Category Archives: Federal policy

When will you feel safe from oil & gas in Larimer County?

The founding statement and mission of the Larimer Alliance (see here) as an organization has been to protect our environment and its citizens from the impacts that the oil and gas industry. However, this does not provide us with specific goals or metrics; but that has always been our ongoing focus of activities, ever since we started as an organization in summer 2018.

But this is a question I’ve really thought about, both personally and as a volunteer, as to how can I be more effective personally, and how the Larimer Alliance can be most effective as a platform. Through our presence on social media, testimonies at public meetings, and lobbying of our elected representatives, we have been hard at work on this over the time since then.

And our work has paid off! We were well positioned to take advantage of the election of the two new county commissioners, Kristin Stephens and Jody Shadduck-McNally, and now the commissioners have extended the moratorium on any new drilling permits for oil and gas wells in our county.

However, there are still 41 pending wells waiting to be approved which could be drilled here; see this screenshot from the COGCC website taken today:

Pending wells, Larimer Cty, April 30, 2021

Even with all of our actions, and with the apparent support of our commissioners, who also do not seem in favor any further drilling here, these oil and gas operators — Magpie Operating, Kerr-McGee and Prospect Energy — are still willing to drill.

Not only are these 41 wells a threat, there is an active, on-going campaign by a Dallas-based investment fund, King Operating Company, which has been aggressively promoting this even during the months of the Covid pandemic:

Larimer County Investment Fund, King Operating Company (click for link)

King Operating openly declares they would like to drill some 200 wells in the Wellington area, which would change that part of northern Larimer County forever. The drop in the price of and demand for oil during the pandemic has not deterred King Operating from pushing forward, nor has the passage of SB-181 in Colorado, nor has the passage of new oil and gas regulations.

So, I ask you, what do you think would make me feel safe from the outside,  and outsized, threat of large, even multi-national, oil and gas companies seeking to drill up Larimer County, like they have Weld County? What would make you feel safe?

The only thing that will make me feel safe is seeing that our fossil fuel based economy is moving towards alternative energy in a convincing way. When I see that most of our coal-based electric power plants have been removed, or slated for removal, because the majority of the grid is running on alternative energy. When I start seeing at least half of the vehicles on the streets are electric, and there are enough charging stations that no one has to worry about being unable to recharge their car on a trip. When I read in the news that the stock prices of companies like ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP and Texaco have plummeted to the level of junk stocks, because no one wants to invest in companies that have no future. And when companies that manufacture electric cars, wind turbines and solar panels are attracting the real investor dollars, because their markets are booming, and they have a solid business future.

That is when I will start to feel safe. But how is that going to happen? By changing the economics on which the oil and gas industry is based. And while that might sound like Mission Impossible to some:

click for link to the funky old TV series from the 60’s…

I can assure it is not that difficult, because this plan has been researched, studied to death, and lobbied for in the US Congress for over a decade. The plan is called a carbon tax; and the best carbon tax proposal that I have seen is the one from the Citizens Climate Lobby (CCL; see their website at

I would remind the reader that I have taught environmental economics at Front Range Community College since 2009, and have had carefully reviewed the various proposals for how fossil fuels are regulated, and the various proposals for supporting the transition to alternative energy.

The first thing to understand about the CCL bill (whose full name is The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act, H.R. 2307; see full details here: is that it is not just a tax on carbon, and also a dividend program.

In other words, all the money collected by the tax will be refunded to the American people (less the cost of administering the program). It is designed to be revenue neutral, and not increase the size of any other government programs. So, although this is called a tax, it is more properly referred to as a fee, since this will not raise any additional revenue for the government, which is the purpose of a tax.

The fee is based on the carbon content of the fuel in question, and is charged at the point where it enters the economy. In practical terms, this means the first wholesaler that sells a fossil fuel, before it has been processed or consumed. (See full analysis here: The carbon content would be established by the fuel classification, based on the CO2-equivalent of the fuel when burned or processed (this would be established in government labs, and applied uniformly). The tentative fee has been proposed at $15 per metric ton (which is quite low), but would ratchet up every year until GHG reduction levels have been met.

The CCL has been lobbying Congress for over 14 years about this, and have constantly refined how the program would work, based on their own research by hiring firms like Regional Economic Models, Inc (REMI) to study the effect of a revenue-neutral carbon price on the American economy. (see that report here) How the impact of rising carbon prices combined with the dividend has also been closely studied by the CCL consultants (see their Carbon Pricing Studies).

I would not expect most of our blog’s readers to want to delve deep into the weeds about this plan. What I would expect our readers to  like to know is when I would feel safe — because that might assure them when they could feel safe — which is the primary reason for my writing this post.

And, last but not least, I strongly suspect that a carbon tax would spell the death knell for any more outside oil and gas companies wanting to drill in Larimer County — something that no amount of local regulation could ever do.

So please let me assure you: if the US Congress can pass  the CCL version of a carbon tax/consumer dividend plan, that I would start to feel safe. And when the full impacts of a carbon tax start to work themselves out in the American economy, by hastening the disinvestment in fossil fuels, and hastening the investment in alternative energy and all its associated infrastructure — that’s when I will start to actually feel safe. Of course, that will take a few years…so, with that realization, you might appreciate what a long haul we are all in for in this transition from a fossil fuel based economy, to one that is based on energy — primarily electric — from alternative energy.

Finally, I would add that these are my personal opinions, and not those to the Larimer Alliance itself (though I would encourage their adoption of this position that I advocate).




O&G Threat to National forests

Public comment is being accepted until Nov. 2, 2020 regarding a proposed policy change that would expedite the process of granting drilling permits in our National Forests. This is important because it will potentially affect federally managed forests across the nation, including many in our own state, and yet a preliminary comment period, which took place a year ago, garnered only 91 comments. Below is a sample letter followed by instructions for how to access the government website that will give you more information about the proposed policy change and allow you to submit your own comment.

I live in Fort Collins, Colorado.  For more than a month, the air quality here has swayed back and forth between poor and dangerous.  My husband made a trip to the ER because of shortness of breath.  My daughter and son-in-law check air quality reports before taking their infant son out for a walk.  We are stuck inside our homes because we are stuck between two major sources of air pollution:  wildfires in forests to the west and ozone producing fracking operations to the east.  The proposed rule is likely to exacerbate both of these threats to the “public interest.”

The proposal states:

It is in the national interest to promote clean and safe development of our Nation’s vast energy resources while preserving the surface resources of national forests and grasslands.

This statement, if applied to oil and gas extraction, is an oxymoron.  Living in a region that has been intensively exploited by hydraulic fracturing, I am acutely aware of the fact that it is a process that is never “clean” and that is frequently dangerous and destructive.  Spills, leaks, unexpected releases of toxic emissions, fires and explosions are frequent occurrences even while industry representatives assure the public that they are applying extreme caution and best practices in all their operations.

A policy that attempts to subsume permits for drilling in National Forests under the more generalized process for BLM lands ignores the distinctive nature of forests.  In addition to providing recreation and habitat for wildlife, forests absorb carbon, regulate climate, and are critical for maintaining water resources.

We have wildfires to the west of us and to the north of us.  As of September 25th there were 1,500 wildfires currently active across the western united states.  There is a connection between these fires and oil and gas extraction—climate change.  The consequences of excessive reliance on fossil fuels are negatively impacting our lives today.  Continued dependence on oil and gas does not line up with increased “national security.” What we need are policies that protect our National Forests from the private exploitation that is robbing the general population of our most important national resources: clean air and clean water.

Once the fires are extinguished and air quality improves, we will then have to worry about our water supply.  The mountains, where many of these fires have been burning, is our watershed.  Denuded hillsides are susceptible to erosion.  The water never has a chance to sink into aquifers; it races away and leaves land that is already stressed by drought without the water we need to drink, to grow crops, to survive.

According to the proposed rule:

Section 2 of E.O. 13783 directs agencies to review existing regulations that potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources and appropriately suspend, revise, or rescind those that unduly burden the development of domestic energy resources beyond the degree necessary to protect the public interest or otherwise comply with the law.

The production and use of domestic energy resources has not been “unduly burdened.”  Quite the contrary.  This is an industry that has been coddled and that burdens the public by refusing to assume responsibility for the negative externalities it has imposed on society and the economy.  It is an industry that has burdened tax-payers with subsidies.  It has burdened the public with negative health impacts, with the pollution of our air and water, with abandoned infrastructure that will impose risks well into the future as pipes corrode and cement deteriorates, and above all it has burdened us all by tenaciously pushing forward its own private-profit-focused agenda even while knowing that this would lead to global climate change. 

Responsible governance for today and for the future will require renewed commitment to protecting  forests and other public lands.  There is little advantage to “streamlining” a process that leads to destruction and degradation of the land, air and water that sustain us all.  We are rapidly finding other ways of meeting the energy needs of the country, but clean air and water are non-negotiable and irreplaceable. 

I strongly urge that the proposed rule change be denied.


Electronically: Via the Federal eRulemaking Portal: In the Search box, enter 0596-AD33, which is the RIN for this proposed rulemaking. Then, in the Search panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the Proposed Rule link to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on “Comment Now!”

Mail: Send written comments to USDA-Forest Service. Attn: Director-MGM Staff, 1617 Cole Boulevard, Building 17, Lakewood, CO 80401.