Author: Hope-Elena Sardella, ENV 322
As it stands the citizens of Colorado state are rising against the forces of Big Oil, who are eager to extract the minerals abundant beneath Colorado soil. The natural resource of crude oil production has been notoriously problematic for the state over the past decade. Author Gross (2013) studied the effects of possible water contamination from oil production within the Colorado borders, when overviewing area of the highest concentrations of oil spills incidents in July of two-thousand-and ten and July of two thousand and eleven had seventy-seven separate reports of surface spills that had direct implications for surface and groundwater (pg. 1, para. 1). Additionally, the chemical Xylene (BTEX) was found to have “exceeded National Drinking Water maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) in 90, 30, 12, and 8% of the samples.” (Gross, S., 2013, pg. 1, para. 1). The prior evidence proves that the extraction of oil has proven to have a substantial impact on the population of Weld, in the state of Colorado.
The process in which humans currently extract crude oil, and mineral involves utilizing a process called fracking or also referred to as hydraulic fracturing is the method “where a well is drilled and then flooded with high-pressure water containing chemicals and sand” (Jones & Mayfield, 2016, ch.2, pg. 8). Additionally, safety violations run rampant in the oil industry that inevitably leads to environmental contamination. Following over 12 lethal pipeline explosions in residential areas in the state of Colorado, activist group Colorado Rising was established. On November 6, 2018, the citizens of Colorado voted in the gubernatorial primary state election on Proposition 112, whic outlines strict guidelines only permitting new drill sites to be 2,500 “feet from occupied buildings and other areas designated as vulnerable” (Balotpedia.com, 2018). The objective of Proposition 112 is to create adequate space between people and hazardous oil drilling sites. In this essay, the author will review, and dissect the notable Wall Street’s Journal’s article Colorado’s Fracking Fright Proposition 112 would prohibit almost all new oil and gas production (2018) .
In essence legal restrictions on oil drilling near and around restricted areas would have developed The hypothetical buffer zone called bans oil companies from drilling on 85% of all non-federal land across the state; thus, conclusively in the areas where oil is currently being drilled would have eliminated 94% of available non-federal land for drilling (The Wall Street Journal, 2018). Colorado would have faced millions of dollars in lawsuits from landowners and various oil companies for lost wages and income. For that reason, Colorado states runner-ups on the ballot for governor: Jared Polis (D), and Walker Stapleton (R), both opposed Prop. 112 (The Wall Street Journal, 2018, para. 5).
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), reported that now democratic governor Jared Polis stated that the controversial Prop. 112 “would all but ban fracking in Colorado—a position I have never supported,” additionally WSJ proceeds to rebuttal that Polsi position on the proposition with: “Score one for the reality check of having to face voters in a general election.” Polis took an opposing position to proposition 112 in an attempt to preserve his campaign for governor rather than the direct implications for doubling down on oil extraction (2018, para. 6). Furthermore, WSJ proceeds to point out that governor Jared Polis “financed campaigns for ballot initiatives to expand buffer zones and allow more local restrictions on energy production” (The Wall Street Journal, 2018). Although these are valid considerations into Polis’s political background, it does not serve as an appropriate means of determining what the implications of prop 112 would have resulted in. Experts have projected outcomes of the proposition could have led to significant social and economic disadvantages for the state of Colorado. It is expected that repercussions would ensue following the implementation of Prop 112 by systematically ending 147,800 jobs if the bill had been successful (The Wall Street Journal, 2018). The amount of jobs being eliminated is The main reason to rethink Proposition 112 and take it back to the drawing board, due to the main fact that human beings must being considered in the socioeconomic sense before making significant environmental changes; but not enough to forgo the whole concept of restricting precious land from ecological damage. With fear-mongering statements being made against environmental conservation efforts
such as;
“If this proposition passes in Colorado, the same de facto bans on energy production will migrate to other states,”;
only breeds a state of contention and misinformation among our populous.
In really hardworking people, organizations, and celebrities have dedicated their lives and fortunes to enlightening people on the real facts of climate science. The age of being less reliant on oil is glimmering in the United State’s future: if only the people will reach out and demand it. Landowners now have many sustainable options, such as leasing their land for solar power, or earning tax credits for reserving land .It is easy to forget that people have lost their lives on American soil due to relaxed ecological conservation laws, but it should be the last thing that should be forgotten. Unfortunately, The Wall Street Journal fails to mention a single person who’s lost their lives’ due to oil pipeline
explosions.
Ultimately the results of the election concluded that the people of Colorado were not in alliance with Prop 112 and ultimately was defeated (BallotPedia, 2018). Although, It is essential to keep in mind that Prop 112 was primarily a grassroots campaign which had only raised a mere 1,607,210.96 million dollars, and spending $1,187,929.75 million on the campaign in total (Balotpedia, 2018). Some would say Proposition 112 was set up for failure by the sheer amount of money spent on the campaign from the opposition. A variety of oil companies, energy organizations, and opposing committees banned together to raise over $31,701,695.40 million in campaign funding to fight against Prop 112, and spent a whopping 30,277,291.41 million dollars (Ballotpedia, 2018). The proceeding evidence shows the clear divide in finances to support Proposition 112, which are significant deciding factors when it comes to the success of any political campaign and or movement. For the everyday person 31,701,695.40 million dollars spent on a campaign, the would-be undoubtedly astonishing, but the exact amount of blood money spent on fighting Prop 112’s campaign was never even mentioned. Comparatively, the Editorial team at the WSJ goes as far as to call out the Prop. 112’s financial supporter Colorado Rising for donating 250,000, as well as calling Prop 112’s grassroots efforts as “false modesty” in this statement: “Colorado Rising claims this new effort was “started by local people and grassroots groups across the state.” That is false modesty. Spokeswoman Anne Lee Foster admitted that Food and Water Watch and 350.org, both national green groups, had given nearly $250,000 to the effort”. Although Proposition 112 had the potential to become a historical moment in environmental history, Colorado may not be ready to suffer the consequences of increased unemployment rates, multi-million dollar lawsuits, and lost income for the state as a whole. It is clear that for the state of Colorado to be successful in curbing oil production, the state must build a sustainable alternative fuel industry that can effectively replace the old system, while slowly transitioning into a new economy.
References
Ballotpedia. (n.d.). Colorado Proposition 112, Minimum Distance Requirements for New Oil,
Gas, and Fracking Projects Initiative (2018). Retrieved from
https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Proposition_112,Minimum_Distance_Requirements_f or_New_Oil,_Gas,_and_Fracking_Projects_Initiative(2018)
Gross, S. Analysis of BTEX groundwater concentrations from surface spills associated with
hydraulic fracturing operations. Retrieved from
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10962247.2012.759166
The Editorial Board. (2018, September 20). Opinion | Colorado’s Fracking Fright. Retrieved from
https://www.wsj.com/articles/colorados-fracking-fright-1537484959
Jones, C. S., & Mayfield, S. P. (2016). Our energy future: introduction to renewable energy and biofuels . Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.proxy-library.ashford.edu
Jones, C. S., & Mayfield, S. P. (2016). Our energy future: Introduction to renewable energy and
biofuels. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
By