fracking in colorado - sierra club · 2017. 9. 18. · multi-well horizontal hydraulic fracturing,...

$: FRACKING in COLORADO - Sierra Club · 2017. 9. 18. · multi-well horizontal hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. Research-based concerns and uncertainties regarding the associated$
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


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


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


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.


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


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



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.


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


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


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.



• 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)


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


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.


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.


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.


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