Drilling's role in runoff awash in murky claims
"We're spending more money to get it fixed than we need to"
By Kim McGuire
Denver Post Staff Writer
Ken Neubecker of Trout Unlimited walks in an
area where rains have caused erosion on the
edge of an unfenced drilling platform near Rifle.
(Post / Glenn Asakawa)
Parachute - A gullywasher sent a tidal wave of mud, rock and sand into Parachute Creek last summer, clogging the irrigation system that serves this Garfield County town of 1,000.
Town Administrator Juanita Satterfield said she's not sure what was to blame for the deluge of muck.
"All I can say is that we're spending more money to get it fixed than we used to," she said.
County and state officials, as well as environmental groups, say one prime source of the mud choking the region's streams and creeks is the construction of some 9,546 oil and gas wells in western Colorado.
Oil and gas operators say there is little proof that the industry is the source of the mud and silt, which are natural byproducts of the West Slope's highly erodible sedimentary rock.
In March, Colorado became one of the few states in the country to require that oil and gas operators get an erosion-control permit for wells on sites of 1 to 5 acres.
The Colorado Oil and Gas Association quickly sued to block the state rules
The federal Energy Bill passed in July bolstered the association's case by giving the industry a pass on some provisions of the Clean Water Act, including controlling stormwater runoff from well pads.
The decision by Congress has raised the ante in the fight over Colorado's rules.
The state water-quality commission recently agreed to review its rule in January.
San Miguel and Routt counties, the town of Crested Butte and the Upper Gunnison River Conservancy District all have passed resolutions supporting the state commission and urging Gov. Bill Owens to help keep the current rules intact.
"I think, in the end, it was very difficult for us to see why they needed an exemption," said Chris Wiant, the commission's chairman, after the rules were adopted in March. "The bottom line is that if these aren't done right, there could be significant environmental harm. And that's not something we want to play catch-up on."
The oil and gas association is proposing not only spiking the new rules but exempting operators with sites of five acres or more, ending a 13-year-old regulation.
"I think Congress has made it abundantly clear what their intent is," said Ken Wonstolen, attorney for the Colorado Oil and Gas Association.
Few silt fences
While Parachute officials may not be completely sure where the mud that clogged their irrigation system came from, a flight over Parachute Creek last month offered some clues.
Tendrils of cascading sand, rock and mud were seen working their way down to the stream from the dozens of oil and gas wells that line the ridges. Few newly constructed well pads had the silt fences required by Colorado's rules to prevent runoff.
"What's more troubling, though, is the thought of what this may look like in a year or two," said Ken Neubecker, the Western Slope organizer for Trout Unlimited.
For three straight years, Colorado has broken records in issuing drilling permits. More than 3,950 permits are projected to be issued this year.
Energy industry executives say that despite the increase in drilling, the construction of new wells isn't causing dirt and rock to slide into rivers and creeks.
"A picture of a creek the locals call Muddy Creek doesn't establish any culprit other than natural drainage," Wonstolen said. "I mean, we have a town in Colorado called Silt." "That's not to say oil and gas operators should be adding to the sediment load, but one picture of one site doesn't establish that kind of record," he said.
Gunnison County officials don't agree.
In 2003, the county sued BDS International LLC, claiming the Dallas-based operator had violated locally imposed environmental regulations that included erosion controls.
The suit was thrown out last year when a judge ruled the county didn't have the power to regulate oil and gas activity.
The county then convinced the state water-quality control commission that oil-and gas-site erosion was a serious problem, offering photos of washed-out roads, muddy streams and sediment-filled culverts.
New-site runoff common
Runoff from newly constructed oil and gas sites on federal land is common on remote properties, said Bob Elderkin, a retired Bureau of Land Management range conservationist.
Elderkin, who enforced BLM rules governing the reclamation of drill sites, said many oil and gas companies ignored the rules and failed to install control devices, such as silt fences.
Compounding the problem is the network of roads that oil and gas operators build to reach well sites, said Matt Czahor, the state water-quality control division's lone stormwater inspector.
"It's one of the things we have concerns about - and just how much oversight the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission is able to provide," Czahor said.
The water-quality control division, which is responsible for monitoring water pollution, wants the new stormwater rules shifted to the oil and gas commission.
Currently, the oil and gas commission has five inspectors and has plans to hire two more and place them in Weld and Garfield counties, said Tricia Beaver, a commission spokeswoman.
Since the rules were adopted in March, only seven of 174 oil companies in the state have applied for a stormwater-discharge permit for small well sites, the commission said.
Beaver could not say if any company had ever violated the stormwater rules.
Among the companies that applied for permits is BP America Production Co.
"BP is a company that abides by our regulations," said Durango-based BP spokesman Dan Larson. "When the rules say comply, that's what we do."
Many companies have said they are waiting for the January hearing before deciding whether to apply. Others, such as Canadian energy giant EnCana Corp., say they were focused on preventing pollution at their sites before the rules were passed. "Regardless of what happens, we will remain focused on our best-management practices aimed at preventing pollution from leaving our sites," said EnCana spokesman Doug Hock.
"We're spending more money to get it fixed than we need to"
By Kim McGuire
Denver Post Staff Writer
Ken Neubecker of Trout Unlimited walks in an
area where rains have caused erosion on the
edge of an unfenced drilling platform near Rifle.
(Post / Glenn Asakawa)
Parachute - A gullywasher sent a tidal wave of mud, rock and sand into Parachute Creek last summer, clogging the irrigation system that serves this Garfield County town of 1,000.
Town Administrator Juanita Satterfield said she's not sure what was to blame for the deluge of muck.
"All I can say is that we're spending more money to get it fixed than we used to," she said.
County and state officials, as well as environmental groups, say one prime source of the mud choking the region's streams and creeks is the construction of some 9,546 oil and gas wells in western Colorado.
Oil and gas operators say there is little proof that the industry is the source of the mud and silt, which are natural byproducts of the West Slope's highly erodible sedimentary rock.
In March, Colorado became one of the few states in the country to require that oil and gas operators get an erosion-control permit for wells on sites of 1 to 5 acres.
The Colorado Oil and Gas Association quickly sued to block the state rules
The federal Energy Bill passed in July bolstered the association's case by giving the industry a pass on some provisions of the Clean Water Act, including controlling stormwater runoff from well pads.
The decision by Congress has raised the ante in the fight over Colorado's rules.
The state water-quality commission recently agreed to review its rule in January.
San Miguel and Routt counties, the town of Crested Butte and the Upper Gunnison River Conservancy District all have passed resolutions supporting the state commission and urging Gov. Bill Owens to help keep the current rules intact.
"I think, in the end, it was very difficult for us to see why they needed an exemption," said Chris Wiant, the commission's chairman, after the rules were adopted in March. "The bottom line is that if these aren't done right, there could be significant environmental harm. And that's not something we want to play catch-up on."
The oil and gas association is proposing not only spiking the new rules but exempting operators with sites of five acres or more, ending a 13-year-old regulation.
"I think Congress has made it abundantly clear what their intent is," said Ken Wonstolen, attorney for the Colorado Oil and Gas Association.
Few silt fences
While Parachute officials may not be completely sure where the mud that clogged their irrigation system came from, a flight over Parachute Creek last month offered some clues.
Tendrils of cascading sand, rock and mud were seen working their way down to the stream from the dozens of oil and gas wells that line the ridges. Few newly constructed well pads had the silt fences required by Colorado's rules to prevent runoff.
"What's more troubling, though, is the thought of what this may look like in a year or two," said Ken Neubecker, the Western Slope organizer for Trout Unlimited.
For three straight years, Colorado has broken records in issuing drilling permits. More than 3,950 permits are projected to be issued this year.
Energy industry executives say that despite the increase in drilling, the construction of new wells isn't causing dirt and rock to slide into rivers and creeks.
"A picture of a creek the locals call Muddy Creek doesn't establish any culprit other than natural drainage," Wonstolen said. "I mean, we have a town in Colorado called Silt." "That's not to say oil and gas operators should be adding to the sediment load, but one picture of one site doesn't establish that kind of record," he said.
Gunnison County officials don't agree.
In 2003, the county sued BDS International LLC, claiming the Dallas-based operator had violated locally imposed environmental regulations that included erosion controls.
The suit was thrown out last year when a judge ruled the county didn't have the power to regulate oil and gas activity.
The county then convinced the state water-quality control commission that oil-and gas-site erosion was a serious problem, offering photos of washed-out roads, muddy streams and sediment-filled culverts.
New-site runoff common
Runoff from newly constructed oil and gas sites on federal land is common on remote properties, said Bob Elderkin, a retired Bureau of Land Management range conservationist.
Elderkin, who enforced BLM rules governing the reclamation of drill sites, said many oil and gas companies ignored the rules and failed to install control devices, such as silt fences.
Compounding the problem is the network of roads that oil and gas operators build to reach well sites, said Matt Czahor, the state water-quality control division's lone stormwater inspector.
"It's one of the things we have concerns about - and just how much oversight the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission is able to provide," Czahor said.
The water-quality control division, which is responsible for monitoring water pollution, wants the new stormwater rules shifted to the oil and gas commission.
Currently, the oil and gas commission has five inspectors and has plans to hire two more and place them in Weld and Garfield counties, said Tricia Beaver, a commission spokeswoman.
Since the rules were adopted in March, only seven of 174 oil companies in the state have applied for a stormwater-discharge permit for small well sites, the commission said.
Beaver could not say if any company had ever violated the stormwater rules.
Among the companies that applied for permits is BP America Production Co.
"BP is a company that abides by our regulations," said Durango-based BP spokesman Dan Larson. "When the rules say comply, that's what we do."
Many companies have said they are waiting for the January hearing before deciding whether to apply. Others, such as Canadian energy giant EnCana Corp., say they were focused on preventing pollution at their sites before the rules were passed. "Regardless of what happens, we will remain focused on our best-management practices aimed at preventing pollution from leaving our sites," said EnCana spokesman Doug Hock.
