Gunnison County planners hear dangers of gas drilling

Earthjustice urges stricter regulation

After learning the ways of natural gas operation from land managers and the gas companies themselves in meetings this fall, the Gunnison County Planning Commission heard the downside of development from the environmental law firm Earthjustice on Friday, December 3.
The series of informational meetings has been a chance for the commissioners to learn more about the processes used to get the coal bed methane out of Gunnison County’s North Fork Valley before moving ahead on amendments to the county’s temporary oil and gas regulations.
One of the proposed amendments would require drilling operations within 1,000 feet of perennial or seasonal water bodies to contain their hydraulic fracturing fluids and produced water in a closed system, and build impervious berms around the storage tanks big enough to hold 50 percent more fluid than the largest tank.
Although that amendment has the gas industry on edge for its requisite limitations in a landscape strewn with small seasonal creeks, Earthjustice was happy to see the Planning Commission’s initiative in putting the strict regulation on the table. They asked only that the commissioners consider making the amendments even more stringent.
The firm represented a coalition of environmental and conservation groups during the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) rulemaking in 2008, which included rule 317B that secures certain protections for public drinking water supplies.
Earthjustice staff attorney Michael Freeman pointed out, “The proposed amendments that the county is considering essentially take the mechanism that the state adopted with rule 317B … and applies it more broadly to protect all surface water bodies in the county.”
Freeman had come to the commission to talk about the policy decisions behind a part of the amendment that would keep any gas operation at least 300 feet away from water bodies, and “why we think it’s a valuable protection that is worthy of adoption,” he said.
He mentioned that the Colorado Department of Health and Environment had recommended a 500-foot setback for gas operations, but arrived at the 300-foot setback from water bodies that is now a COGCC regulation through a compromise between differing interests. “Just something to consider,” he said.
The slide show that followed displayed some photos of gas operations in clear violation of the state’s rules, and those that the Planning Commission is considering. The statistics showed that no matter how well the rules are followed, stuff happens.
“Accidents do happen and they happen fairly often,” Freeman said. “A setback recognizes that fact.”
Freeman cited a Denver Post study that found there are currently nearly 41,500 active wells operating in Colorado. Of 981 spills totaling 5.2 million gallons reported across Colorado between 2008 and 2010, 182 of the spills were reported to make it into the ground water.
Linda Spry O’Rourke, an inspector with the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission said in her experience the operator doesn’t make mention of the fact that there’s been a spill unless there is definitive proof.
The state, Freeman said, levied fines in only two of the 182 cases of confirmed groundwater contamination. He added that in more than 80 percent of the spills, the cause is either human error or equipment failure.
Freeman also showed how a cold spell in Garfield County last year coincided with a rash of accidents involving equipment from gas operations. “I just want to highlight what could happen, in support of moving the operations back [from water bodies] so operators have the opportunity to respond when an accident does happen,” he said.
However none of the accidents highlighted in Freeman’s presentation involved either of Gunnison county’s two biggest natural gas producers, Gunnison Energy or SG Interests I Ltd. Instead, as representatives from both companies watched, Freeman called them both out as being high quality operators.
“The companies working here are already employing extensive best management practices and monitoring and already, basically, being very careful in their operations,” Freeman told the commissioners. “I have no reason to think that’s not true and, frankly, I think they should be commended for doing that.”
But while even good operators can have accidents with good equipment, Freeman said, the operators—and the county—are asking for trouble if they don’t take action against the use of open-air containment pits where many gas operations store and dispose of the fluids used in the extraction process.
Freeman urged the commissioners to adopt a proposed amendment to require the fluid be contained in a closed system for operations less than 1,000 feet away from a water body and suggested they take it a step further to approve operations only if they use pitless drilling and a closed system to contain the fluid.
Even though there are several kinds of fluid that need containment at different stages of the extraction process, they pretty much all start as hydraulic fracturing fluid that is used under extreme pressure to soften the coalbed, allowing the gas to escape.
Congress exempted the fluid from disclosure requirements in the Safe Drinking Water Act in 2005 so operators don’t have to tell exactly what the fluid is made of. But the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has indicated that between 10 percent and 70 percent of any given mixture would be classified as hazardous waste if the exemptions were lifted.
Freeman mentioned an EPA study of several hundred pits that showed more than 20 percent were leaking; he went on to give examples of ways the pits can impact wildlife and water quality.
To bring the point home, Freeman reminded the commissioners, “Gunnison Energy reported last summer a leak of one of its coalbed methane wells near Muddy Creek. The investigation is ongoing but that release does not appear to have affected Muddy Creek yet … Just another example of the potential risks associated with [gas operations].”
When Planning Commission chairman Ramon Reed gave Gunnison Energy a chance to explain the circumstances of the spill, Gunnison Energy director of environmental and permitting Lee Fyock told the commissioners about the size and location of the rip in the liner, near the top of the pit holding produced water.
Fyock said the nearest drinking water source was 400 feet below the pit and the company did a soil test to determine the amount of contamination
And Spry O’Rourke is following up on the spill to make sure it isn’t traveling further than expected. “I’ve also done a geological evaluation… to find out what is the transport mechanism,” she said, adding that they’ve identified a “very minor” release of hydrocarbons and brine. She said they would be drilling a test hole down-gradient to make sure the leak didn’t go anywhere.
Since the spill, Gunnison Energy has stopped using the pit.
Commissioners commended GEC and SG Interests for the way they maintain their operations.
SG Interests’ Eric Sanford told the commissioners he would like to see a better definition for pitless drilling, reserve pits and the closed-loop systems they would like to see, which GEC president Brad Robinson president Brad Robinson indicated he had been working on for the commission.
Sanford also reminded the commission that although his company works inside of the county’s regulation and tries to continue participating in the rulemaking process and will continue to try to “create a process with the county rules more defensible to the state and federal regulation. That’s really all we’re asking for.”
“The big picture here for me is that we still strongly disagree with both the county attorney and with this presentation that many of the proposed amendments are preempted by state rules,” Stanford said. “I think the argument that the state’s 2008 rulemaking process was somehow incomplete, may or may not be the case, but they are the rules.”
On the other side of the arguments was Freeman, arguing that the county’s proposed amendments don’t go far enough.
Freeman told the commissioners, “The proposed amendments are not as stringent as they might be,” and reminded the commissioners about the compromises that should be considered when modeling the state’s rules “that had been scaled back from what was recommended.”
“We understand the reasoning behind the proposed amendments,” Freeman said, adding that his organization has been working with High Country Citizens’ Alliance. “We think that it’s entirely appropriate for the county to step in to help fill those gaps, as it’s clear that the state regulations and federal regulations don’t go quite as far as we’d hope.”
The Planning Commission is planning to hold a series of public meetings on the proposed amendments before making a recommendation to the Gunnison Board of County Commissioners, which will make a final decision on the new rules.