In the world of creating legislation, where one size must fit all, finding a comfortable way for everyone, everywhere in the state to live with the oil-and-gas drilling industry has become too tall an order.

State oil and gas regulators last week released new, draft rules for how close an oil well can be to buildings, what oil companies must do to mitigate the production process, and what oil companies must do to address a long list of safety and environmental concerns.

There’s still much work to be done.


The proposed changes would increase the required set-back between wells and most buildings, such as homes, from 350 feet to 500 feet. Both distances are arbitrary, and neither one seems suitable for the concerns of both sides. Critics of the industry want a greater setback of wells to homes, saying that besides the obvious yet minimal danger of an explosion, the biggest concern is the release of gases, chemicals, dust and other substances that have a real effect on those exposed to them just about the distance of a football field. Oil industry officials say modern drilling and mining equipment have made it possible to practically seal well heads so that they are nearly impervious to leaks.

What the commission did right is propose new rules that increase how the oil industry must work harder to mitigate the effects of drilling in communities and at individual well-sites. What the commission did wrong is simply fall back on guesses, anecdote, hunches and compromise in setting out rules for how close humans can be to gas-and-drilling operations. Even if the state were a homogenous type of community, it would be impossible to create a set of rules and set-backs that could safely, accurately and fairly address the inevitable plethora of oddities.

That doesn’t mean that the state shouldn’t have rules in place to protect the public and offer assurances to the oil industry. But the better alternative is to allow for local control in places where it’s wanted and needed. Aurora is just such a place. While it’s easy to see that on the eastern horizon, where even roads are miles apart, that any of these proposed setbacks aren’t applicable. That’s not the case, however, where homes have met prairie. Industry officials have made it clear they’re keenly interested in gas and oil fields directly under local housing developments. Despite all the assurances of the industry, the visual evidence of oil and gas drilling will have just as real affect on residential property values, if not more so, than potential environmental threats. Adding a hundred or so feet to drilling setbacks does nothing to offset those kinds of problems — but requiring screening for well heads will.  Those issues are best handled locally in communities that want the responsibility. Whether it’s a horse-head pump or simply a pile of concrete, pipes and valves, how gas companies mitigate the appearance of these wells is just as important as mitigating the drilling and extraction problems.

Likewise, there are endless variables at stake when considering the permitting of drilling in urban areas. The public should expect endless exceptions to setback rules — to be made by local control — using common sense and not just arbitrary distances. A good example is where Aurora plains meet warehouse farms in northern Aurora. What is stored or produced inside some of these commercial plantations is potentially far more dangerous than a low-pressure wellhead. It’s also likely that a wellhead west of a home or development, upwind, is of far more concern than one downwind. A wellhead created upwind in a natural or man-made channel would be just as bothersome 500 feet from a home as it would be at 350 feet.

State regulators and legislators are to be applauded for taking on this thorny issue, keeping in mind that public safety and environmental protection are paramount, and that the gas and oil industry are critical state concerns. But communities like Aurora must have the option and the power to make common-sense decisions to protect everyone’s interests.

3 replies on “EDITORIAL: New oil drilling regs will only work with the local touch”

  1. There is a very dangerous word in the first paragraph. It is the word “nearly.”

    Oil industry officials say modern drilling and mining equipment have made it possible to practically seal well heads so that they are nearly impervious to leaks.

    Were the same words used by B.P. officials before its catastrophic disaster? What about the Exxon Valdez officials? When are we going to realize that gas and oil officials are concerned only about their huge profits and don’t care a bit about the safety of people, wildlife, air, water, or our precious earth?
    Until that dangerous word can be removed from the sentence (and the new sentence can be PROVEN to be true), all fracking should be banned indefinitely.

  2. couldn’t agree more — local officials should be given the authority
    to make rules “site specific” instead of being threatened by
    the Governor they will get sued if so doing.

    A 500 foot setback would accomplish nothing as far as health
    and safety problems, and “mandatory” testing would be monitored
    by only 17 inspectors.

    With 45,000 wells, and a projection of at least 2,000 more wells
    yearly, I’d say the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission is
    sorely inadequate to protect the air that we breath, our water
    and the earth.

  3. Quite honestly I can’t comprehend how a task force of stakeholders can draft changes without the results of scientific data i.e.I support an indefinite
    moratorium and ban on gas and oil, development until scientific analysis and
    assessments determine it safe to all humans and other life forms. I recommend a “Health Impact Assessment” which is a combination of procedures, methods and tools that systematically judge the potential and unintended effects of a policy plan, program or project on the health of a population and the distribution of those effects within the population are performed.

    A Health Impact Assessment would: Indentify potential effects of gas and oil development on the health of the people and describe what effects it will have on its citizens. Minimal increases in incidences of chronic health problems could
    impact thousands of people and create escalating health care costs.

    Solicit and perform independent studies from many disciplines in the evaluation of complex hazards and exposures created by gas & oil development.

    Provide emphasis on segments of the population most vulnerable. Specifically infants, children, pregnant
    women and the elderly.

    Consider health risks from cumulative impacts on gas and oil development including radon exposure in homes, exposure to carcinogenic chemicals and the exposure from toxic contaminants from drilling, fracking, and transportation.

    Examine occupational risks to workers and those living on or near drilling, fracking, and completed well sites.

    Recommend and implement actions to minimize or eliminate health effects to protect people that the assessment indentifies.

    I ask you to support human kind in protecting their health from a rogue industry in search of profits at any cost to their shareholders with little or no concern to those who choose to call Colorado their home by performing risk assessments and analysis, health impact assessments including cost benefit analysis, environmental impact assessments including water, soil & air impacts evaluations, and real-estate value assessments including market, financial, return on investment scenarios before you allow the granting of permits to further develop the industry’s mineral resources.

    Robert Winkler, CDRP

    Living in Ground Zero

Comments are closed.