<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> <meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"> <style></style> </head> <body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"> <div class="WordSection1"> I have had the opportunity to review the proposed regulations for oil and gas activities in the City of Boulder, currently scheduled for a second reading on December 14.  Although it is unlikely that oil and gas extraction will occur within our City limits, I believe that having a strong, defensible set of regulations to deal with that event is vitally important, as it appears that recent state legislation permits regulation of the industry, but not perpetual moratoriums to ban the activity. I therefore greatly appreciate the detail and thorough nature of the proposed standards and commend staff for grappling with such a complex subject in the manner that they have done. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I do, however, have a few questions that I hope can be addressed in connection with our second reading of the proposed ordinance. They are as follows:<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 1) First, have we received a legal opinion establishing that the new legislation permits regulation, but not an outright ban on oil and gas extraction within City limits? Is there no way, without invoking the taking clause, that oil and gas extraction can be banned?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 2) The proposed ordinance provides for a 2,000-foot setback from residential structures for single wells. Was this distance chosen only because other jurisdictions have done this, or is there a different rationale? Why not 2,500 feet? Or 3,000 feet? Are we entirely reliant upon the precedent established in other communities, or is there another basis for selecting 2,000 feet instead of a larger setback distance?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 2) Why does OSBT involvement occur only if the proposed site is within 1,500 feet of open space? Why not the same standards as for residential setbacks?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 3) Why do we permit oil and gas extraction in both agricultural and industrial zones? With respect to the former, is it merely because we have historically permitted mining operations on agricultural lands? I would suggest that this is a new ordinance, and an opportunity for new standards, if they are justifiable. The impact of oil and gas extraction activities on agricultural lands would seem to me to be more impactful than similar activities in industrial zones, but perhaps this is not the case. I also note that Erie restricts this activity to heavy industrial zones, indicating that a more restrictive policy might be possible.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 4) How substantial is our control over methane emissions? They are not even mentioned until page 77 (Section 12(D)(iv)), and it is not clear to me that we have placed adequate restrictions on methane emissions. I am the furthest thing from an expert in this field, but I would hope for some assurance that we have the capability to fully regulate methane emissions. On page 84 the operator is required to provide notice if there is an increase in methane in a water source. What are our remedies in the event of such notice?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 5) Seismic testing has an 800 foot radius restriction. What led to that specific distance?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 6) Section 13(AE) permits the imposition of financial guarantees, but does not specifically address the clean-up of abandoned wells. Is this dealt with in the Abandoned Wells Plan? In other states there are many wells that are simply abandoned when the operator declares bankruptcy, rendering previous promises to clean them up irrelevant without letters of credit, bonds or third party guarantees that can actually be relied upon. Will we have protections against this eventuality? Page 90 provides for financial guarantees “in form satisfactory to the city?” What about in amounts satisfactory to the city? How substantial are the guarantees/letters of credit that may be imposed? Will they cover both the direct costs of decommissioning wells as well as any indirect environmental damage?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 7) As other jurisdictions – such as Boulder County – have not provided the opportunity to apply for a variance if standards cannot be met, why do we? It would seem to me that providing for a variance procedure is an invitation to litigation. Again, we may never face this prospect, as the likelihood of an attempt to receive a permit to commence oil and gas extraction in the City of Boulder is small, but on the theory that one never knows, it might make more sense to set out a set of firm standards without providing for variances from that standard.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 8) In the event a permit is issued it will provide for 10 years of operation before reapplication is required. That is a very extended period without any interim review. Is such a long permit period required?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 9) As discussed in the staff memo, the reverse setback of 500 feet from an operating well seems quite small. Why was this distance selected, and what is the basis for doing so?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Once again, I want to thank staff for providing such a detailed set of regulations on this important matter. Despite the questions I have asked, this was good work, which I want to recognize, and to thank staff for pulling this together. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> </div> </body> </html>