News
Opinion
ENLARGE
“When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff.” -Cicero
----------------------------------
Responses to last week's column headlined “Why Not Tell Us What's In It” have, to an astounding degree, seemed to take Cicero's advice to heart rather than answering that specific question about what's being pushed underground in the common drilling practice of hydraulic fracturing.
That's not a new experience after a couple of decades being involved in public policy issues. Unfortunately it's all too common to attempt to redefine the debate or switch the issue, to assume and assign motivation and then attack, than to engage the question at hand.
Let's start with the letter from County Commissioner Craig Meis. He's made his living working on environmental and other issues for the energy industry and touts his expertise in the field. But his response is disappointing.
Craig's assertions included that, because I did not attend the hearing where Mesa County's resolution opposing removal of the exemption for hydraulic fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act was approved, I was uninformed and merely an advocate of “big government.” But I've taken multiple well tours (including one of the Rifle watershed arranged by the Chamber and conducted by Craig), and have reviewed the “list” of frac ingredients he references.
Not to dwell on the “big government” issue, but that'd certainly be news to any number of people who still remember my own time as a county commissioner. Those might include leaders in the human services field questioned about duplication of services, supporters of the Museum and library then anxious to maintain county funding in a tight budget, and Republicans who served as Sheriff and County Assessor interested in expanding their staffs while I was in office. Also a former county GOP chairman and a legislator with an R after his name, both of whom suggested over the years that I ought to switch parties. And no small number of “liberal” Democrats who might have been happy had I done so.
So thanks to Craig for demonstrating two common techniques, answering a different question than the one posed and trying to assign a presumably unpopular label in order to denigrate the arguments of an opponent.
Another response came from Ken Wonstolen, former counsel for Colorado Oil and Gas Association and now an industry lawyer. Ken also provided the aforementioned industry-favored list of possible fluid components compiled by Chesapeake Energy, a marginally useful document that purports to list every ingredient used anywhere in connection with hydraulic fracturing. Still left unanswered is the question of what specific chemicals are being used at individual well sites and in what quantity.
“What is the next step?” Ken asked, “Government control/prohibition of selected frac constituents (a la Santa Fe County, NM)? Public hearings on every frac job?” Then came the part I really liked. “If so, we better start worrying about the Class 1 underground injection wells where we, as a society, dispose of really nasty stuff like PCB's.”
Thanks for making my argument for me, Ken. I'm told those kinds of wells are not exempted from the Underground Injection Control (UIC) programs of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the programs from which hydraulic fracturing is specifically excused.
Attempts were also made to shift the argument to well construction practices and regulations, to say that making certain well casings were properly installed would prevent any possible contamination. As if we haven't heard of any casing problems. The disproven “proprietary formula” argument resurfaced. And a letter to the Daily Sentinel pointed out that, if ”99.5 percent of it is basically oil and water,” a February article in the Christian Science Monitor outlined how the other one-half of one percent could be as much as 500,000 gallons of frac chemicals in an average well.
Implicit in these opposing responses and others is the assumption that anyone questioning fracturing processes is attempting to halt hydraulic fracturing or shut down exploration and development. That's certainly not something I've ever advocated and a look in my garage or at the systems in my 1980s-era home will offer some reasons why. It's entirely possible to relish and be thankful for the availability of oil and gas, their by-products, and the economic boost they provide and also think prudence in how those benefits are obtained is a virtue.
Despite all the storm and fury, the question of “Why Not Tell Us What's In It?” remains unanswered. As does the question about why one single process used by one industry is the only one exempted from provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The only way we'll get the answer we need is if federal legislation to remove the so-called “Halliburton exemption” is successful.
--------------------------------------
Jim Spehar will be writing on other topics next week but welcomes your comments on this one at jimspehar@bresnan.net.
----------------------------------
Responses to last week's column headlined “Why Not Tell Us What's In It” have, to an astounding degree, seemed to take Cicero's advice to heart rather than answering that specific question about what's being pushed underground in the common drilling practice of hydraulic fracturing.
That's not a new experience after a couple of decades being involved in public policy issues. Unfortunately it's all too common to attempt to redefine the debate or switch the issue, to assume and assign motivation and then attack, than to engage the question at hand.
Let's start with the letter from County Commissioner Craig Meis. He's made his living working on environmental and other issues for the energy industry and touts his expertise in the field. But his response is disappointing.
Craig's assertions included that, because I did not attend the hearing where Mesa County's resolution opposing removal of the exemption for hydraulic fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act was approved, I was uninformed and merely an advocate of “big government.” But I've taken multiple well tours (including one of the Rifle watershed arranged by the Chamber and conducted by Craig), and have reviewed the “list” of frac ingredients he references.
Not to dwell on the “big government” issue, but that'd certainly be news to any number of people who still remember my own time as a county commissioner. Those might include leaders in the human services field questioned about duplication of services, supporters of the Museum and library then anxious to maintain county funding in a tight budget, and Republicans who served as Sheriff and County Assessor interested in expanding their staffs while I was in office. Also a former county GOP chairman and a legislator with an R after his name, both of whom suggested over the years that I ought to switch parties. And no small number of “liberal” Democrats who might have been happy had I done so.
So thanks to Craig for demonstrating two common techniques, answering a different question than the one posed and trying to assign a presumably unpopular label in order to denigrate the arguments of an opponent.
Another response came from Ken Wonstolen, former counsel for Colorado Oil and Gas Association and now an industry lawyer. Ken also provided the aforementioned industry-favored list of possible fluid components compiled by Chesapeake Energy, a marginally useful document that purports to list every ingredient used anywhere in connection with hydraulic fracturing. Still left unanswered is the question of what specific chemicals are being used at individual well sites and in what quantity.
“What is the next step?” Ken asked, “Government control/prohibition of selected frac constituents (a la Santa Fe County, NM)? Public hearings on every frac job?” Then came the part I really liked. “If so, we better start worrying about the Class 1 underground injection wells where we, as a society, dispose of really nasty stuff like PCB's.”
Thanks for making my argument for me, Ken. I'm told those kinds of wells are not exempted from the Underground Injection Control (UIC) programs of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the programs from which hydraulic fracturing is specifically excused.
Attempts were also made to shift the argument to well construction practices and regulations, to say that making certain well casings were properly installed would prevent any possible contamination. As if we haven't heard of any casing problems. The disproven “proprietary formula” argument resurfaced. And a letter to the Daily Sentinel pointed out that, if ”99.5 percent of it is basically oil and water,” a February article in the Christian Science Monitor outlined how the other one-half of one percent could be as much as 500,000 gallons of frac chemicals in an average well.
Implicit in these opposing responses and others is the assumption that anyone questioning fracturing processes is attempting to halt hydraulic fracturing or shut down exploration and development. That's certainly not something I've ever advocated and a look in my garage or at the systems in my 1980s-era home will offer some reasons why. It's entirely possible to relish and be thankful for the availability of oil and gas, their by-products, and the economic boost they provide and also think prudence in how those benefits are obtained is a virtue.
Despite all the storm and fury, the question of “Why Not Tell Us What's In It?” remains unanswered. As does the question about why one single process used by one industry is the only one exempted from provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The only way we'll get the answer we need is if federal legislation to remove the so-called “Halliburton exemption” is successful.
--------------------------------------
Jim Spehar will be writing on other topics next week but welcomes your comments on this one at jimspehar@bresnan.net.
