps millions of gallons of water
and chemicals underground under high pressure
which “produces fractures in the rock formation that
stimulate the flow of natural gas or oil, increasing the
volumes that can be recovered. Wells may be drilled
vertically hundreds to thousands of feet below the
land surface and may include horizontal or directional
sections extending thousands of feet”.7 Explosives also
can be used to perforate the drilled casing and aid in
extraction. This technique is used where oil and gas is
highly dispersed in the rock, rather than occurring in a
concentrated underground location.
Conversely, conventional drilling is a vertical process,
involving drilling straight down into a reservoir of oil,
which is then pumped up. The “unconventional” practice
of fracking also starts with the drill descending vertically,
for depths possibly reaching well over a mile, but
then redirects the drill horizontally or directionally for
PHOTO: ECOFLIGHT
3 Fracking in Colorado: A Citizen’s Handbook on Environmental Impacts, Risks and Regulation
distances of up to an additional mile or more away from
the initial vertical borehole.
Conventional development affects primarily a section of
earth in a narrow band directly below the drill tower or
derrick. Modern fracking, while appearing perhaps less
intrusive on the surface than a large field of individual
conventional oil derricks, has even greater impacts on a
much larger area. The technique is intrusive and involves
a considerable number of negative externalities, as this
handbook will explore. Employing multiple wells on a
single pad, fracking can access a cylindrical swath of
underground earth approximately 3 miles or more in
diameter and approximately 10 cubic miles or more in
underground volume from each single visible site.
2.2 - How long has fracking been around?The oil and gas industry argues that fracking has been
used since the 1940s, the implication being that a
long history equates to safety. But the truth is that the
first attempts at fracking differ greatly from today’s
techniques. In fact, the first experiments with fracking
used a foam-like substance injected a short distance
underground under low pressure. Today’s version
employs pumps and pressures many times more
powerful, fluid volumes hundreds of times greater, and
is capable of drilling 30 times further.8
Considering the differences of technologies, it is fair to
say modern large-scale fracking, which uses horizontal
drilling, slickwater or high-volume technologies and
multi-well pads, is qualitatively different from the foam
experiments of 65 years ago. The current array of
technologies in use have only been deployed over about
the last nine years.
2.3 - Is fracking a safe practice?Numerous questions about the impacts of fracking and
associated activities remain unanswered. While the pace
of scientific research has accelerated in recent years,
the lack of historical data is a continuing challenge to
researchers.
Pennsylvania State University geosciences professor
Susan Brantley said in 2013 that the “release of data is
still very, very difficult,” referring to the availability of
consistent water quality data that would allow scientists
to fully assess the extent to which the Marcellus shale
oil and gas boom may be polluting groundwater in
Pennsylvania.12
Moreover, Pallavi Phartiyal, senior analyst at the Center
for Science and Democracy of the Union of Concerned
Scientists, said that “the rapid scale of fracking has
outpaced the scientific information we have on fracking
and the regulatory response we have on unconventional
oil and gas development.”
Scientists presenting at the 2013 American Geophysical
Union fall meeting in San Francisco agreed that “it is
difficult to determine the effects of energy development
on water and the climate because little data about
fracking are available and energy companies keep
their energy extraction and production technology
under wraps.”13
Nonetheless, serious concerns about fracking have led
to its ban in many places around the world, including
within the United States. The state of New York has
had a moratorium on fracking since officials decided in
2008 more research was needed. In June 2015, after an
exhaustive seven-year review process conducted by the
Department of Environmental Conservation—in which
the New York State Department of Health also took
part—an official ban on high-volume hydraulic fracturing
(HVHF) was imposed, based on fracking’s “significant
adverse impacts to land, air, water, natural resources and
potential significant public health impacts that cannot
be adequately mitigated.”14
Internationally, France, Bulgaria, Germany and Scotland
have all banned fracking. In addition, the UK, Denmark,
Romania, Ireland, South Africa, and the Czech Republic
have all issued moratoria on fracking.15
SOME IMPORTANT DATES IN THE TIMELINE OF FRACKING:
1946-1949 First experiments with hydraulic fracturing9
1980’s Coalbed methane production began10
1991 First horizontal well
1996 Slickwater or high-volume water shale-gas fracturing
2007 Multi-well pads and cluster drilling11
4 Fracking in Colorado: A Citizen’s Handbook on Environmental Impacts, Risks and Regulation
3 - MAIN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND RISKSScientists are only beginning to understand the full
effects of fracking operations on water quality, air
quality and human health, but recent peer-reviewed
scientific analyses provide evidence that fracking poses
significant toxic risks.
The main environmental impacts and risks associated to
fracking are:
3.1 - Freshwater consumptionFracking uses extraordinary volumes of water. Data
from the COGCC show that fracking will consume 32
billion gallons of freshwater in Colorado between 2010
and 201516, or an average of over 8,000 Olympic-sized
pools of water per year. For comparison, Denver’s 1.3
million residents use 39 billion gallons a year for all
indoor and outdoor purposes annually.17
The enormous amount of fresh water consumed by the
industry, polluted and removed from the hydrologic
cycle, has significant impacts especially in states already
experiencing droughts or “water stress” conditions, such
as Colorado. Indeed, according to research by Ceres, a
nonprofit focused on sustainability issues: “Prolonged
drought conditions in many parts of Texas and Colorado
last summer created increased competition and conflict
between farmers, communities and energy developers,
which is only likely to continue”.18
3.2 - Surface and groundwater contaminationIn the process of fracking there are multiple risks of
water contamination. Known risks include surface spills,
well-bore casing failures, contamination caused by the
insufficient treatment of the fluid that returns to the
surface after the injection, known as “flowback,” and the
eventual migration of toxic fracking compounds present
in the fluid between geologic layers that can pollute
the naturally occurring water along the well, known as
“produced water”.
In fracking, millions of gallons of water mixed with
proprietary chemical slurries and a propping agent are
pumped at high pressure into the wellbore.19 Through
this technique, the hydrocarbon-bearing shale is
fractured, releasing the natural gas and/or oil that the
shale contains, which is then pumped to the surface.20
According to a Downstream Strategies report, funded
by the Robert & Patricia Switzer Foundation, “during
2010 through 2012, an average of 8% of the total
injected volume was recovered at horizontal wells in the
Marcellus”21; the 92% of the remaining injected fracking
fluid remains underground, with unknown long-term
consequences.
The industry often proclaims that only .5% of fracking
fluid is comprised of chemicals, attempting to use small
percentages to conceal sizeable chemical amounts. In
reality, for a single 5 million gallon frack, this works out
to 25,000 gallons of chemicals. This chemical mixture
draws from a menu of up to 1,000 different chemicals,
the identities of some of which the industry refuses to
reveal.
5 Fracking in Colorado: A Citizen’s Handbook on Environmental Impacts, Risks and Regulation
Here is a partial list of chemicals that have been found in
fracking fluid, obtained from the Frack Focus Chemical
Disclosure Registry22:
• VOC’s (Volatile Organic Compounds), such as
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene.
• Arsenic
• Methanol
• Ethanol
• Diesel Fuel
• Lead
• Formaldehyde
• Mercury
• Hydrogen Sulfide
• Hydrochloric Acid
• Sulfuric Acid
• Uranium 238 and Radium 222/226 (not contained in injected fracking fluid, but naturally occurring and
subsequently brought back up with the produced water/flowback).
The flowback is considered waste, so it is typically
stored on site in tanks or pits before treatment, disposal
or recycling. Its disposal and treatment is regulated by
the Safe Drinking Water Act’s Underground Injection
Control (UIC) program.23 Notably, if fracking injections
do not include diesel fuel as a component of the
fracking fluid, operators are no longer required to either
seek permits for their injections or to execute a UIC
program that normally includes inspections, monitoring,
record-keeping, and regular reporting.
In many cases, this wastewater is re-injected
underground for disposal. These re-injection wells
now dot the landscape of heavily targeted states
such as Colorado, Oklahoma and Texas, and have
been conclusively tied by the USGS and university
researchers to the huge upsurge in man-made
earthquakes plaguing the US, putting nearly 8 million
Americans at risk from fracking-induced quakes.24
For the past few years, residents of Oklahoma and
Kansas have been battling human-induced earthquakes,
caused by oil and gas companies pumping massive
quantities of polluted water underground. The Sierra
Club filed a federal lawsuit against three of the major
culprits for disposing of waste in such a way that it
causes or contributes to an “imminent and substantial
endangerment” to public health and the environment
in violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA).25 As land becomes scarcer for these
re-injection wells, and as opposition grows to such
toxic and unsustainable land use, concerns have been
raised about new methods of flowback and produced
water disposal. Some of these ways, either historically
practiced or proposed, have included (but are not
limited to):
• Spraying on public roads as a “deicer”26
• Spraying on food crops and farm fields as
“irrigation”27
• Solidifying to justify classification as “nontoxic”, then
burying in municipal solid waste facilities28
• Dumping into rivers and waterways29
In areas where re-injection is not an option, because of
geological conditions, the flowback has to be treated
and reused, or processed by a wastewater treatment
facility and then discharged to surface water and,
potentially, drinking water supplies.
3.3 - Human health risks associated with fracking fluidStudies have shown that fracking fluid is associated with
various risks to human health. Many of these effects are
being measured at distances up to 0.6 miles away from
the drill site or more.30
A recently published study (2016) conducted by
researchers at the Yale School of Public Health analyzed
1021 chemicals identified in hydraulic fracturing, and
concluded that “toxicity information was lacking for
781 (76%) chemicals. Of the remaining 240 substances,
evidence suggested reproductive toxicity for 103 (43%),
developmental toxicity for 95 (40%), and both for 41
(17%). Of these 157 chemicals, 67 had or were proposed
for a federal water quality standard or guideline.”31
6 Fracking in Colorado: A Citizen’s Handbook on Environmental Impacts, Risks and Regulation
NASA: Four Corners methane hot spot is caused by oil and gas industryIn 2014, a 2,500 square mile hotspot of methane
gas was detected over the Four Corners region.
This unprecedented observation launched a two-
year investigation involving satellites, airplanes, and
on-the-ground imaging overseen by scientists from
NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Caltech, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), and University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, to
determine its cause.
The investigation identified more than 250 individual
sources of methane ranging from emission rates
of a “a few pounds to 11,000 pounds per hour”
each, the top 10% of sources accounted for about
half of the total emissions detected. These sources
were primarily oil and gas infrastructure including
processing facilities, storage tanks, pipeline leaks,
and well pads. There are approximately 20,000 oil
and gas wells throughout the region.
VARIOUS PLUMES OF METHANE EMISSIONS DETECTED, WITH MINOR TO LARGE LEAKAGES SHOWN FROM WELL PADS AND A STORAGE TANK. NOTE THE SCALES FROM LEFT TO RIGHT ARE 100 METERS, 90 METERS, AND 200 METERS.1
THE METHANE HOTSPOT, SHOWN IN RED, DETECTED OVER THE FOUR CORNERS REGION.
1. Image Credit: NASA http://www.pnas.org/content/113/35/9734/F2.large.jpg
2. Image Credit: NASA http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4331
6 Fracking in Colorado: A Citizen’s Handbook on Environmental Impacts, Risks and Regulation
7 Fracking in Colorado: A Citizen’s Handbook on Environmental Impacts, Risks and Regulation
Another study, published in 2011 in the journal Human
and Ecological Risk Assessment, was able to identify
632 distinct chemicals used in fracking (more were left
unidentified due to industry “trade secrets”). Of the
known chemicals, they found that 75% could affect the
sensory organs, including skin and eyes, 40-50% could
affect the nervous, immune, and cardiovascular systems,
including the brain, as well as the kidneys, 37% the
endocrine system, and 25% were found to be potential
carcinogens.32
3.4 - Air pollutionIn the process of drilling and operating horizontal
fracking wells, a variable and sometimes significant
amount of volatile organic compounds (VOC’s),
including known and potential carcinogens, are emitted
to the atmosphere, raising both public health and
climate change concerns.33 Moreover, numerous studies
have shown that this ozone-precursor pollution emitted
by the fracking industry is significant in rural and in
urbanized areas like Colorado’s Front Range.34
According to the EPA, the oil and gas industry is
responsible for 30% of the total methane emissions
in the United States. In the same vein, recent studies
conducted by Colorado State University have shown
that “the methane leakage at natural gas gathering
facilities and processing plants is equivalent to the
amount of gas consumed annually by 3.2 million U.S.
homes”.35 Methane is one of the primary “greenhouse
gases.” According to reports from the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Cornell University
researchers, methane is between 34 and 86 times more
potent at trapping heat in the atmosphere than CO2,
depending on the time scales over which potency is
being measured, and the data referenced.36 The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency states methane has
a comparative impact 25 times greater than carbon
pollution over a 100-year period.37 Fracking emissions
of this potent greenhouse gas are therefore a significant
contributor to climate change.
In 2014 Colorado became the first state in the nation
to limit methane emissions from oil and gas operations.
Colorado’s Air Quality Control Commission adopted
rules that require oil and gas companies to find and
fix methane leaks, as well as install technology that
captures 95% of both VOCs and methane emissions.38
Full implementation of the rules could eliminate more
than 92,000 tons per year of volatile organic compound
emissions. VOC emissions contribute to ground level
ozone that has adverse impacts on public health and
the environment, including increased rates of asthma
and other respiratory ailments.39 These rules were later
used as the model for federal regulations.
Fracking operations also produce considerable air
pollution from trucks carrying materials to well sites,
and from compressor stations and other fossil fuel-fired
machinery necessary to operate the facility.
8 Fracking in Colorado: A Citizen’s Handbook on Environmental Impacts, Risks and Regulation
3.5 - Operation accidents: explosions, fires, leaks, spills. Toxic chemicals used in fracking activities must be
transported and stored before and after completion
of an operation. Every step of the process contains
potential leakage points and vectors for chemicals
entering the environment or exposing our soil, water,
and air.
In Colorado, there is an average of approximately two
leaks or spills per day, self-reported by the industry.
Of these, approximately 15% are reported to have
contaminated ground or surface water.40
In a period from March 1, 2014 through March 1, 2015
there were 17 fires at well sites self-reported by the
industry in Colorado. Being self reported, and since the
industry puts out some of the fires by themselves, it
is very likely there may have been more. If they don’t
think they can put out the fire by themselves, they
will call in the local fire department. In that case, the
cost of responding and fighting the fire is borne by
the taxpayers, although some fracking operators will
reimburse the local fire department for the material cost
of any firefighting foam used. Reimbursement is not
mandatory, however.41
3.6 - Additional environmental impacts and risksThe above is in no way an exhaustive treatment of all
the risks and hazards related to fracking operations.
For example, each frack may use 475,000 gallons of
silica sand. The risk to workers and nearby residents
of possible silicosis was sufficiently acute that the U.S.
Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) and National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) felt
compelled to issue an emergency Hazard Alert for well
workers in 2012.42
Fracking operations require hundreds of tanker trucks
to deliver water, unless pipelines are used, creating
their own hazards and intrusions. All told, for each frack,
thousands of tanker truck trips may be required—up
to 4,000 truck trips per well43—bringing daily noise
and particulate pollution to nearby neighborhoods and
those along the routes, in addition to the light and noise
pollution from the fracking site itself.
3.7 - Fracking in the era of Climate ChangeFracking was supposed to free the U.S. from
dependency on coal, a major contributor to CO2
emissions and climate change. However, researchers
have been able to determine that the impact of leaking
methane from fracking operations, as previously
referenced being a highly potent greenhouse gas
up to 86 times more potent than CO2, from fracking
operations would make the use of fracked natural gas at
least equal to the climate change impact of burning coal.
According to research done by the Center for
Atmospheric Research, Princeton University, and the
Environmental Defense Fund, the leakage rate above
which natural gas loses its climate changing advantage
over coal is between 2-3%.44 Actual leakage rates,
however, as reported by Cornell researchers Ingraffea
and Howarth, and confirmed by National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) flyovers of
Colorado and Utah operations, is between 4-8% or more.
Consequently, as the global warming potential of
methane is significantly worse than that of CO2 (Cornell
professor Robert Howarth suggests 105 times over
certain time spans45), the advantage of the lower CO2
emissions of gas is more than made up for by the
leakage rates of the fracking process. In other words,
fracking’s effects on climate change, perhaps the most
crucial and important global issue of our time, is worse,
perhaps significantly worse, than coal.46
As part of its ‘Climate Action Plan: Strategy to Reduce
Methane Emissions’, the EPA recently updated the
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) to curb
emissions of methane and volatile organic compounds
from the oil and gas industry. These safeguards are the
first-ever national standards for methane pollution.47
With these measures, the EPA expects to reduce
emissions by 510,000 short tons of methane (the
equivalent of reducing 11 million metric tons of carbon
dioxide) by the year 2025.48
9 Fracking in Colorado: A Citizen’s Handbook on Environmental Impacts, Risks and Regulation
4 - FRACKING REGULATION 4.1 - Fracking exemptions in federal regulation Within federal law, there are many exemptions provided
for fracking. The federal statutes that regulate key
environmental concerns such as water quality apply
only in a very limited way to fracking49:
• The Clean Water Act (CWA), which applies to
surface water quality, has been successful in
regulating the disposal and treatment of fracking
flowback.50 However, this statute “is powerless to
address the potential contamination resulting from
water migrating to the surface waters after being
injected into the ground.”51 Moreover, fracking
companies don’t need to obtain a permit under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) in order to inject fracking fluid into the
ground because, according to regulators, a solid
causal connection between fracking fluid injection
and injuries to people and property has not been
established yet.52
• The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), which
regulates the quality of public water for human
consumption, focusing particularly on toxic
substances53, only applies to the injection and re-
injection of fracking fluid into groundwater if that
fluid contains diesel fuel54. Moreover, after the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 amended the SDWA’s definition
of “underground injection”, propping agents normally
used in fracking are excluded from the Underground
Injection Programs (UIC programs). In other words,
if fracking injections do not include diesel fuel as
a component of the fracking fluid, operators are
no longer required to either seek permits for their
injections or to execute a UIC program that normally
includes inspections, monitoring, record-keeping,
and regular reporting.
• The Clean Air Act (CAA), which regulates emissions
from stationary sources by setting the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), is directly
applicable to fracking operations. Since 2012, the
EPA established new regulations on air quality,
specifically focused on reducing fracking wells’
emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants and VOCs,
including methane.
Following the mandates of the CAA, the EPA ruled
in 2015 that drillers can not vent natural gas into
the atmosphere without burning it, and recently
approved new rules requiring “green completions”
(new techniques to capture the gas emitted during
the well-completion process) nationwide by 2015.
Exploratory wells unconnected to pipelines are
exempt from this obligation.55 The EPA also finalized
regulations limiting methane leakage from wells and
transmission lines on new fracking operations in 2015,
but they have yet to issue safeguards on existing
sources of methane.
• The Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA),
commonly referred to as “Superfund”, regulates the
way polluters are held liable for cleanup costs of
hazardous waste sites. However, regarding the oil
and gas industry, CERCLA explicitly excludes crude
oil and natural gas from its definition of “hazardous
substance”.
• The Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA), which regulates the generation,
transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal
of hazardous waste under the idea of “cradle-
to- grave” liability, applies only partially to the oil
and gas industry. Indeed, in 1988, Congress and the
EPA reached an agreement to explicitly exempt
waste generated from oil and gas exploration and
production due to the “adequate” state and federal
regulations already in place.56
10 Fracking in Colorado: A Citizen’s Handbook on Environmental Impacts, Risks and Regulation
Industry influence on government, elections, the media and public opinionby harv teitelbaum
The above sections detail what are indeed terrible
consequences of fracking. But fracking and
the intrusions of the oil and gas industry could
not have grown and metastasized throughout
our communities and neighborhoods without
the complicity of government and media. This
corrupting of our basic American democratic
institutions could be the most frightening fracking
consequence of all. The Colorado Oil and Gas
Association (COGA) has donated hundreds of
thousands of dollars to oppose local ballot initiatives
across the state. In 2011, COGA paid for a “public
service announcement” featuring Colorado’s
Governor John Hickenlooper, a former petroleum
geologist, extolling the safety of fracking. According
to Ethics Watch, Colorado’s oil and gas companies,
along with their employees and various front
groups, contributed over $800,000 to state political
candidates during the 2010 and 2012 election cycles
and $11.79 million on the 2014 election for Colorado
state offices. In 2016, the industry is expected to
have spent at least $15 million fighting the ballot
initiatives proposing local control and increased
setbacks.
Backing up this purchasing of government is the
industry’s influence on the state’s major media
outlets. The Denver Post has been periodically
turning over a portion of its edition to “Coloradans
for Responsible Energy Development” (CRED),
which is actually a front group concocted by two
Texas fracking companies, Anadarko and Noble.
Despite claims that this selling of a section of
its paper to a private industry is not affecting
editorial or news content, the paper has repeatedly
editorialized in favor of fracking and against citizen
activists organizations.
Even Colorado public media outlets have received
large donations from COGA and individual oil and
gas companies as “subscribers” and “underwriters”.
Nationally, reports such as have appeared in “Truth-
out” and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR),
have highlighted NPR’s apparent bias in oil/gas
reporting, and its growing reliance on oil and gas
industry corporate sponsorships.
10 Fracking in Colorado: A Citizen’s Handbook on Environmental Impacts, Risks and Regulation
11 Fracking in Colorado: A Citizen’s Handbook on Environmental Impacts, Risks and Regulation
• The National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), requires federal agencies to conduct
an environmental assessment (EA) for all major
activities potentially affecting the environment,
in order to determine if there will be significant
impacts on the environment. If the results of the EA
show that there will be a significant impact, a more
stringent environmental impact statement (EIS)
is required in order to meet their requirements for
environmental consideration and public comment.57
Following the enactment of the Energy Policy Act
of 2005, there is now a “rebuttable presumption”
that several oil and gas related activities, instead
of being analyzed under an EA or an EIS, can be
assessed under the process of “categorical exclusion”
(CE) conducted by the Interior and Agricultural
Departments, which is a much less stringent process.
This means that the burden of proof that an activity
requires further analysis is not on the agency, but on
the public.58
In sum, the aspects of fracking that are actually
regulated by the federal government are very limited,
which means that many of the risks remain unaddressed,
opening the door for state and local regulation, or
lack thereof.59 Consequently, as the U.S. Department
of Energy has pointed out, “To fully understand the
framework within which oil and gas activities are
regulated, we must first understand the different ways
in which regulatory agencies function from state to
state. We must also understand the nature of mandated
responsibility to each agency within a state.”60
4.2 - Colorado state regulation of frackingThe Colorado Constitution contains no specific
provision related to oil and gas development, and the
only provision specifically regarding environmental
protection is related to state forest lands (Article 18,
section 6).
Oil and gas activities in Colorado are regulated
primarily by statutory provisions of the Oil and Gas
Conservation Act, which regulates the state’s oil and
gas development specifically to “foster the responsible,
balanced development, production, and utilization
of the natural resources of oil and gas in the state of
Colorado in a manner consistent with protection of
public health, safety, and welfare, including protection of
the environment and wildlife resources.”61
Created in 1951 as a division of the Colorado Department
of Natural Resources (DNR), the Colorado Oil and
Gas Commission (COGCC) is the sole regulatory
agency responsible for managing the oil and gas
industry promoting the exploration, development, and
conservation of Colorado’s oil and gas resources. The
COGCC is responsible for the issuance of permits and
the follow-up of the project’s compliance to statutes
and regulations.62 The body of rules63 promulgated
establish specific provisions that regulate relevant topics
such as setbacks, conditions for mitigation and pollution
prevention measures, among many others. Changes
to these rules in recent years include water sampling,
chemical disclosures, and setbacks up to 1,000 feet
from certain structures.
4.3 - Memoranda of Understanding: the transfer of power to the COGCCSince oil and gas industrial activities can have broad
environmental impacts, there are other statutes, such
as Colorado’s Air Pollution and Prevention Control
Act64 and the Water Quality Control Act, along with
governmental agencies and institutions, that also play
an important role in its regulation65.
Through Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) several
institutions have transferred their responsibilities to the
COGCC. Indeed, there are currently six MOU’s signed
with two federal agencies, along with three inter-agency
agreements:
• MOU between the COGCC and a federal agency66:
o BLM and USFS regarding Permitting
(Adopted 06-24-2009)
o BLM regarding Inspection Sharing
(Adopted 7-12-1999)
o BLM (Adopted 8-22-1991)
o BLM (Appendix)(Adopted 3-14-2005)
o BLM Inspection of Private and State Lands Exhibit
A (06-29-1999)
o EPA regarding Underground Injection Control
Program (Adopted 8-30-1989)
• Inter-Agency MOU67 :
o MOU between CDPHE and COGCC for
Commercial Class II Injection Wells
(Adopted 10-6-2000)
o MOA between the WQCD and the COGCC on
Spills/Releases to Surface Water
(Adopted 02-15-2000)
o MOA on Water Quality between the WQCC, the
WQCD and the COGCC (Adopted 08-08-1990)
12 Fracking in Colorado: A Citizen’s Handbook on Environmental Impacts, Risks and Regulation
5 - OPPOSING FRACKING IN YOUR COMMUNITYAfter the Longmont and Fort Collins Colorado Supreme
Court decisions, it is clear that city and county
governments have little if any power to regulate or
control the siting of fracking operations. The state
agency which does, the COGCC, is outside of, and
insulated from, direct democratic oversight and citizen
control. Additionally, other state governmental agencies
with missions to protect the health, welfare, and
environment of Coloradans have largely ceded their
authority to the COGCC with regards to oil and gas
operations.
Nevertheless, citizens are not powerless when fracking
operations threaten their communities. Oil and gas
operations must file with the COGCC an Application
for Permit-to-Drill (APD) on Form 2, and an Oil and
Gas Location Assessment on Form 2A, and obtain the
Director’s approval before commencing operations
with heavy equipment. (COGCC Rule 303). No fewer
than 30 days before the operator plans on filing these
applications, a notice of intent must be given to surface
and building owners within 1,000 feet of the proposed
oil and gas operations. (Rule 305.a.(2)). At this point, we
recommend that these affected surface and building
owners consult with an attorney about proceeding
in the permitting process. When these applications
are deemed complete by the COGCC Director, these
same impacted surface and building owners will
receive additional notice inviting them to meet with
the operator before operations commence as well as
provide written comments to the Local Governmental
Designee, operator, and Director on the proposed
project. (Rule 305.c). It is the responsibility of these
impacted surface and building owners to give notice to
their tenants or lessees. (Rule 305.c.(4)). The comment
period runs for 20 days from publication of the Form
2 or 2A application on the COGCC website (Rule
305.d.(1)).
PHOTO: WILDEARTH GUARDIANS
13 Fracking in Colorado: A Citizen’s Handbook on Environmental Impacts, Risks and Regulation
Citizens who do not receive notice from the operator
still have the opportunity to comment on Form 2 and
Form 2A applications. In this way, it is possible to
perhaps delay a fracking project in one’s neighborhood.
Because only surface and building owners within
1,000 ft. of the proposed project will receive notices,
other impacted citizens must track applications on
the COGCC website. Since the comment period is only
open for 20 days after publication, citizens should
check the COGCC permit website for new oil and gas
projects at least every 20 days. To do so, visit https://
cogcc.state.co.us/permits.html#/permits and select the
relevant county for “Pending Applications for Permits
to Drill (Form 2)” or “Pending Applications for Location
Assessment Permits (Form 2A).” This will generate a list
of all pending Form 2 or 2A applications for the selected
county. The first column will indicate the “Posted” date,
from which the 20 day comment period begins.
To find out the exact location and details of a
proposed project, click on the permit number under
the “Status” column and click on the “...” button under
the “Attachments” column. View the Form 2 or 2A
applications and attachments to find out the location
details including longitude/latitude as well as other
project details including number of wells and tanks.
The first step in trying to delay an oil and gas project is
to submit comments through the COGCC’s comment
system. To do so, click on the permit number under the
“Status” column and then click the comment button.
For additional help on submitting comments or
navigating the COGCC permit website, explore
https://cogcc.state.co.us/permits2.html#/permitshelp
or call the COGCC at 303-894-2100. Comments
should not be general, unfocused expressions of
opposition, but should instead contain specifics
pertaining to the project such as inappropriate siting,
inadequate setbacks, threats to water supplies, surface
property rights, etc. Allies, including other grassroots
organizational groups, government representatives,
local officials, agency personnel, commercial interests,
scientists and other specialists should be enlisted to file
their own comments. At best, this could result in denial
of the permit or it may result in the permit applications
being put on hold temporarily for more information.
Depending on the location of a proposed fracking
project, local governments may also have their own
permitting requirements, which can provide an
additional opportunity to stop or delay projects. For
example, the City of Greeley requires use by special
review applications for oil and gas facilities to be
approved by the City Planning Commission following a
public hearing. The Planning Commission’s decision can
then be appealed to the City Council and another public
hearing would be held before the City Council issues a
decision.68 In addition to commenting on the COGCC
permits, citizens should participate in the processes
required by local governments. Engaging local
officials as soon as possible is also key because local
governments can request hearings before the COGCC
to oppose the drilling when citizens cannot.69
Once a nearby fracking project is identified, citizens
should spread the word and hold organizational
meetings to plan for future actions and engagement,
including attending city council or county commissioner
hearings on the project, holding demonstrations and
speaking out at local government meetings, and
Time Line for Providing Community Opposition to Proposed Fracking Development
ONGOINGBe prepared, learn
more about the issue, and network
with individuals and organizations.
30 DAYS PRIOR TO APPLICATION FILING
Notice is given to surface/building owners
within 1000’. Contact supportive partners,
research project, outreach to community.
APPLICATION FILED, ONGOING FILING PROCESSStrategize, organize
and deliver comments throughout process.
IF APPLICATION APPROVED
Be resilient. Continue to share your story, reflect
on what worked and what didn’t, and continue
to advocate.
14 Fracking in Colorado: A Citizen’s Handbook on Environmental Impacts, Risks and Regulation
submitting comments to the COGCC. Community
organizing is a very important first step towards
delaying, moving, or canceling a fracking project. A
big turnout at community meetings will help educate,
energize, organize, prioritize, and identify the citizens
opposed to the project in your community. It is often
after the first organizational meetings that the real
clear-eyed work of defending homes, schools, and
communities begins. And with an organized community
it may be possible to approach the owner/operator and
negotiate an alternate site or conditions on the project
to mitigate its harms.
Citizens should also contact all possible media, keeping
in mind that smaller, more localized, independent
media are more likely to be sympathetic to the needs
of citizens regarding the oil and gas industry versus
corporate broadcast and print media. Consider holding
media events, demonstrations, public actions, etc. at
events where media is present or which media may find
newsworthy. Cultivate relationships with media outlets,
journalists, and reporters. The COGCC and owner/
operators may be sensitive to public pressure and this
may get results where legal avenues may not.
Ultimately, if local governments are not receptive and
the COGCC approves the Form 2 and 2A applications,
there is little more the citizens can do before the state
agency because only the owner/operator, surface owner,
or the local government can request a hearing. The
citizens should, however, be able to appeal to court at
that point and, if there are grounds, seek a temporary
restraining order or injunction against the project. While
the Director may not approve or deny Form 2 or 2A
applications while the comment period is open, he/
she shall approve or deny applications within 30 days
of a completeness determination (Rule 303.c). Once
approved, citizens would have to file for judicial review
within 35 days.70 Realistically, legal action is a last
resort given that COGCC decisions receive deference
from the court and such proceedings are expensive
and the outcome uncertain. Nevertheless, citizens
can seek representation through a private attorney if
funds are available for this, or through non-profit legal
representation.
It is worth keeping in mind that delay can work in the
citizens’ favor since approval of a Form 2 becomes
null and void if drilling operations are not commenced
within 2 years and approval of a Form 2A becomes void
if construction has not commenced within 3 years.
(Rule 303.g.)
It’s important to remember that the oil and gas industry
has been working for decades to shut down citizen
resistance or citizen input into the public dialog over oil
and gas issues such as fracking. With their tremendous
financial resources, political connections, and special
interest legislation, they have been hugely successful in
doing so. It is therefore crucially important to engage
at the earliest possible time and be proactive, creative,
and persistent. For example, the following avenues of
action outreach have been utilized by various activists
in defense of their communities: oil/gas investors,
retirement funds, out-of-state travel agencies promoting
Colorado, groups local holding conventions, progressive
corporations considering relocating to the area, major
sporting events, outdoor charity athletic events
(exercising in toxic air accelerates ingestion of airborne
chemicals). Soliciting the aid of environmental justice,
human rights, or international rights groups, using social
media, going beyond like-minded groups, to message
the offending companies and industries directly,
petitioning and crowd-funding have all been employed.
Granted, all of this is not easy and the fight may be
long. We at the Sierra Club are here for you, and remain
committed to helping you protect the health and safety
of your community and the environment.
15 Fracking in Colorado: A Citizen’s Handbook on Environmental Impacts, Risks and Regulation
TIME FRAME
NOTIFICATION OR CONDITION
RESPONSE/ACTION NOTES
Ongoing, prior to any specific, formal COGCC intent or filing process
Fracking operations already present in your general geographic area
• Periodically check COGCC 2 and 2A permit application pages for possible apps in your vicinity https://cogcc.state.co.us/permits.html#/
• Monitor fracked wells for potential violations. Document and report violations to the COGCC and local officials. Hold them accountable by leveraging grassroot tactics.
When using the COGCC website, or following COGCC procedures, remember that its site, procedures and rules may change at any time without notice.
30 days prior to Form 2 or 2A application filing
Surface/Building Owners within 1000’ of proposed site notified of fracking operator’s intent to file/frack
• Contact the Sierra Club for assistance and support.• Research the project, the company, fracking process
(chemicals, emissions, health effects, etc.)• Contact neighbors who will be impacted.• Seek contacts outside local community who have
fought fracking efforts elsewhere• Form a formal community group to oppose the
project(s), organize, and hold community meetings.
The Colorado Sierra Club (Rocky Mountain Chapter) Fracking Tip Line can be found at sierraclub.org/rocky-mountain-chapter under “Beyond Oil and Gas” campaign.
Application filed: Note “Posting” date of app filing on COGCC website
Form 2 and/or Form 2A applications filed. 20-day Comment period begins. (Extensions may be possible.)
• Organize campaign to submit “Comments” to the COGCC site. Enlist supportive local organizations, politicians, scientists, etc. to submit their own comments.
• Contact local governments to determine what additional filings, permits, permissions, etc., are required for the project. Evaluate these processes carefully to help develop and deploy your strategy to oppose a project.
• Comments should be specific, not general, and should focus on concerns the COGCC and local governments would be sensitive to, such as risks to water supplies, road usage, historical site threats, COGCC procedures not followed, etc.
• Track your comments, the more the better, and hold COGCC accountable to answering to them
Subsequent to COGCC applications filed
Surface/Building Owners within 1000’ of proposed site, and perhaps wider local community, invited to attend meeting hosted by operator
Publicize and promote attendance at meeting. Meet or communicate prior to meeting to discuss strategy and unified front.
Be prepared for fracking operator to seek to assure community its practices are safe, they are not one of those “bad” operators, and perhaps offer minor concessions. Community should counter by demanding withdrawal of plans.
Subsequent to COGCC applications filed, if applications approved
Fracking operations green-lighted. Community under immediate threat of development.
• Contact the LGD (Local Governmental Designee) for your area on the COGCC website to determine if they may be helpful in resisting project.
• Contact neighboring counties and other jurisdictions to share concerns for the effects on them and their citizens. Enlist their involvement.
• Contact local media, share your story, write letters.• Evaluate an effective strategy to continue to raise
the issue leveraging tactics such as picketing, demonstrations, communicating directly with operator and investors, enlisting grassroots and social media awareness, etc. Be creative!
• Consider legal representation and action.
COGCC, in practice, does not deny permit applications. Applications may be rejected for a technicality, and subsequently re-filed. Citizens’ aim should be to get permit applications withdrawn, or at least put on hold. If put on hold, continue actions and pressure until withdrawn.
16 Fracking in Colorado: A Citizen’s Handbook on Environmental Impacts, Risks and Regulation
ENDNOTES1. Figures retrieved from Energy Information Administration, available at: https://www.eia.gov/state/print.cfm?sid=CO
2. http://www.dailycamera.com/editorials/ci_29845556/editorial-colorado-an-oil-and-gas-subsidiary
3. Longmont’s Opinion available at: https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2015/15SC667.pdf
4. Shamer, Sierra (2016) “Colorado Setbacks, One Step Forward?” at: https://www.fractracker.org/2016/04/colorado-setbacks-one-step-forward/
5. http://www.sierraclub.org/rocky-mountain-chapter/2015-du-assessment-oil-and-gas-siting
6. http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intelligence/2015/04/01/how-much-u-s-oil-and-gas-comes-from-fracking/, http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/24/investing/fracking-shale-oil-boom/
7. Definition retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/hydraulicfracturing/process-hydraulic-fracturing
8. See: http://www.kansas.com/news/business/biz-columns-blogs/business-perspectives/article1137001.html
9. https://fracfocus.org/hydraulic-fracturing-how-it-works/history-hydraulic-fracturing
10. Ibid.
11. New York State SGEIS draft, page 5-32, 2009.
12. See: http://www.climatecentral.org/news/scientists-call-for-more-fracking-data-transparency-16816
13. Ibid.
14. Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner Joe Martens retrieved from: http://www.dec.ny.gov/press/102337.html
15. http://www.onegreenplanet.org/environment/countries-except-united-states-that-have-banned-fracking/
16. Water Sources and Demand for the Hydraulic Fracturing of Oil and Gas Wells in Colorado from 2010 through 2015. Document written jointly by the Colorado Division of Water Resources, the Colorado Water Conservation Board and the COGCC, available at: http://water.state.co.us/DWRIPub/CGWC%20Meetings%20and%20Process%20Documents/Oil%20and%20Gas%20Water%20Sources%20Fact%20Sheet%20-%20Final.pdf
17. http://www.denverpost.com/2015/02/09/denver-water-use-dips-to-40-year-low-in-2014/
18. http://www.ceres.org/press/press-releases/new-study-hydraulic-fracturing-faces-growing-competition-for-water-supplies-in-water-stressed-regions
19. Nolon, J. R., & Gavin, S. E. (2013). Hydrofracking: State preemption, local power, and cooperative governance. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 63(4), and Rodgers et al. (2009), Marcellus Shale: What Local Government Officials Need to Know 5 (2009), available at http://pubs.cas.psu.edu/FreePubs/pdfs/ua454.pdf. About 99.5% of this fluid is composed of water and proppant (usually sifted sand) and about 0.5% consists of chemical additives. See Groundwater Prot. Council, Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A Primer 61–62 (April 2009), available at http://www.gwpc.org/sites/default/files/Shale%20Gas%20Primer%2020
20. See Revised draft SGEIS, supra note 3, at 5-5 (describing how hydrocarbons are retrieved after fluids are injected and recovered).
21. See Downstream Strategy Report: Water Resource Reporting and Water Footprint from Marcellus Shale Development in West Virginia and Pennsylvania, page 20. Available at: http://www.downstreamstrategies.com/documents/reports_publication/marcellus_wv_pa.pdf
22. https://fracfocus.org/chemical-use/what-chemicals-are-used
23. https://www.epa.gov/uic/underground-injection-control-regulations-and-safe-drinking-water-act-provisions
24. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/induced
25. http://www.sierraclub.org/planstances from shale gas extraction operations. Disposal of flowback and produced water via underground injection is regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act’s Underground Injection Control (UIC) program.” et/2016/02/sierra-club-sues-over-oil-company-earthquakes
26. http://www.newsweek.com/oil-and-gas-wastewater-used-de-ice-roads-new-york-and-pennsylvania-little-310684
27. http://www.circleofblue.org/2016/world/california-water-board-investigate-use-oilfield-wastewater-irrigate-crops/
28. https://www.earthworksaction.org/files/publications/MicrosoftwordProducedWaterFactsheet2.pdf
29. http://www.environmentamerica.org/sites/environment/files/reports/EA_FrackingNumbers_scrn.pdf
30. https://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/10/07/15890/new-five-state-study-finds-high-levels-toxic-chemicals-air-near-oil-and-gas-sites
31. Elliott, E. G., Ettinger, A. S., Leaderer, B. P., Bracken, M. B., & Deziel, N. C. (2016). A systematic evaluation of chemicals in hydraulic-fracturing fluids and wastewater for reproductive and developmental toxicity. Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology, available at: http://www.nature.com/articles/jes201581.epdf?referrer_access_token=pE_0j-VToein7Ppp4WARKtRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0P-xXv7UqW6v6mZD16_kjwM4pL1-XH5L_4OX4WsxkjOeo4ytAb2N8lHH_6XxPaEdHojQenr-9fzIO86j6X_qQKBYg9bz5P5-w7GuoD1vtW2_ne3BbhDqfY5PITPCywo0erOUQU6vHw-hFKvRUcjl-DH4FxMGQAkadsB8FwH9QJB5XJHrFPVINUCG13v-R6O9Ec%3D&tracking_referrer=www.huffingtonpost.com
32. http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/health/case_studies/hydrofracking_w.html
33. Press Release, EPA, EPA Proposes Air Pollution Standards for Oil and Gas.
34. Minor, J. (2014). Local Government Fracking Regulation: A Colorado Case Study, citing Lisa M. McKenzie et al., Human Health Risk Assessment of Air Emissions from Development of Unconventional Natural Gas Resources, 424 SCI. TOTAL ENV’T. 79, 80 (2012)
35. http://insideenergy.org/2015/08/19/epa-releases-first-ever-federal-limits-on-methane/ and http://source.colostate.edu/researchers-measure-methane-lost-in-natural-gas-operations/
36. IPCC Fifth Assessment of the scientific literature, retrieved from: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_All.pdf and http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/howarth/summaries_CH4.php
37. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases
38. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/colorado-first-state-to-limit-methane-pollution-from-oil-and-gas-wells/
39. http://www.sierraclub.org/compass/2014/03/colorado-air-quality-rules-step-right-direction
40. http://westernpriorities.org/colorado-toxic-release-tracker/
41. Personal Interview with Dave Kullman of the COGCC by Harv Teitelbaum, March 2015
42. https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=NEWS_RELEASES&p_id=22596
43. https://www.fractracker.org/2014/09/truck-counts/
44. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/swara-salih/fracking-methane-leaks_b_2536846.html
45. http://www.global-warming-forecasts.com/methane-carbon-dioxide.php
46. http://www.denverpost.com/2014/05/07/scientists-flying-over-colorado-oil-boom-find-worse-air-pollution/
47. http://content.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2016/05/obama-administration-finalizes-safeguards-methane-pollution
48. https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/may2016/EPA-OilandGasActions-May2016.pdf
49. John R. Nolon & Steven E. Gavin, Hydrofracking: State Preemption, Local Power, and Cooperative Governance, 63 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 995 (2013), http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty/884/
50. Rebecca Jo Reser & David T. Ritter, State and Federal Legislation and Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing, The Advocate: Tex. State Bar Litig. Section Report, Winter 2011, at 31, 32.
51. Ibid., supra note 37.
52. Deweese, W. (2010). Fracturing Misconceptions: A History of Effective State Regulation, Groundwater Protection, and the Ill-Conceived FRAC Act. Okla. JL & Tech., 6, 49. https://www.law.ou.edu/sites/default/files/files/FACULTY/2010okjoltrev49.pdf
53. 42 U.S.C. §§ 300f–300j-26
54. https://www.epa.gov/hydraulicfracturing
55. http://articles.philly.com/2012-11-26/business/35348948_1_natural-gas-shale-gas-marcellus-shale
56. http://www.shalegas.energy.gov/resources/060211_earthworks_petroleumexemptions.pdf
57. http://www.shalegas.energy.gov/resources/060211_earthworks_petroleumexemptions.pdf
58. Ibid.
59. Ibid. Supra note 37.
60. Council, G. W. P. (2009). State oil and natural gas regulations designed to protect water resources. Prepared for the US Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory http://www. gwpc. org/e-library/documents/general/State% 20Oil% 20and% 20Gas, 20., available at http://www.gwpc.org/sites/default/files/state_oil_and_gas_regulations_designed_to_protect_water_resources_0.pdf
61. §34-60-102(1)(a)(I)
62. http://www.oilandgasbmps.org/laws/colorado_law.php
63. See Code of Colorado Regulation, Practice and Procedures: http://www.sos.state.co.us/CCR/DisplayRule.do?action=ruleinfo&ruleId=2124&deptID=13&agencyID=79&deptName=Department%20of%20Natural%20Resources&agencyName=Oil%20and%20Gas%20Conservation%20Commission&seriesNum=2%20CCR%20404-1
64. § 25-7-100, et seq.
65. § 25-8-100, et seq.
66. COGCC’s MOUs with USFS, BLM, and EPA are available here: http://cogcc.state.co.us/gov.html#/federal
67. COGCC’s MOUs with Colorado agencies are available here: http://cogcc.state.co.us/gov.html#/state
68. http://greeleygov.com/docs/default-source/community-development/oil-and-gas/use-by-special-review.pdf?sfvrsn=0
69. Note any legislative work performed by The Sierra Club would require use of 501c4 funding.
70. http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/info_center/laws/Title24Article4.html#24-4-106
sierraclub.orgfacebook.com/SierraClub twitter.com/SierraClub
Sierra Club Rocky Mountain Chapter1536 Wynkoop Street, Suite 312Denver, Colorado 80202(303) 861-8819