Setback Initiative Backers Allege More Big Oil Dirty Tricks

We wrote last week about the unusual case of a signature gathering firm who proponents of Initiative 97, the controversial ballot initiative campaign to establish greater setbacks between oil and gas drilling and homes and schools throughout Colorado, alleged had absconded with thousands of petition signatures set to be turned in just a few days’ time. After a press conference blowing the whistle on that contractor’s behavior, those signatures were reportedly returned.

But as Westword’s Nora Alabi reported last night, the shenanigans against Initiative 97 didn’t stop there:

Just last week, the group publicly accused signature-gathering company Direct Action Partners of allegedly absconding with about 20,000 of its signatures, which were promptly returned after the incident made national headlines. Now Colorado Rising is struggling with another signature-gathering company on its campaign after an undisclosed pro-industry group allegedly paid one of the company’s subcontractors to immediately stop gathering signatures for the oil and gas setback petition known as Initiative 97. [Pols emphasis]

Colorado Rising disclosed a copy of a recording to Westword in which the group alleges that a “designated agent” for signature-gathering firm Petition Connection LLC admits to Colorado Rising representatives that a competitor paid him to stop working on Initiative 97. The agent couldn’t be reached for comment as of press time.

“Nobody threatened me,” the agent said on the recording. “You know what they’re doing. They’re going around and buying people.” [Pols emphasis]

When asked how much he was paid and if it was worth it, he admitted to Colorado Rising boardmember Lauren Petrie and the campaign’s volunteer community outreach director, Russell Mendell, that the payout “was enough” and that it “was worth it to me.” He said that since he didn’t have a contract with Colorado Rising — he was a subcontractor with Encore Political Services, which came in after Direct Action Partners abruptly left the campaign — that he felt more comfortable “washing his hands” of the campaign.

We’re not attorneys, but legalities of this situation are complex at first glance. In the slippery realm of shady petition gathering outfits and their many equally shady “subcontractors,” it’s entirely possible that a savvy operator could buy up capacity in order to cripple a petition effort without breaking any contractual obligation. Morally this is of course totally outrageous, but this is the oil and gas industry. At the end of the day, they’re not trying to win a popularity contest.

If this development shocks you in its audacity, that’s because it should. Unfortunately, the local political chattering class is heavily preoccupied with gamesmanship over statesmanship–especially where it concerns the all-powerful energy industry–and they’ll mostly admire this power play instead of criticize it. Initiative 97 is a sufficiently hot political potato with its potentially sweeping effects that even many Democrats critical of the industry will most likely be content to find another hill to die on.

Whatever becomes of Initiative 97, remember this happened. Because they’ll do it again.

1 Shares

53 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

    Accusing the Oily Boys of dirty tricks is like accusing a fish of breathing water.

     

    Hail Victory! Fuck the earth and its people!

                                  Sincerely, 

                                               COGA

     

                            

     

    • VoyageurVoyageur says:

      The freeze in the dark crowd tries to destroy an industry that provides thousands of jobs, including two in my family, root and branch. 

      The nihilists are then shocked, shocked, that their intended victims are fighting back.

      • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

        The "drill baby drill" crowd tries to destroy a planet that provides clean air and water for the survival of millions, including everyone I know.

        The greedheads are then shocked, shocked that their actual victims fight back.

        Seriously V., your industry killer accusations are absurd. Go ask Howard Boigin if I hate the industry. I came to its defense on more than one occasion when I participated in the drafting of the new rules.

        The industry is doomed, anyway, V. The market will make gasoline and diesel for liquid fuel expensive and obsolete. Coal is already on the way out.

        I just want them to be responsible in word and deed. They are not. Never have been. So…I fight.

         

        • Conserv. Head Banger says:

          Looking at the big picture for November, it would be nice to elect a pro-conservation governor, pro-conservation state senate, and retain a pro-conservation state house. I don't see 97 helping that process along.

          Rather, if it gets on the ballot, I see a flood of anonymous, dark, money flowing into Colorado and possibly trying also to tie pro-conservation candidates to 97. Polis is already being identified as a "job killer." There also is a TV ad "warning" people to be careful what they sign (the 97 petitions) and inferring 97 is extreme. Recall what happened to other recent initiatives that the electorate was convinced were extreme: personhood in '08, '10, 14; universal health care in '16. All lost by landslide margins. 

          In the case of 97, I believe there is a good chance that 97 would take down pro-conservation candidates with it.

          • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

            You are talking politics. It is about time Coloradans make a choice. They did in 2006.

            Passion did it then..it can do it again. The people of Colorado are telling the government that their personal and property rights ARE NOT subordinate to mineral rights. Colorado elected a Governor once who was not an industry toad…then Frackenlooper came along and undid everything we accomplished with the help of Gov. Ritter, Andrew Romanoff, and a Democratic legislature. We can get there again with Jared Polis as governor.

            As for the drilling rigs…

            Back them up! They are too close! 

          • VoyageurVoyageur says:

            that's exactly the problem CHB..   We can crush theStalinist initiative 97.  but the process of destroying a horrible plan isn't a surgical one.  it will energize conservatives and a lot of good people could go down with it.

        • VoyageurVoyageur says:

          this initiative would ban drilling on 85 percent of private land in Colorado.   that's not regulation, it's nihilism.  polis does not support it, probably because he fears it can wreck Democratic chances.   

          this would cost my brother in law and nephew their jobs.  They will fight for their families and their livelihoods.  I and most fair minded Coloradans will stand with them.

           

          • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

            V. Call David Ludlam and offer him your services as a speechwriter. You're good…CRED is always looking for young talent.😝

            • Conserv. Head Banger says:

              It’s not just “politics,” it’s possible reality. Actually, Duke, as written, 97 probably does violate personal property rights. What about surface owners who own their subsurface mineral rights? The 97 backers are targeting industry and don't seem to have a clue about non-industry people (I've read Colorado Rising's stuff).

              What if the owner’s residence is within 2,500′? Can the owner develop? This begins to sound like a state constitutional issue. Read Article II, Sections 14 & 15, regarding takings and compensation. If takings are proven to occur, who provides the compensation? Taxpayers?

              • PseudonymousPseudonymous says:

                If what you write about the 2500' setback were true, it would also hold for the current required setbacks, which almost certainly deny property owners the ability to extract resources they own.  I, in fact, could not legally access the subsurface resources I own under my 1/6 acre subdivision lot today (my estate is not split) because I couldn't put a rig more than a few feet from my neighbors' houses.

                The question of the point at which appropriate regulation becomes a regulatory taking is complex, and the balance has long weighed in favor of the government's public safety powers.  Also, even a taking is generally compensable through payment, not prohibited under law.

                • VoyageurVoyageur says:

                  Basically, Sudafed, those rules do apply.   but there is a huge difference between a 500 setback and a 2500 foot one — which puts 25 times as much land off limits,  or nearly  a square mile for a single dwelling.   this puts 85 percent of private land off limits.  yes, the fifth amendment applies, but taxpayers will be on the hook for billions.

            • VoyageurVoyageur says:

              I'M far from young, Duke, but if they'd meet my price, I'd proudly fight against this extremist power grab.

  2. MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

    I like my showers hot and my beer cold. Of course we can accomplish both of those things with renewable energy and the advent of really cheap storage.  

    But let’s talk about ‘energy’ for a minute (Nutters opinion that only energy extracted from below the surface is ‘energy’aside).  We have hundreds of gigawatts of wind and solar energy untapped across Colorado. My family’s farm, or even urban rooftops for that matter, are constrained from developing those resources through existing public policy. Granted, it’s the monopolies of Tri-State and Xcel that pick the winners and losers in that battle, but why should O&G be generally unrestrained in their activities while clean energy is not? Most counties have setbacks on wind turbines that are significant.

    The data on job creation per quad-equivalent is substantially higher.  The US solar industry alone already employs more people than the entirety of the coal and gas sector.  We already know how to make America great again:  by leading the world in the clean energy transition. 

    • VoyageurVoyageur says:

      obviously, wind, solar and nuclear have key roles to play.  but good luck with your solar power tractor, your wind powered SUV , heating your home w/o natural gas or propane without an electric bill in the stratosphere.   the sun don't shine at night,   wind is intermittent and jet planes don't run on cow chips.  The Stalinist fallacy is that we can destroy the oil and gas industry tomorrow morning, 8 a.m. and get by with gerbils in a cage.

      we can't.   and good luck telling my nephew and brother in law to quit their well paid energy jobs and earn $15 an hour screwing in solar panels.

       

      • Conserv. Head Banger says:

        V.G.: one of the fastest growing jobs in the country today is wind turbine technician. And it pays better than $15 per hour; far better. While we're on the topic of jobs, how many of those well paying O & G jobs have come back since the big energy bust of 2014-15?

        Nuclear could have a role. But marginal at best. Mine tailings are toxic and then there is the waste disposal issue.

        • VoyageurVoyageur says:

          On the other hand, the Stalinists offer nothing at all as research.  Face it– they want to destroy the oil and gas industry.  That is why they are increasing the prohibited area 25 fold for each dwelling.  That 's because the area goes from 500 feet to 2500 feet in all directions.  The area rule is pi times diameter squared.  An increase in the distance of 5 fold makes a 25 fold increase in area 5 squared.  Sudafed's little 1/6th acre lot now controls almost a square mile!

          Hey, if you want another pounding like you got with the efffort to triple state taxes on health care, bring it on.  An industry fighting for it's very survival can easily raise $20 to 50 million.  So, we can and will crush the freeze in the dark crowd.  But don't think the damage e nds there.  Democrats like Polis who don't support this monster will lose support from the uberleft while all Republicans will unite against it.  

          the hopes of picking up Congressional seats in districts like Tipton's and Buck's, where a lot of jobs are at stake, will vanish.  And the massive mobilization against 97, by maximizing conservative turnout, may cost Democrats the Senate again.

          And you will almost certainly see your tax increase initiative crushed.

          think twice before signing on to this uberleft wet dream.  You will lose the issue and a lot more besides.

          • MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

            I'm not anti-gas (it has been a great enabler in moving us from coal to renewables). The problem we're having on this thread is the same one we have with almost every other issue: the inability to discuss the pros and cons without throwing someone into an uber-left or uber-right camp.  We don't need the LEED-type reports over-hyping it's economic impact.  All of these jobs are important to the economy and in our (now) diverse economy, they aren't the lone, big dog they used to be.  The question is whether the industry contributes equitably to local and state treasuries on par with its impact on both the environment and its neighbors.  Folks like Duke and Pete have had to endure operations and antics that don't exist in places like Yuma County.  So many of these issues are local.  On the West Slope we (as a state driven by tourist dollars) should be mindful of what's left in the wake of extraction. Again, those are very different issues whether we're talking about the beauty of the west slope or the open prairie in Philips/Yuma County.  

            I was a spokesman for Governor Ritter on the 2008 Amendment 58 campaign.  From personal experience I know all too well how the industry responds when they think they're being attacked.  It wasn't pretty.   There are real impacts, both positively and negatively, from their operations.  The industry only likes to talk about the positives as if they exist in an insular bubble, outside of the negative externalities, just like the coal industry used to do when they claimed they were the cheapest source of energy in their day.   You've probably seen on more than once occasion my posts about the negative effects of ozone on corn and wheat yields.  Those are real costs, not captured anywhere by that wonderful (fingerless) hand of Adam Smith. 

            Per the Torched and Burned report embedded above, the natural gas reserves are not only an asset of the mineral-holder, but the state of Colorado who has an obligation to fund government.  Why do we give one of the state's most profitable industries a pass (a true conservative would likely agree) when our northern and southern neighbors offer no apologizes for a more appropriate extraction fee/tax?  

            O&G also had benefits like exclusive use of Master Limited Partnerships, a tax vehicle to allow easy entrance and exits by investors that clean energy was precluded from using under the code. (that's a federal issue, not a state one and Trumps tax bill put a bit of a damper on that investment vehicle now).

            I'd be thrilled if we could have a grown-up discussion about all of these challenges and opportunities for energy for Colorado as an energy producer/exporter.  I have a hunch we'll have such opportunities with Governor Polis. 

             

        • VoyageurVoyageur says:

          So chb, you want my nephew and brother in law to throw away 20 and 30 years experience and the highly paid jobs they have with Anadarko to try out as an apprentice wind mechanic at half the salary?   You sure you''re a Conservative?  Or are you just Zappatero messing with me?

      • MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

        I’m not trying to destroy the natural gas industry (technology and lower-cost wind and solar are already doing that), just pointing out that it is a fallacy that we can’t live without natural gas for heat or electricity. Our options grow every day. Agreed, this transition isn’t going to happen overnight, but it will happen. Just ten short years ago the coal industry lectured us daily we couldn’t suooort our grid without their fuel. 

        John Deere already has a prototype electric tractor but the diesel version will be around for long time. Let’s turn your relatives into hemp farmers and move them back to Philips County – then everyone wins! 😎

  3. mamajama55mamajama55 says:

    The 2500' setback is not a ban on oil production, and the oil and gas industry's proclamation that 85 – 90% of non-Federal land would be out of bounds for O&G exploration is highly suspect.  It relies on a  study by the same Leeds business school team that has lied their asses off before about how many jobs would inevitably be lost by a "fracking ban" (which no one was proposing at the time).

    The research base of this study is all 2014 and 2015 Colorado Oil and Gas Association "research", which, again, was suspect. Page 27 of the report, for example, cites 54,000  of all Colorado jobs would decline in the first five years of the 2500' setback policy, but does not state how these figures were derived. The study attempts to correlate job loss with policy, but does not really connect the dots, instead just stating that the policy will cost hundreds of thousands of jobs and take out 90% of oil and gas production.

    Why are they assuming that that 54,000 (~ 11,000 people /year) cannot be retrained or voluntarily migrate to other industries? Colorado's wind industries pay $20-30 /hour for skilled technicians, and, with solar, are the fastest growing industries in Colorado. Colorado's solar installer wages are indeed low compared to other states- but that could change if our low unemployment rate continues.

    It's not a fracking ban – but it would make it more expensive to drill

    Anadarko, Extraction, Noble Energy, etc, could still drill and extract oil and gas under a 2500′ setback rule- however, it would be more expensive initially. They'd have to drill horizontally and to cap methane emissions. All of that would cut down on profits, but there is room for that in this highly profitable industry.

    Horizontal drilling has been used to great effect in Canada, Texas, and the Middle East, with horizontal lengths of up to 4800'. This would add to the cost of the well initially – however, apparently these wells are also much more efficient at extraction. From the "Horizontal Highlights" technical paper from a 94 industry conference:

    Fig. 1.8: GOING DOWN: The cost of horizontal wells usually decreases rapidly through time. In this example, from Nimr Field in Oman, horizontal wells initially cost almost twice as much as the same length of vertical well. However, as the field developed the cost of horizontal drilling fell to only a third more expensive than a comparable vertical well. Modified from M. Kharusi, PDO, 1991 Archie Conference, Houston, Texas, USA.

    Dubious research

    The CU Leeds Study is being taken as gospel, and its talking points regurgitated throughout the media in Colorado.  So everyone is saying "Hundreds of thousands of jobs lost, 90% of land unavailable for oil and gas production". The CU study has not proved any of these things. It relies on industry-sponsored research which was paid for by the oil and gas industry. It attempts to scare people into supporting an industry which hurts public health, thus outweighing any positive economic impact.

     

    • VoyageurVoyageur says:

      What's dubious, m.j., is your assumption that slant drilling reaches the verboten sites.  Remember, EACH and every dwelling puts almost a square mile off limits.  In most cases, drill sites more than 2500 feet from dwelling A are within 2500 feet of dwelling b.  Go another mile down the road to another site and, voila, you' are within 2500 feet of dwelling c.   This is not accidental.  The whole purpose of this misleading law is to prohibit as much development as possible.

      That's why 85 to 90 percent of private land is off limits.

      • mamajama55mamajama55 says:

        Hmmm. Perhaps vertical drilling in high density residential areas should be prohibited.  What a concept. The citizens of Lafayette, Broomfield, Greeley, Firestone, and many other embattled communities would agree.

        Although no gubernatorial candidate endorsed the 2500' setback, every gov candidate affirmed the principle of the Martinez decision – that public health supersedes private profit in the oil and gas industry. Including your beloved Cary Kennedy. Jared Polis will sign it  – thus denying a drilling permit to any operator that cannot demonstrate that they have taken reasonable, statutory precautions to protect public health.

        When Martinez is translated into reality, then some kind of setbacks and restrictions on the industry are inevitable. People working in  O&G now must adapt (horizontal drilling, methane emissions limits, mapping abandoned pipelines and informing owners, working in "compliance")…or find another field of work.

        It's not an attack on your relative's livelihoods, as much as it is an acknowledgement of reality.

        • VoyageurVoyageur says:

          You call one dwelling per square mile high density?  

          You call 85 per cent of Colorado's private land high density?

          There are, of course, health and safety rules in place already and, yes, they may be refined.  But it's your funeral.

          You want to back this ultra extreme Luddite plan go to it.

          We'll crush you like we crushed the triple your taxes for health care plan.

          But don't come whining to me when the backlash crushes a lot of lefty initiatives , tax increases and candidates in the process.

          Polis tried to warn you, I tried to warn you.  But the hope of inflicting pain on the thousands of decent, hard-working people in the energy industry was too much for the left to resist.

          And you were shocked, shocked, when the victims fought back.

          Honestly, tell me do you really think one dwelling per square mile is high density

          I need a good laugh!

    • Genghis says:

      A couple in my area who are heavily involved in the setback effort opened their home last night to people who wanted to sign petitions. I availed myself of their generosity, along with my wife and a couple of our buddies.

      The couple told us something rather entertaining about the whole ban business. Turns out there's a not-inconsiderable number of people who weren't much interested in a setback initiative. When the O&G industry propaganda dipshits started calling the initiative a "ban," the previously uninterested folks got very interested indeed and couldn't wait to sign petitions. Way to go, O&G industry propaganda dipshits!

      We also found out that there have been multiple incidents involving O&G thugs showing up at public petition signing locations and engaging in intimidation tactic. Classy.

  4. JohnInDenverJohnInDenver says:

    Why doesn't the initiative merely specify that O&G industry must gain permission of those within 2500 feet? That would mean those who want to drill and diminish the property values of those around them (or ruin their health, or whatever other problems may be caused) would simply have to work out a "free market" approach to those who object.

    Aren't we told by libertarians that private contracts are the way to go? Don't Republicans want to allow private property rights to flourish?

    • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

      I once suggested, at a meeting with Encana executives, that the industry set aside 1% of their profits to pay impacted landowners. This would help to turn an army of opponents into a supportive group of partners.

      The CFO of Encana told me that was the least likely of our suggestions to ever be accepted…for one reason. Precedent.

      No company wants to be the ones to open that Pandoras' Box. The "Free Market" approach would cost them a percent or two off their bottom line. Ain't gonna happen.

      Manipulating elections and buying legislators is much more cost efficient.

      • Conserv. Head Banger says:

        VG: you seem to be taking all comers, with name calling included, in a near rabid defense of the O & G industry. Chill out dude–enjoy a nice glass of breakfast wine or two. After all, it's already past happy hour in Sydney.

        I've already opined that 97 is a precarious idea considering the bigger issues at stake in November; namely electing pro-conservation candidates.

        Duke: one guy from one company at a meeting of unknown date does not constitute a majority opinion.

        • VoyageurVoyageur says:

          Also, his notion that one per cent of profits is a huge sum is ridiculous.  Even if gross pretax profit were at 10 percent, one  per cent of ten per cent is a nugatory sum.

          And yes, a 25 fold increase in each setback is an extremist position.  On a lefty board like this, it's a popular one.  Out in the real world, where my family lives, it will be crushed.  And the backlash won't stop with defeating pro conservation candidates.

          • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

            Your world is no more real than mine, V. I have lived in the gas patch for years. I live among the people and plants and animals who get shoved out of the way and poisoned for their trouble.

            You know how much the industry will compensate you when a faulty valve kills your goat herd? Nada. Zilch. Want to sue them? Good luck. 

            I worked in the industry…then I fought it. I know the truth. Perhaps you might reconsider your certitude. There is another reality than the one you know.

          • JohnInDenverJohnInDenver says:

            I thought I knew what "nugatory" meant.

            US Dept of Interior says "In 2016, extractive industries accounted for $10,321,000,000 or 3.2% of Colorado’s GDP." For the sake of argument, say the number of jobs roughly approximates the share of revenue among these industries — about 20000 O&G jobs, about 5000 for minerals, coal, and other energy sectors, or 4 to 1.  Say profits are 10% (Forbes says a lowered price means profits of 10-15%). That would suggest profits of about $825 million, and 1% turns into an $8 million dollar offset fund.

            As I understand it, the initiative is concerned with NEW drilling, not that already in place. In May of this year, Baker Hughes said "Among the major oil and gas-producing states, Texas bound past the rest with a gain of 9 units to hit 534 rigs running. Oklahoma, Colorado, and Alaska each had a 2-unit gain to reach 140, 31, and 9 units, respectively."

            $8 million divided by those 31 rigs is $266,348 per rig. Seems like that could ameliorate SOME hurt feelings and actual damages if it were spent wisely.

            • MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

              7 fast-growing industries that are defining Colorado's economy (energy is #6) 

              With the lowest unemployment rate in the country and a booming real estate market, Colorado’s blazing economy shows no sign of slowing down. (thanks predominantly to a state legislature dominated by progressives)

            • VoyageurVoyageur says:

              You are taxing every existing operation to subsidize 31 new ones.  How about taxing a million homes $5,000 each to subsidize 100 new "affordable " home s? 

              of more consequence, what happens when the slump here ends and drilling rises above it's current "nugatory" levels?

              There have definitely been years when the industry has suffered a net loss and you'd be disbursing 1 percent of nothing.

              • JohnInDenverJohnInDenver says:

                Well, if it is a choice of having oil & gas firms put together a fund (which I don't THINK is a tax – agricultural "promotion funds" for things like potatoes and beef aren't) in order to have money to spread around and mitigate harms to other people's private property or their enjoyment of property;

                OR

                an absolute set-back requirement of 2500 feet  —

                I know which one I'd prefer.

                And $5 billion (1 million times $5,000) would probably build a heck of a lot more than 100 affordable houses.

                 

                • VoyageurVoyageur says:

                  John, you are taxing the entire industry to take care of a few newcomers.  Why would that alleviate the hostility of the existing landowners toward the wells near their land?  Then, you assumed that the taxes will be spent on just 29 units.

                  Hell, if we only drilled 29 wells a year, there wouldn't be much controversy.   If that number was right, it just shows how badly overbuilt the industry was when the bust hit.  But when we're booming again and adding thousands of new wells, your tax won't go very far.

                  And of course it has to be a tax.  The Duke/JID plan wants every producer in the state , even wells producing for 20 years, to buy off 29 soreheads/ blackmailers.  Of course that won't be done.  Only the power of government can force that dumb an idea through.

                  By the way, those wheat / meat grower promotion funds are indeed taxes.  They have to be authorized by a referendum of us growers.  (I am a wheat farmer. ). Once authorized, they aren't voluntary.

                  You are of course right that I should have said $50, not $5,000, if I want to tax a million existing homes to subsidize 100 "affordable" half million dollar homes to 100 lucky and politically connected people.  

                  would you pay you r $50?  I sure as hell won 't

                  plans like Duke's and yours only work if they make growth pay for itsel f.  These don't even pretend to.

        • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

          I guess the Chairman of the Board of COGA is slighty more significant than some guy at a meeting. Your irrelevant, back door insult is unwarranted. If you want to check my bona fides, feel free.

          The O&G industry isn't interested in free market solutions to anything. I am not guessing. If you would like to reveal who you are, you might gain a bit of credibility. My background in oil and gas policy is well documented. Is yours?

          • Conserv. Head Banger says:

            If you meant the board chair of COGA, why didn't you say so? Yes, Duke, you apparently have a lot of background in oil & gas policy. So much that you can't get industry people to listen to you. Maybe it's your approach? Your 'tude?

            Humbly sorry for being late in response to your latest diatribe. I was out actually having fun, camping & climbing a 14er, instead of reading stuff on this web site. 

            • VoyageurVoyageur says:

              What's the big deal about climbing a 14er?  I once climbed a hill than was 20 feet high!

              Seriously, more power to you.  Rage against the dying of the light and all that good stuff!

            • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

              I have talked with oil and gas industry representatives and their hired guns of every stripe for years. No…they don't listen to me. Once they realized that they couldn't lie to me and I couldn't be bought, I became the enemy. Tresi Houpt and I used to joke with each other about who the industry hated more.

              Only an uneducated fool believes that fossil fuel production can or will be stopped anytime soon. It will persist…but it must change its nature. It is the most invasive industry on earth and has been devastating lives and property since its inception, continuing to fight to hang on to practices that sometimes border on criminal.

              V.s' hyperbole notwithstanding, I don't hate the Oily boys. But I resent the callous treatment of everyone else by its leaders and policy makers. Injustice is an operating principle for these companies because of laws that were made in the 19th century.

              It is no longer necessary to park your poisonous operation adjacent to human habitation…it is just profitable.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.