Current setbacks for oil and gas development are 500 feet from a home or other occupied building or 1,000 feet from neighborhoods or high-occupancy buildings, e.g., schools and health care institutions. In some instances, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) and a building owner may waive the current setback requirements.
Prop 112 would increase the setback requirement to 2,500 feet for new oil and gas development. In addition to occupied structures, the setback would also apply to water sources and areas designated as vulnerable, such as sports fields.
Recommendation: yes/for
In 2016 Amendment 71 – to make it more difficult to amend the constitution – became a proxy fight between anti-fracking activists and the oil and gas industry. Those in favor of increasing setbacks for oil and gas development sidestepped Amendment 71 this year by proposing a statutory change rather than a constitutional change.
Proponents of Prop 112 chose 2,500 feet because it is about ½ mile. They point to studies showing adverse impacts on health for people within ½ mile of oil and gas drilling. Opponents point to other studies showing no ill health effects under the current setback requirements.
Likewise, the actual economic impact of Prop 112 is debated. An unspecified reduction in state income is anticipated by the Blue Book, but Prop 112 proponents argue that the state is giving more in tax breaks and refunds to oil and gas than the state is receiving in severance taxes.
The intent behind Prop 112 has been a Colorado effort for at least 4 years, despite what opponents say. Nor is Prop 112 as bad as opponents make it out to be. For one, Prop 112 only applies to new development – existing active wells would be grandfathered in. It’s true that abandoned wells would not be grandfathered in and a well is usually most productive in its early years. However, the setback refers to surface land. With horizontal drilling, oil and gas operations can drill multiple wells at the same site and access underground resources that setback requirements would otherwise keep off limits.
Finally, Prop 112 will be in statute and could be changed if the General Assembly votes to change it, preferably after reading the electorate’s mood. For instance, perhaps wells closed in the last 5 years should be considered “active” wells, or perhaps COGCC and owners should be able to waive increased setback requirements though I worry about undue pressure on the property owners.
If both Prop 112 (majority needed) and Amendment 74 (55% needed) both pass, then oil and gas companies may be making many requests for compensation.
Website for the Yes Side – Colorado Rising for Health and Safety
https://corising.org/
Website for the No Side – Protect Colorado’s Environment, Economy and Energy Independence
https://www.protectcolorado.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 112 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning a statewide minimum distance requirement for new oil and gas development, and, in connection therewith, changing existing distance requirements to require that any new oil and gas development be located at least 2,500 feet from any structure intended for human occupancy and any other area designated by the measure, the state, or a local government and authorizing the state or a local government to increase the minimum distance requirement?
YES/FOR _______
NO/AGAINST _________
Prop 112 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2017-2018/97Final.pdf
Prop 112 would increase the setback requirement to 2,500 feet for new oil and gas development. In addition to occupied structures, the setback would also apply to water sources and areas designated as vulnerable, such as sports fields.
Recommendation: yes/for
In 2016 Amendment 71 – to make it more difficult to amend the constitution – became a proxy fight between anti-fracking activists and the oil and gas industry. Those in favor of increasing setbacks for oil and gas development sidestepped Amendment 71 this year by proposing a statutory change rather than a constitutional change.
Proponents of Prop 112 chose 2,500 feet because it is about ½ mile. They point to studies showing adverse impacts on health for people within ½ mile of oil and gas drilling. Opponents point to other studies showing no ill health effects under the current setback requirements.
Likewise, the actual economic impact of Prop 112 is debated. An unspecified reduction in state income is anticipated by the Blue Book, but Prop 112 proponents argue that the state is giving more in tax breaks and refunds to oil and gas than the state is receiving in severance taxes.
The intent behind Prop 112 has been a Colorado effort for at least 4 years, despite what opponents say. Nor is Prop 112 as bad as opponents make it out to be. For one, Prop 112 only applies to new development – existing active wells would be grandfathered in. It’s true that abandoned wells would not be grandfathered in and a well is usually most productive in its early years. However, the setback refers to surface land. With horizontal drilling, oil and gas operations can drill multiple wells at the same site and access underground resources that setback requirements would otherwise keep off limits.
Finally, Prop 112 will be in statute and could be changed if the General Assembly votes to change it, preferably after reading the electorate’s mood. For instance, perhaps wells closed in the last 5 years should be considered “active” wells, or perhaps COGCC and owners should be able to waive increased setback requirements though I worry about undue pressure on the property owners.
If both Prop 112 (majority needed) and Amendment 74 (55% needed) both pass, then oil and gas companies may be making many requests for compensation.
Website for the Yes Side – Colorado Rising for Health and Safety
https://corising.org/
Website for the No Side – Protect Colorado’s Environment, Economy and Energy Independence
https://www.protectcolorado.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 112 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning a statewide minimum distance requirement for new oil and gas development, and, in connection therewith, changing existing distance requirements to require that any new oil and gas development be located at least 2,500 feet from any structure intended for human occupancy and any other area designated by the measure, the state, or a local government and authorizing the state or a local government to increase the minimum distance requirement?
YES/FOR _______
NO/AGAINST _________
Prop 112 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2017-2018/97Final.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comments. Please only make comments that add to a fruitful discussion.