COGCC Frack Fluid Chemical Disclosure Rulemaking 2011 - Online Comments

59

Name: Peggy Tibbetts Date: 11/09/2011 - 10:01AM,	The trade secrets exemption makes these rules useless. Also where is the verification? The operators will just be allowed to file a chemical report, and no one will ever verify whether the reports are accurate. Government continues to allow the operators to monitor and regulate themselves with little to no oversight or penalties. These disclosure rules are another wink and nod to industry.
Name: Fiona Lloyd Date: 11/09/2011 - 11:09AM,	Close the Trade Secrets Loophole by requiring full public disclosure of all chemicals. Classes of chemicals are not specific enough to test for, leaving cases of contamination unable to be linked to Oil and Gas drilling. Which suggests that either that's the point of the exercise or you don't care about Public health, welfare and safety. Require disclosure of all chemicals used at all stages of the exploration, development and extraction processes. Hire more inspectors to enforce any regulation.
Name: terry sloan Date: 11/12/2011 - 2:11PM,	please submit all the chemicals identities that are secret trade. the public has a right to see it all.there are other measures in case another company tries to duplicate. it makes complete sense to pass this rule! thank you for your complete consideration.
Name: Thomas Wills Date: 11/14/2011 - 2:58PM,	I fully agree with the comments posted so far. Releasing a public list of separate chemicals used on the pad and downhole does not endanger trade secrets. Only specific percentages and recipes might. I would think given the current scrutiny of the industry that drilling companies will probably compete upon whose formula is the most benign. The list is crucial for independent baseline water testing before drilling begins. Granting the exemption for trade secrets has proven to be gutting the similar disclosure regulation in Wyoming and it will here as well.
Name: Bill Hoblitzell Date: 11/15/2011 - 4:54PM,	Please require FULL DISCLOSURE with due haste. For quite some time now gas companies have hidden behind the flimsy defense that fluid contents are a propriety trade secret and use the analogy of the secret formula used for Coca Cola. When companies such as Halliburton or Encana, or their third-party lobbying groups, liken a mixture of hazardous chemicals including known carcinogens to a flavor recipe in a food product designed specifically for human consumption, it is disingenuous at best, malicious at worst. By not requiring this, the State continues to be complicit in allowing gas industry parties to evade the liability and compensation that would inevitably be due to any party that can prove water contamination. By institutionalizing the system in which specific contaminants cannot be linked to specific drillers, Colorado may buy some industry friends, some tax revenues, and drilling jobs in the short term. However in the long term, COGCC will merely erode the public trust and abdicate its moral responsibility to the people that, in theory, they exist to serve. Require full disclosure now. Ensure all inspections and investigations are third party, not by industry our drilling companies. Pay for inspectors with a production surcharge. Yes, gas drillers are vital economic drivers in the state, but please COGCC, have some backbone and be a leader to the nation in regulating the gas industry.
Name: Jack Barron Date: 11/15/2011 - 5:04PM,	I fully support the transparency the proposed public disclosure of chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing will provide. Poeple need to know that these are nasty chemicals, and I don't care who says otherwise, that end up in our drinking water aquifers. The evidence is out there for anyone to see, and I do not care to have water coming out of my faucet that will burn.
Name: Rebecca Morgan Date: 11/15/2011 - 8:15PM,	The public needs accountability from the natural gas industry. (1) exemptions from disclosure can't be automatic, (2) exemption requests must be reviewed by the COGCC or another state agency, and (3) affected citizens must have a direct means of appealing trade secret exemptions. These precautionary details in fracturing are vital.
Name: Maureen Date: 11/15/2011 - 8:18PM,	Please include full disclosure of all fracking fluids in the proposed rulemaking procedure by Governor Hickenlooper. Please also eliminate any trade secret loopholes. The citizens and residents of Colorado deserve better than what is proposed. Maureen Hall Crested Butte, CO 81224
Name: BILLY RANKIN Date: 11/15/2011 - 9:05PM,	Please require complete disclosure of the chemicals of fracking fluids to provide more accountability from the natural gas industry. There should be NO Exemptions from disclosure! At very least, exemptions can't be automatic and requests must be reviewed by the COGCC or another state agency, and affected citizens must have a direct means of appealing trade secret exemptions. Please take these comments to heart as I do not feel they are asking too much and will not negatively effect the oil and gas industry Thank You
Name: Mary Harte Date: 11/16/2011 - 3:33AM,	Under the rule as currently proposed, companies can claim trade secrets without providing a reason, without signed certification, without facing a review of their claim by the COGCC or any state agency, and without any substantial threat that anyone can challenge the claim. Fix the proposal so that (1) exemptions from disclosure can't be automatic, (2) exemption requests must be reviewed by the COGCC or another state agency, and (3) affected citizens must have a direct means of appealing trade secret exemptions.
Name: scott eaton Date: 11/16/2011 - 6:17AM,	The Trade Secrets exemption effectively creates a rule without teeth. At a minimum, there should be some independently verifiable basis for determining what is or what is not a trade secret. Fracking has the potential to cause irreparable damage to the water supply and as such should be subject to stringent regulation. This particular set of rules seems to be left wanting.
Name: Jackson Melnick Date: 11/16/2011 - 7:18AM,	I am a 17 year old high school student living in Crested Butte, Gunnison County, Colorado. Gunnison County has a number of prospective hydraulic fracturing sites (herein referred to as fracking). As a young person, soon to be of voting age, I am inheriting an America that is dying largely because it lacks transparency. The proprietors of fracking operations in the State of Colorado have a responsibility to the citizens of the State to fully disclose what they are injecting into the earth. As a student in a public education system, I have experienced education as fundamentally relying on transparency. How can the populous be expected to make informed decisions if they don’t have the opportunity to get full information? Our ability to operate as a democratic-republic in the State of Colorado is being hindered by our inability to know what fracking exactly involves. As a soon to be voter, I feel I will not be participating in a sound government as long as nontransparent practices like fracking are occurring. A step in returning to transparency would be the State demanding full disclosure of all chemicals used at all stages of the fracking process, which would include disclosure of all "trade secrets". I implore the State to begin renewing Colorado and the Country by legislating that these veils and houses of mirrors will no longer stand.
Name: Margaret Levy Date: 11/16/2011 - 9:00AM,	I am disappointed about the loophole in the proposed rules allowing automatic exemptions to disclosure requirements if a company claims trade secrets apply to their fluids. Please alter the rules to require independent review of such claims to ensure their validity and also allow affected citizens to appeal these exemptions. If this loophole is not closed, companies will simply claim trade secret exemptions, destroying any possibility of a transparent process which would protect public health and safety. Thank you for your consideration.
Name: Phillip Supino Date: 11/16/2011 - 9:24AM,	To Whom It May Concern: I strongly believe that the oil and gas industry should be forced to disclose the contents of their hydraulic fracturing fluid and any other practices related to the extraction of oil and or natural gas in the State of Colorado. Hydraulic fracturing has to potential to have serious public health and environmental impacts to humans, plants and animals, and it should be closely monitored and heavily regulated to ensure that best practices are used throughout the State. In addition, the permitting process should include substantial protections in the form of environmental impact assessments and strict best practice enforcement. Sincerely, Phillip Supino Denver, CO
Name: Tom Jensen Date: 11/16/2011 - 9:26AM,	Extractive industries for the most part do that - extract. "Fracking" both extracts, but also injects - what it injects should be public knowledge in that the water (and surroundings) affected by this porcess affect everything and everbody in the region of the damamged water table. There is NO reasonable justification in keeping the public and government regulators in the dark as to what is being injected into our surroundings. None! The water table does not know about property lines, or political boundaries. Although the industry is spending large amounts of lobbying money to convince the public that the process is safe, there is a large volume of incidents to the contrary. Do not buy the psudo-science - demand that industry tell the WHOLE truth - for a change - and reveal ALL injected components - assuming that fracking should be authorized in the first place ( a different arguement).
Name: Liberty Godshall Date: 11/16/2011 - 10:11AM,	As a citizen of this country I request disclosure on anything that is being put into the ground that has the potential to harm our water supply. This is common sense. No one shold be exempted from this - and exemptions should not be automatic, they should be reveiewed by the COGCC or another state agency. All citizesn should have a direct means of appealing trade secret exemptions. This is fair, logical and should be law. I thank you very much for taking the time to read this.
Name: Kristen Lawrynk Date: 11/16/2011 - 12:00PM,	I support full disclosure of fracking fluids, and demand that the egregious trade secret loophole be closed. We need to protect human lives, the lives of wildlife, and our environment. This includes the lives of these individuals proposing the drilling!!!
Name: Bonnie Inouye Date: 11/16/2011 - 8:21PM,	Citizens and landowners and neighbors need to know what chemicals are being used. Exemptions from disclosure make it too hard for residents to test for hazardous chemical residue. Automatic exemptions from disclosure just do not make sense. Exemption requests should be reviewed by the COGCC or another state agency. If an exemption is granted for any reason, citizens in the area need to have a direct way to appeal trade secret exemptions. My husband and I own land and homes in Gunnison and Delta counties. We get drinking water from a well. This is important to us! Bonnie Inouye
Name: Michele Simpson Date: 11/16/2011 - 9:45PM,	I support full public disclosure of chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing (fracking) of oil and gas wells. I demand that the egregious trade secret loophole in the current proposed rule be closed, as well as: (1) exemptions from disclosure can't be automatic, (2) exemption requests must be reviewed by the COGCC or another state agency, and (3) affected citizens must have a direct means of appealing trade secret exemptions. Hydraulic fracturing is an invasive, poisonous, and deadly process to the environment and all living beings. The state of Colorado would be better stewards of our land and representatives of our people by pursuing non-poisonous wind, solar, hydro and geo thermal energy options. Why wait until all of our natural resources are depleted, invest the time, money and resources in renewable sources of clean energy. Do NOT poison our land, water, air, soil, food, animals and people.
Name: Bob Arrington Date: 11/17/2011 - 4:24PM,	From: Bob Arrington, P.E. Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 To: DNR OGCC Subject: Colorado Fracking Rule The Rules and changes proposed by staff are currently incomplete, lack comprehensiveness and definition, incorporate ineffective procedure, and are too narrow to address the related problems. The exceptions have negated any meaningful rules. • These rules have the purpose of disclosing chemicals and their use and providing that information to both the general public and responders to emergency and/or health issues. By including recognition of “trade secrets” and procedures to protect that information, responders have written crippling protocols, if put in place, can prevent timely and effective action. The general public will have had vital knowledge withheld that can jeopardize their health, safety, and well being both short and long term. This is in violation of the legal and ethical codes that provide for the existence of the COGCC as a regulatory agency. • The Coca-Cola argument has beenused to justify trade secrets; however, this same argument tries to deny that disclosure of ingredients is necessary. Coca-Cola complies with law by listing ingredients, but keeps secret their method of blending, proportions, sequences, and timing of arriving at their desired product. If a member of the public has a health problem with an ingredient, they can avoid using the product. The public and responders have no choice in this situation; they will be exposed in some manner. • Fracking involves an overall consideration. The chemicals are stored, transported, loaded into equipment, used in the ground, recovered as a percentage amount used, stored in recovery, and re-handled in disposal that involves such steps as evaporation, mechanical treatments, sewage disposal, re-injection into the ground, etc. All of these operations can introduce the chemicals into the ambient air, water, surface ground and underground. This makes the issue of complete disclosure paramount. Manufacturers and users have an option of patents and/or secret procedures of formulation; they do not have a privilege of ingredient secrecy if putting their product in the public and environmental arena. They know that when this knowledge becomes public, they assume greater responsibility and liability. But there is no obligation of a regulatory agency to shield them from a necessary cost of doing business. Addressing the last bullet point, I offer the following additional considerations for rules: 1. Diesel must be banned by rule from fracking formulation or use in downhole. Agreements have been shown to be violated, it is time for rule. 2. Disclosures should be complete to chemicals used as ingredients in all their common and technical nomenclatures. COGCC should maintain the database of such with support fees from industry to share cost. 3. All operational, transport and handling examined to locate fugitive routes for the chemicals that can cause health, safety or well-being problems for flora or fauna or their use in food/drink use. State Health should acquire any missing health, both short term and long term, information if not available. 4. Special rules if fracking occurs in, denser population, towns, watersheds/aquifers, food producing areas, or protected lands. 5. Increase requirements for implementation of protective operating practices, such as, alternate chemical free fracking fluids, top to bottom cementing of drill holes, drill route seismic analysis with 3rd party oversight, more comprehensive use of directional drilling and higher liability bonding. Joint responsibility on contracted work for damages. 6. Negative pressure storage of flowback fluids with vapor containment and proper disposal of vapors, with product recovery preferred, and without fugitive release. Flaring should be discouraged, however if used, must be taken to 99% efficiency. Infrastructure must keep up with development, such that gas products are not wasted in flaring and discharge loads of fugitive products reduced. 7. Rules need to be made to reduce fugitive product loss. Energy product waste does not equal energy independence from foreign supply. 8. Exploration involving fracking will be subject to regulation and, if not turned into production, down holes will be thoroughly and properly plugged top to bottom. The process of rulemakings presented to date are inadequate and staff has evidently not been instructed to necessary scope and has chosen outcome goals woefully short. This may be due to many reasons, but part of the public input process is to address these concerns. Tightened regulations are the result of inadequate initial addressing of problems; it is, however, an opportunity to address shortcomings. Each State can not wait for another to do what is necessary and wait for the federal authority to take the lead. This is the process that leads to diminution of state self-determination. It is not regulations that determine viability of mineral harvesting, it is the market prices; but, it is regulation that formats conservation and responsible development. The latter two have been lacking. Thank you for your time, Bob Arrington, P.E. 60 Willow Creek Ct. Battlement Mesa, CO 81635 970-285-9757 baar@rof.net
Name: Adrienne Fuller Date: 11/17/2011 - 5:26PM,	? PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT IS IN FRACK FLUIDS ? RULE 250A'S TRADE SECRETS LOOPHOLE MOCKS THIS RIGHT ? THE COGCC CAN ADOPT A RULE THAT MATTERS OR THEY CAN ADOPT THIS ? PLEASE TAKE DISCLOSURE SERIOUSLY ? PLEASE DO NOT ADOPT RULE 205A AS WRITTEN
Name: Mike Date: 11/17/2011 - 5:44PM,	Please, Please, Please adopt an effective law for disclosure, monitoring and regulating of hydraulic fracking fluids. It seems to me that there is enough information available to assume there just might be some negative health effects for people exposed to fraking fluids. Is this not enough to warrent disclosure and intensive research? Will we continue to value the importance of oil and gas to our future more than our future health? There are concerns of surface and groundwater pollution; this water is the very source of our survival, especially in the arid Southwest. There are associated air polution concerns from pump trucks running round the clock. Job creation may be important today, and fracking disclosure may slow this process. However, if we are creating jobs that indirectly may harm humans, wildlife, pollute water and air (our two most precious resources for the future) is the benefit worth the risk?
Name: Susan Martin Date: 11/17/2011 - 6:16PM,	FRACKING CHEMICALS - TRADE SECRET When human health and the health of the environment are put at risk by oil and gas production, and the public is told by our lawmakers that we have no right to know what chemicals are being pumped beneath our lands because the oil and gas producers must keep that secret to gain a competitive edge... SOMETHING IS SERIOUSLY WRONG WITH OUR VALUES! Granting producers a right to use toxic materials without the duty of disclosure sends the public a clear message that the demands of big oil far out-weigh concerns about public safety, health and welfare. But average people are getting tired and we need for our officials to hear US and protect US not the oil companies. Please don't allow "Trade Secret" to be used to hide the facts on hydraulic fracturing chemicals - or any other potentially dangerous practices by the oil and gas companies.
Name: Franchesca Mallonee Date: 11/17/2011 - 6:36PM,	Dear COGCC, Please consider revising rule 205a to exclude language exempting trade secret chemicals from the disclosure rule. As a landowner with a domestic drinking water well we have a right to know what is being shot down the gas well. Thank you for your time, Franchesca
Name: Chris O'Shea Heydinger Date: 11/17/2011 - 7:23PM,	Colorado citizens have the right to know which chemicals oil and gas companies use in their fracking fluids. The health of our citizens should trump trade secrets. Please don't adopt Rule 205A as written.
Name: David Auerbach Date: 11/17/2011 - 8:31PM,	Rule 205A has ONE HUGE PROBLEM: it gives a TRADE SECRETS LOOPHOLE to the industry. The Industry merely has to claim something is a trade secret and the claim is granted: no review for validity; no ability to challenge the claim. A TRADE SECRETS CLAIM MADE IS A TRADE SECRETS CLAIM GRANTED THIS IS A BAD RULE** ? PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT IS IN FRACK FLUIDS ? RULE 250A'S TRADE SECRETS LOOPHOLE MOCKS THIS RIGHT ? THE COGCC CAN ADOPT A RULE THAT MATTERS OR THEY CAN ADOPT THIS ? PLEASE TAKE DISCLOSURE SERIOUSLY ? PLEASE DO NOT ADOPT RULE 205A AS WRITTEN
Name: Laura Yale Date: 11/18/2011 - 8:16AM,	As citizens of Colorado, and as a Western slope resident where there has been a exponential increase in fracking activity, we have the right to know what chemicals are being pumped into the ground by oil and gas companies. I believe that full disclosure of these chemicals (which could some day end up in our water supply as has happened in other fracking areas) is a pretty small ask and there should not be an easy out for oil and gas companies. To help ensure this, (1) exemptions from disclosure can't be automatic, (2) exemption requests must be reviewed by the COGCC or another state agency, and (3) affected citizens must have a direct means of appealing trade secret exemptions. Thanks for your time. Sincerely, Laura Yale Crested Butte, CO
Name: Heather Erb Date: 11/18/2011 - 9:25AM,	I wanted to write and show my disappointment that there is a loophole in the 205A Disclosure. There should be no "trade secrets" way out of a company's disclosing chemicals. That is not taking the Governor's directive seriously. People have the right to know what is in these fluids. Please do not adopt the rule as written.
Name: Thomas Rogers Date: 11/18/2011 - 10:02AM,	Proposed Rule 205A on Hydrolic Fracturing Chemical Disclosure is unacceptable. It does not serve the public's right to know, provides the oil and gas industry a completely unacceptable loophole in the guise of protecting trade secrets that mocks this right to know. The COGCC must go back to the drawing board and develop a rule that protects that truly public health and environment. Please respectfully consider my comments and reject the proposed rule.
Name: Chis Foran Date: 11/18/2011 - 12:42PM,	Rule 205A should NOT include a "Trade Secrets" loophole.
Name: Daniel Morgenstern Date: 11/18/2011 - 3:56PM,	Trade secrets in my groundwater? NO THANK YOU!
Name: Joy Kuhlman Date: 11/18/2011 - 4:19PM,	Dear Gov. Hickenlooper, Please help us modify the proposed fracking fluid disclosure rule now under consideration at the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. I support your call for full disclosure of fracking fluids, and I appreciate your concern with building public trust with oil and gas companies. But the proposed disclosure rule has a gaping loophole. It allows companies to avoid disclosing chemicals simply by declaring them trade secrets. Companies don’t have to justify or certify their decision, and they won’t even face a review of their claims. If they want the privilege of trade secret protection, they automatically and immediately get it. I understand the need for trade secrets, but this way of granting them just doesn’t make sense. Please encourage the oil and gas commission to take another look at the proposed rule. There’s got to be a more reasonable way of ensuring that Colorado citizens get the information they deserve. Thank you for your continuing efforts to keep us informed. Sincerely, Joy Kuhlman
Name: Zita Xavier Date: 11/18/2011 - 5:52PM,	Not long ago, a local nurse almost died from exposure to a worker who was covered in fracking chemicals. Trade secret fracking chemicals. 205A Does NOTHING to protect the public! The loop hole is so huge you could drive the whole fleet of fracking chemical trucks through it. Get serious! This is a serious health concern for our (i.e. YOURS and YOUR CHILDREN's) water supply. Close the loop hole. Demand full disclosure. If the chemicals are so "benign" why do the oil and gas companies NEED the trade secret loop hole? Sand and water?....Give me a break. She nearly died! You don't die from incidental exposure to sand and water! Watch the movie "Gas Land." MANY carcenogenic chemicals have been identified in fracking fluids.
Name: Pablo Perez Date: 11/18/2011 - 6:30PM,	Again, as many times before, the private industry interest is lobbying against the basic right of the people to know -in this case- what is being pumped in the earht and how it might affect them. Pitiful. If this rule gets through as it is, it makes a mockery of rulemaking and the whole process involved in it. DO NOT let this happen as it is, please.
Name: mimi kasten Date: 11/18/2011 - 8:56PM,	Please follow the lead of other cities and municipalities and do not allow hydraulic fracking in Colorado. It is a documented danger to the groundwater and the animals and townsites that utilize said water. Thank you.
Name: Holly Wheeler Date: 11/18/2011 - 11:19PM,	Dear Gov. Hickenlooper, Please help us modify the proposed fracking fluid disclosure rule now under consideration at the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. I support your call for full disclosure of fracking fluids, and I appreciate your concern with building public trust with oil and gas companies. But the proposed disclosure rule has a gaping loophole. It allows companies to avoid disclosing chemicals simply by declaring them trade secrets. Companies don’t have to justify or certify their decision, and they won’t even face a review of their claims. If they want the privilege of trade secret protection, they automatically and immediately get it. I understand the need for trade secrets, but this way of granting them just doesn’t make sense. Please encourage the oil and gas commission to take another look at the proposed rule. There’s got to be a more reasonable way of ensuring that Colorado citizens get the information they deserve. Thank you for your continuing efforts to keep us informed. Sincerely,Holly Wheeler
Name: Peggy Baxter Date: 11/19/2011 - 7:53AM,	I am dismayed to learn that the proposed regulation regarding full disclosure of chemicals in hydraulic fracturing has an alarming loophole. Please let me tell you how this loophole can affect my community and the surrounding area in a devastating way. Our watershed of 33,000 acres lies almost entirely in the Grand Mesa National Forest. A good portion of this watershed is currently leased for gas drilling. Several years ago when drilling became a reality in our area, our town tried to pass a watershed ordinance. The Forest Service responded by saying that an ordinance would effectively limit that portion of the forest to single use and a special use permit of probably millions of dollars would be instituted. Without the state requiring full disclosure of chemicals, our town and domestic water user companies cannot meet their mandate of providing clean drinking water to our community and area. Voluntary disclosure or requiring MSDS information solely should not be considered adequate protection for the Colorado's citizens.
Name: Judy Fox-Perry Date: 11/19/2011 - 9:58AM,	Dear Gov. Hickenlooper, I have been working as a citizen volunteer with a coalition whose goal is to protect valuable public lands habitat from the industrial development of gas drilling for three years. Working with the gas industry has been very challenging as they have the advantage of historical past lack of oversight and would like to keep it that way. Times have changed and technology has changed. We can't create new clean aquifers, ever! Please help us modify the proposed fracking fluid disclosure rule now under consideration at the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. I support your call for full disclosure of fracking fluids, and I appreciate your concern with building public trust with oil and gas companies. But the proposed disclosure rule has a gaping loophole. It allows companies to avoid disclosing chemicals simply by declaring them trade secrets. Companies don’t have to justify or certify their decision, and they won’t even face a review of their claims. If they want the privilege of trade secret protection, they automatically and immediately get it. I understand the need for trade secrets, but this way of granting them just doesn’t make sense. Please encourage the oil and gas commission to take another look at the proposed rule. There’s got to be a more reasonable way of ensuring that Colorado citizens get the information they deserve. Thank you for your continuing efforts to keep us informed. Respectfully, Judy Fox-Perry
Name: David L Sylvester Date: 11/19/2011 - 11:18AM,	The public does in fact need full disclosure of the "rules" to be able to make a decision of whether or not to allow fracking in their area.- I note that the public's comments do not affect the decisions made by the committee, but I feel they should for the most part. My own opinion concerning "fracking"; It should be outlawed until the gas companies can prove to us all that it is NOT a health hazard to the people or to the environment (which it IS to both).
Name: Dan Stapleton Date: 11/19/2011 - 12:12PM,	I would ask that the chemicals used disclosure be made retroactive for at least a year, perhaps up to three. So citizens with recently completed wells nearby can see what was used.
Name: Amber Kleinman Date: 11/19/2011 - 12:43PM,	Dear Gov. Hickenlooper, Please help us modify the proposed fracking fluid disclosure rule now under consideration at the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. I support your call for full disclosure of fracking fluids, and I appreciate your concern with building public trust with oil and gas companies. But the proposed disclosure rule has a gaping loophole. It allows companies to avoid disclosing chemicals simply by declaring them trade secrets. Which is bullsh-! Companies don’t have to justify or certify their decision, and they won’t even face a review of their claims. If they want the privilege of trade secret protection, they automatically and immediately get it. I understand the need for trade secrets, but this way of granting them just doesn’t make sense. Please encourage the oil and gas commission to take another look at the proposed rule. There’s got to be a more reasonable way of ensuring that Colorado citizens get the information they deserve. We need to know what they are putting in out water air and in the earth! Thank you for your continuing efforts to keep us informed. Sincerely, Amber Kleinman
Name: H GILLESPIE Date: 11/19/2011 - 1:28PM,	The gas industry should not be able to hide behind "trade secrets": I support full public disclosure of all drilling and fracking chemicals; The chemical disclosure list must be posted on COGCC's website to ensure it is credible and publicly accessible; and I request the State legislature end trade secret protection of drilling and fracking fluids under the Colorado Open Records Act and Colorado Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
Name: Phyllis Swackhamer Date: 11/19/2011 - 2:00PM,	To: COGCC Given that it is known that toxic chemicals are used in the "Fracking" process, a first step in regulating this process is full disclosure.The gas industry should not be able to hide behind "trade secrets". I believe the chemical disclosure list must be posted on COGCC's website to ensure it is credible and publicly accessible. I recommend the State legislature end trade secret protection of drilling and "fracking" fluids under the Colorado Open Records Act and Colorado Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
Name: F Lozano Date: 11/19/2011 - 2:11PM,	TO whom it may concern, Being a Colorado resident and noticing the ever frequent natural gas tanks throughout the state, I believe(1) the gas industry should not be able to hide behind "trade secrets": (2) I support full public disclosure of all drilling and fracking chemicals; (3) the chemical disclosure list must be posted on COGCC's website to ensure it is credible and publicly accessible; and (4) to request the State legislature end trade secret protection of drilling and fracking fluids under the Colorado Open Records Act and Colorado Uniform Trade Secrets Act. This only ensures the beauty and health of this state and the health of it's people. How could you not support these simpple requests which benefit us all? Thank you, F. Lozano
Name: Michael Price Date: 11/19/2011 - 2:54PM,	The gas industry should not be able to hide behind "trade secrets" especially when chemicals being used could be harmful to humans and/or the environment. I support full public disclosure of all drilling and fracking chemicals. The chemical disclosure list must be posted on COGCC's website to ensure it is credible and publicly accessible. I request the State legislature end trade secret protection of drilling and fracking fluids under the Colorado Open Records Act and Colorado Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
Name: Adi vonGontard Date: 11/19/2011 - 4:22PM,	I urge the COGCC to require drilling companies to disclose fully the chemicals used in their fracking fluids and not allow them to hide behind trade secrets exemptions.
Name: Susan Keenan Date: 11/20/2011 - 7:51AM,	I would like to revoke a company's corporate charter who is misusing or destroying/ poisoning public citizen's resources. (1) the gas industry should not be able to pollute public resources with poisons called "trade secrets": (2) I demand full public disclosure of all drilling and fracking chemicals (3) the chemical disclosure list must be posted on COGCC's website to ensure it is credible and publicly accessible; and (4) to request the State legislature end trade secret protection of drilling and fracking fluids under the Colorado Open Records Act and Colorado Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
Name: Anonymous Date: 11/20/2011 - 8:04AM,	We need full disclosure of fracking fluids as well as oversight on all air pollution caused by gas drilling.
Name: Lucille Lucas Date: 11/20/2011 - 8:55AM,	Public disclosure of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing is important for the health of the environment and the people who live where it occurs. We need full transparency of the industry and to give citizens full knowledge of the chemicals used in fracking and give the general public more confidence that the government has their best interests at heart. It is a crime to allow the interests of the gas and oil industry to override and ignore the health and welfare of our precious earth and it's inhabitants . I support full disclosure of fracking fluids, and demand that the egregious trade secret loophole be closed.
Name: James Firor Date: 11/20/2011 - 9:56AM,	Allowing the gas industry to inject whatever substance they wish into the ground as "fracking" fluid, and keeping the nature of the substances secret in not a rational act. We cannot even begin to track the potential contamination of our groundwater or begin a discussion of the appropriateness of using toxic and carcinogenic materials in this fashion if the industry is allowed to hide this pollution behind "trade secrets." The COGCC needs to require the gas industry to disclose all componsnts of drilling and "fracking" fluids and make the list of materials readily accessible to the public. The state legislature also needs to remove "trade secret" protection for "fracking" fluids under the Colorado Open Records Act and the Colorado Uniform Trade Secrets Act. If the industry is required to disclose the materials used in "fracking," it is likely that many of the most dangerous materials currently used will be found to be unnecessary to the process.
Name: John Ayer Date: 11/20/2011 - 12:12PM,	All interested and stakeholder participants, including industry, keep citing the need for, and their support of, transparency in bridging the various trust and educational gaps that exist. Therefore, please consider arranging for on-line live streaming of the hearing process. I do not know the technical requirements, but please consider. Just think of the broad audience the COGCC could reach on December 5th. Invaluable!
Name: Eugenia Bone Date: 11/20/2011 - 12:22PM,	Dear Sir or Madam: In order to protect public health and safety, I support full public disclosure of all drilling and fracking chemicals, a chemical disclosure list posted on COGCC's website and an end to "trade secret" protection of drilling and fracking fluids under the Colorado Open Records Act and Colorado Uniform Trade Secrets Act. I think we all know the real reason why the gas companies insist on "trade secrets:" to protect themselves from litigation. This is legal equivocation and utterly slimy. I long for integrity in our state.
Name: Sam Savant Date: 11/20/2011 - 6:00PM,	I am in favor of requiring public disclosure of the chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing process. In case there are spills or leaks, at least we would know what chemicals are involved. Thank you.
Name: John VanDenBerg Date: 11/21/2011 - 6:55AM,	Please make the fracking fluid content public. Millions of gallons are being injected and citizens who own the land have a right to know what is being done. If trade secrets were the real reason for not disclosing, they can just give a list of what the fluids are, and not the exact formula so that they cannot later deny they used that chemical (when it shows up in the water)
Name: Bill Ronai Date: 11/21/2011 - 9:19AM,	The proposed rule by providing for exemption makes a mockery of regulation. My view is that (1) exemptions from disclosure can't be automatic, (2) exemption requests must be reviewed by the COGCC or another state agency, and (3) affected citizens must have a direct means of appealing trade secret exemptions.
Name: Dan Rubinoff Date: 11/21/2011 - 9:27AM,	(1) the gas industry should not be able to hide behind "trade secrets": (2) you support full public disclosure of all drilling and fracking chemicals; (3) the chemical disclosure list must be posted on COGCC's website to ensure it is credible and publicly accessible; and (4) to request the State legislature end trade secret protection of drilling and fracking fluids under the Colorado Open Records Act and Colorado Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
Name: Kristen Green Date: 11/21/2011 - 9:43AM,	As a concerned citizen from Cedaredge, CO I: (1) believe the gas industry should not be able to hide behind "trade secrets" (2) demand full public disclosure of all drilling and fracking chemicals (3) support the posing of the chemical disclosure list on COGCC's website to ensure it is credible and publicly accessible (4) request the State legislature end trade secret protection of drilling and fracking fluids under the Colorado Open Records Act and Colorado Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
Name: will snowdon Date: 11/21/2011 - 11:02AM,	I think it should be manditory for a fracking operation to provide public disclosure of the chemicals that they are forcing into the ground & possibly into a water supply whether its our drinking water source or aquafirs for watering our food spources. Please make public disclosure a minimum requirement. Thank you.
Name: Dan Stech Date: 11/21/2011 - 11:27AM,	The gas industry should not be able to hide behind "trade secrets". The PUBLIC has a right to full disclosure of all drilling and fracking chemicals, especially when it is used on PUBLIC land. The chemical disclosure list must be posted on COGCC's website to ensure it is credible and publicly accessible. The State legislature must end trade secret protection of drilling and fracking fluids under the Colorado Open Records Act and Colorado Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
Name: Randall Shepard Date: 11/21/2011 - 11:45AM,	Dear Gov.Hickenlooper, I support your call for full disclosure of fracking fluids. I feel that would help in the building of public trust with the oil and gas companies. Which also would help remove the concern of what chemicals are used in fracking. However the proposed disclosure rule has a loophole. To allow the companies to avoid disclosing the chemicals simply by declaring them trade secrets, that they do not have to justify or face a review of their clamins is a farce, that would let the companies keep the chemicals they use a secret. I ask the the oil and gas commission to take another look at this proposed rule and not let a loophole keep the information about the chemicals used from us. The Nov. 2011 Scientific American magazine has a very interesting story about fracking that helps one have a better understanding of how it works. Sincerely, Randall Shepard
Name: N McCormish Date: 11/21/2011 - 12:31PM,	Remember the law of unintended consequences? Unidentified chemicals injected below ground don't disappear and not all is returned topside. What's left underground (or spilled above ground) will migrate and/or be altered via underground chemical interactions. Fracturing by definition creates fractures, leaving behind spaces emptied of gas... but providing migratory routes for residual fracking fluid and any fluid sources located underground. Many have voiced valid concerns, but here are some less discussed: Livestock and wildlife cannot read signs, and will drink water where they find it. We have a long ranching tradition which these days includes raising premium organic, grass-fed beef, often grazed on a mixture of public and private lands. We also share a significant hunting industry. Both sectors deserve consideration as regards unintended consequences. Colorado's geology provides our state with seasonal streams and seeps fed by seasonal meltwater, which in turn fills our reservoirs and our faucets. It is unconscionable to allow introduction of potential toxins into our food and water supplies without strict regulation and oversight. Glycol, for one example, a strictly regulated de-icing product used by airlines, is being shipped from CO to WY and showing up in water sources around fracking sites there. What happens in the event of a natural earthquake while fracking, pumping, or after a drill pad is abandoned? We don't allow storage of nuclear waste underground without massive fail-safe systems in place, yet will allow residual, unidentified chemicals to remain scattered throughout vast inhabited areas? Our county's economy includes large underground coal mines. What are the rights of existing mines if fracking activity collapses pillars, or unidentified toxic chemicals migrate into their workings? Less likely but still possible is a homeland security threat. If we are not aware of who is injecting what into our groundwater supplies we could inadvertently hand a lethal weapon to people who would gladly use it. Most O&G companies hire substantial numbers of subcontractors, who in turn hire laborers. What if any sort of accountability is required of the permit holders? Full disclosure of all chemicals used needs to go hand in hand with full responsibility for their use. Perhaps a level playing field is needed, with only one or two blends being legal for use, and those should be nontoxic in all possible conditions. We in Colorado have a long love affair with our resources and our lands. We've said no to booming growth before (Olympics in the 70s) because we valued these over commerce. Surely we don't need to sell out now. Please make wise regulatory choices which include consideration of things without a voice or a price tag. Your grandkids will thank you, as I will. Thanks.
Name: Anne Renaud-Wilkinson Date: 11/21/2011 - 2:36PM,	CITIZENS FOR HUERFANO COUNTY Our mission is to protect our public health, safety, environment, and wildlife from the effects of oil and gas exploration and operations, drilling and hydraulic fracturing ("fracking")". November 21, 2011 TO: The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission FROM: Citizens for Huerfano County P.O Box 1193 La Veta, CO 81055 RE: AMENDMENTS TO 100 SERIES DEFINITIONS, 200 SERIES GENERAL RULES, 300 SERIES DRILLING, DEVELOPMENT, PRODUCTION AND ABANDONMENT RULES and 500 SERIES PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE RULES Dear Commissioners: The proposed rule change (Rule 205 A) to require disclosure of hydraulic fracturing fluids falls short of achieving its intent. It relegates all authority to vendors and leaves the public out in the cold. Nothing in the proposed rule change would require the oil and gas companies to comply with disclosure of “fracking” chemicals. The trade secrets provision has affectively negated any meaningful change. Regarding the following section in the proposed rule: D. TRADE SECRET PROTECTION. (1) VENDORS, SERVICE COMPANIES, AND OPERATORS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE TRADE SECRETS TO THE CHEMICAL DISCLOSURE REGISTRY. (2) IF THE SPECIFIC IDENTITY OF A CHEMICAL, THE CONCENTRATION OF A CHEMICAL, OR BOTH THE SPECIFIC IDENTITY AND CONCENTRATION OF A CHEMICAL ARE CLAIMED TO BE ENTITLED TO PROTECTION AS A TRADE SECRET, THE VENDOR, SERVICE PROVIDER OR OPERATOR MAY WITHHOLD THE SPECIFIC IDENTITY, THE CONCENTRATION, OR BOTH THE SPECIFIC IDENTITY AND CONCENTRATION, OF THE CHEMICAL, AS THE CASE MAY BE, FROM THE INFORMATION PROVIDED TO THE CHEMICAL DISCLOSURE REGISTRY. This provision allows a vendor to “claim” a chemical is a trade secret. No proof need be submitted to the Commission to substantiate any claim of trade secrecy. Especially egregious is the provision that allows the vendors themselves to determine if a chemical or concentration is a trade secret and having done so, allows them to omit any reference to the chemical regardless of all the other provisions. There could be hundreds of trade secret chemicals stored, poured, spilled, leaked, evaporated, injected and mixed at one well site with no one held accountable, because no one would even know they were there. What is to prevent a vendor from simply listing those ubiquitous “under the kitchen sink” chemicals vendors so routinely like to cite, while claiming formaldehyde is a trade secret chemical? Then again, if the vendor does not even have to mention the “trade secrets” there is no way to know what to ask for. This trade secret provision is totally unacceptable. The provision to allow health professionals to request trade secret information is likewise ineffective: DISCLOSURE TO HEALTH PROFESSIONALS: VENDORS, SERVICE COMPANIES, AND OPERATORS SHALL IDENTIFY THE SPECIFIC IDENTITY AND AMOUNT OF ANY CHEMICALS CLAIMED TO BE A TRADE SECRET TO ANY HEALTH PROFESSIONAL WHO REQUESTS SUCH INFORMATION IN WRITING IF THE HEALTH PROFESSIONAL PROVIDES A WRITTEN STATEMENT OF NEED FOR THE INFORMATION AND EXECUTES A CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT, FORM 35. THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF NEED SHALL BE A STATEMENT THAT THE HEALTH PROFESSIONAL HAS A REASONABLE BASIS TO BELIEVE THAT (1) THE INFORMATION IS NEEDED FOR PURPOSES OF DIAGNOSIS OR TREATMENT OF AN INDIVIDUAL. Again, this is after the fact and would not allow health professional to know what they might be up against at the very moment they need it. Really, they would have to file paper work only when they believe a specific individual might be affected? The rule does not require any timely response. This is unacceptable. Finally, nothing references the handling of a myriad of toxic chemicals before and after they are used in the actual hydraulic fracturing process. Toxic chemicals are stored, used in the ground, re-injected, and handled in disposal that results in evaporation and small and large spills. All of these operations can introduce the chemicals into the ambient air, water, surface ground and underground. This makes the issue of complete disclosure paramount. Vendors should be required to list all chemicals, be they the “under-the-sink” variety or known carcinogens. The language that specifically references hydraulic fracturing should be amended to include all chemical activity at the well site. This includes, but is not limited to, such activities as injecting biocides into wells between fracking, treating water for non-fracking activities, cleaning spills and maintenance of on-site mechanical equipment. We are at this revised rule making because the system is falling short and people are being injured. Now is the time to make it right. These proposed changes are not the answer, the public needs full disclosure of the chemicals with only trade secret provisions for concentrations. Health professionals need chemical information before incidents occur so they can be prepared for them. And finally, the public needs to know that the COGCC is actually “minding the store” and following up with enforcement and not just approving thousands of well permits each year. Anne Renaud-Wilkinson for Citizens for Huerfano County
Name: sandra kirk Date: 11/21/2011 - 3:12PM,	sandra kirk skaspen@aol.com (1) the gas industry should not be able to hide behind "trade secrets": (2) I support full public disclosure of all drilling and fracking chemicals; (3) the chemical disclosure list must be posted on COGCC's website to ensure it is credible and publicly accessible; and (4) I am requesting the State legislature end trade secret protection of drilling and fracking fluids under the Colorado Open Records Act and Colorado Uniform Trade Secrets Act. You are harming the health of the people in our town - our organic industries, cattle and air and water. Do your job of protecting the american public or get out of office - do your job!!!!!!!!!!!!
Name: Pam Ellison Date: 11/21/2011 - 7:21PM,	Dear Commission Members; Please review the rules as written and SQLBLOCKED the exception for fracturing chemicals allowed due to the claim of trade secret protection. We must not allow our irreplaceable natural resources to be destroyed forever. Surely the Oil & Gas industry can find a way to release the stores of natural gas in a less harmful way if we require it. We understand the importance of jobs and home-grown energy sources, but if we ruin our very ability to live here, what will have been the point? Let's slow down and find solutions to the issues that concern us all, and ensure a healthy future for everyone. Thank you.
Name: Marilyn Brown Date: 11/21/2011 - 7:38PM,	COGCC: As a resident of La Plata County, I am appreciative of the improvements that are proposed in Rule 250A on hydraulic fracturing disclosure; however, I am concerned specifically about a couple of issues: 1. I am concerned that subpart b of the proposed rule might not allow the trade-secret protected chemical or formula to be disclosed to the person who has been exposed to it, even when it is disclosed to the health professional treating the person. If I were exposed to something, I would insist upon knowing what it was and would want it in my health record for future reference. The rule seems to be silent on whether the patient himself can know what he was exposed to and whether that info can be placed in his medical file. The patient MUST be allowed to know everything related to his medical condition and must be able to have it reflected in his medical record in perpetuity. 2. I am also concerned about subpart c: ‘Rule 205A will not require suppliers, service companies or operators to disclose chemicals which are not disclosed to them, were not intentionally added to the hydraulic fracturing fluid, or occur incidentally or are otherwise unintentionally present.’ which exempts suppliers, service companies or operators, etc., from revealing chemicals not disclosed to them. This to me is also a loophole. I cannot accept that companies who are fracing (and thus exposing their employees) or who are injecting fracing waste water into the ground can do so without thoroughly understanding and without complete accountability for what they are doing. This exemption would also seem to allow them to hide behind the excuse that the presence of some toxic chemical that went into the ground and/or got sprayed on someone was not disclosed to them. This could delay an appropriate medical response in case of accident, among other things. These are substantive matters. Please do not pass Rule 250A without clarification of #1 and removal of at least the first two clauses of the exemption I address in #2. Thank you for consideration of these items of concern to me.
Name: Anonymous Date: 11/21/2011 - 8:26PM,	If fracking continues, it is only a matter of time when these undisclosed chemicals will end up in our water supply, and in the air as they escape from the holding ponds. I am an organic farmer watching fracking and holding ponds being developed in the watershed above my farm, my livelihood is at stake as are all the farmers in my valley. I am heartened by other states banning fracking within their watersheds. Hello Coloradoans, what are we thinking and doing here? Denise Claire Laverty dclaire@tds.net
Name: anne ronai Date: 11/23/2011 - 2:36PM,	I think the proposed rulemaking procedures do not go far enough in granting the public protections from the hydrolic fracking components and the ability to seek remedies if they feel they have been damaged by such components. First of all exemptions from disclosure of such components should NEVER be automatic. Requests for exemptions by mempers of the Oil and Gas Companies should be reviewed by an independent third party such as COGCC which should be able to demand full disclosure of the actual components used. Any affected or potentially affected citizens must have a direct means of appealing any trade secrets exemptions which are granted. On the other hand, if the Oil and Gas Companies were required to Patent their fracking formulas as the drug industry is.... then there would be full disclosure of the components, and this would not be an issue with respect of a citizen's right to know what chemicals and in what concentrations are being injected under the grounds on which they live and near water supplies from which they drink. Thank you for considering my comments. Anne Ronai
Name: Robin Smith Date: 11/23/2011 - 2:49PM,	November 23, 20113 Re: Comments on Proposed Hydraulic Fracturing Disclosure Rule (Amendments to Rule 205) Dear COGCC, Citizens for a Healthy Community (CHC) stands with the overwhelming majority of the public who demand full disclosure of all chemicals used during the entire process of extracting natural gas. This includes all chemicals used on the surface as well as down-hole operations throughout the drilling and stimulation (fracking) process. The oil and gas industry must not be allowed to hide behind “trade secrets.” The right of the citizens of Colorado to know the toxic, hazardous, and carcinogenic chemicals that will be injected into the ground and potentially affect their family’s health and safety trumps the desire of a corporation to keep this information secret. If COGCC does not currently have the statutory authority to require complete disclosure, then we expect the agency to go to the State legislature to obtain this authority before finalizing Rule 205. This includes requesting the legislature to exempt drilling and fracking chemicals from trade secret protection under the Colorado Open Records Act and Colorado Uniform Trade Secrets Act. CHC believes Rule 205 should require the operator to disclose the chemicals anticipated to be used as part of the permit submittal requirement so the public has an opportunity to comment on this chemical list prior to the issuance of a permit. To provide the public with meaningful information, Rule 205 must also require the permittee to submit an inventory of all chemicals actually used. This list should be submitted to COGCC within 30 days of completion of drilling and well stimulation operations. The inventory of Chemical Products shall include: • the known potential to affect human health, property or the environment; • the concentrations, process solution volumes, and quantity of fluids used and recovered in the Operation; • the material safety data sheets for the chemicals, if any; and • Chemical Abstract Service Registry Numbers for every chemical used in the Operation, whether or not such chemicals are used in a Chemical Product that is considered a Trade Secret by the vendor or service provider. CHC requests the disclosure information be posted on COGCC’s website to ensure it is credible, publicly accessible, and under the control of COGCC. Posting this information on an oil and gas industry trade organization’s website is unacceptable. Lastly, Rule 205 should include a provision stating that failure to comply with the disclosure requirement shall result in the revocation of the permit. Thank you for taking our comments into consideration. Sincerely, Robin Smith, Chair Board of Directors Citizens for a Healthy Community
Name: Timber Moreland Date: 11/23/2011 - 6:05PM,	11/23/11 Dear COGCC Rulemakers, My name is Timber Moreland and i am a Delta county resident. I support full public disclosure of all drilling and fracking chemicals used in our county. Natural gas corporations are notorious for injecting tons of toxic, hazardous, and carcinogenic compounds into the ground. If you are going to allow this, at least demand accountability from the natural gas industry. That way, when the watershed is polluted and people are getting sick, you can look to the corporations for mitigation and retribution, and not stiff the government with the bill. In the name of public health and safety, please demand chemical disclosure lists from the natural gas corporations to be posted on the COGCC's website. Clean air and clean water and a healthy community are priceless. If we think the oil and gas industry is going to look out for anything but their profits, just look at the gulf of mexico and how well the waterfront communities are doing there. Thanks for being good stewards, Timber Moreland
Name: Craig Clark Date: 11/23/2011 - 6:33PM,	11/23/11 Dear COGCC members, As a resident of Delta County I will be directly affected by the natural gas drilling in the North Fork Valley. I ask that you please act to protect our watershed from chemical poisoning by natural gas companies. It is no secret anymore that the natural gas industry calls itself "clean" but in fact is extremely polluting in the extraction phase, due mostly to the "fracking fluids" used in the drilling process. To make matters worse, the companies are not held accountable because they hide behind "trade secret" laws. Please end these trade secrets and help hold the natural gas corporations accountable. Please require that complete chemical lists of the fracking fluid ingredients be submitted and be available to the public. Thank you for doing the right thing: putting community health before corporate profit. Sincerely, Craig Clark
Name: judith heideman Date: 11/23/2011 - 6:52PM,	Dear Governor Hickenlooper: I support full public disclosure of all drilling and fracking chemicals. Please make sure the drilling industry is not protected by hiding behind "trade secrets," but that the public is protected by making sure the chemical list of fracking chemicals is posted on COGCC's website. The public has a right to know what is being pumped into the ground water that we will use for our gardens, for our drinking, for our recreation. Thank you for your attention to this matter, Sincerely, Judith Heideman
Name: John Brink Date: 11/24/2011 - 1:14PM,	The ground water and aquifers of Colorado are not to be risked with concepts such as "Trade Secrets". Frackers need to reveal their fracking chemicals entirely. As a well owner in the San Luis Valley I deny fracking in my aquifer entirely and would need a fracking company to post a bond covering the real estate and home values effected by fracking with a triple value bond and covering the entire aquifer area. No exceptions. Reveal all chemical and techniques. Post a bond to cover all potential damages at triple value. Minimize pad size and density of operation to prevent damage to wildlife habitat and migration routes.
Name: Carol Date: 11/25/2011 - 8:37AM,	If, I, as an individual wanted to start pumping carcinogenic and toxic substances into soils of "our" public lands I would have to adhere to very stringent penalties and/or regulations. There doesn't seem to be any instance in my mind that should exempt any entity from that sort of scrutiny. There should not be any exemptions from disclosure of chemicals because of trade secrets, or as I read in one version of the proposal if a substance is mistakenly not listed by the chemical companies the gas company is exempt. I also feel the liability standards involved if water and/or air is contaminated should be set very high,including full responsibility financially and through restitution. Please do what's right for the health of all and the environment.
Name: Greg Aitkenhead Date: 11/25/2011 - 11:04AM,	I believe that the gas industry should not be able to hide behind "trade secrets," and I support the full public disclosure of all drilling and fracking chemicals. I also believe that the chemical disclosure list should be posted on COGCC's website to ensure it is credible and publicly accessible. In addition, I would request that the State legislature end trade secret protection of drilling and fracking fluids under the Colorado Open Records Act and Colorado Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
Name: Ferris Frost Date: 11/25/2011 - 12:12PM,	To: CGOCC, As a citizen of Colorado and a landowner/rancher very near certain areas of El Paso County that are slated for oil and gas exploration and drilling, I appreciate the efforts you are making to update and correct previous attempts at regulating the oil and gas industry in our state. Thanks! Now, all that notwithstanding, my concerns are significant enough to make me write this letter. To wit: This land has been undisturbed for a thousand thousand eons. In proposing to “fracture” that Silence, I would think you should make more complete preparations to try to preserve it. I am not an expert but it seems to me that first off you should shift the responsibility for accidents and spills to the people most likely to perpetrate them: the oil and gas folks. Assigning legal responsibility for contamination of land and water is almost impossible to do in the Courts. But common sense suggests that if there is contamination after all these eons, it will be due to them. If you don’t do this, if you don’t assign blame beforehand, the innocent bystanders will be forced to absorb all the costs - including loss of livelihood, destroyed land values, toxic waters and the devastation of wildlife. That’s just flat out unfair. What’s more, contamination, of whatever sort should carry a significant penalty - not just $1000 per day. IF you want to drill for oil and you make a toxic brew of it - destroying land, water, livelihoods and the wildlife that lives in these areas - then you should be required to set up a fund that would cover not only the clean up and restitution for the present users of the land - but the true cost, future costs, down the years. It should be set up ahead of time; it should be set up by the oil and gas people alone (please no taxpayer subsidies); and it should be readily accessible. And if you think that there is no reason for this, let me just write here two words: British Petroleum. Our short-grass prairie is viewed by most as “vacant land”. It isn’t. Throughout the area are seeps and springs that support cattle, antelope, migrating birds, all kinds of Life. If these sources of water are contaminated, either from deep fracking or spills at the surface, all this land and the creatures it supports, are sacrificed. On the other hand, if one were to monitor those seeps and springs before, during and after the fracking, one might be able to spot contamination before it got out of hand...and flowed downstream into the Fountain Creek or the Lower Arkansas River...to population centers. Appropriate, thorough and frequent monitoring is critical to being prepared and capable of corrective action for when (not IF) these drilling wells go south. While I appreciate that the oil and gas folks want to have their proprietary blend of fracking chemicals kept secret, I would suggest that the health and well-being of the Community has a greater value than to be left to guess what they are drinking or breathing. While you are suggesting in your new Rules that they report to the appropriate authorities, they only have to do that 30 to 60 days AFTER a fracking...by then it’s too late. That list should be readily available to anyone, it should be available BEFORE the fracking happens, and it should be used as a guide for the monitoring efforts, on the basis of the principle: If you don’t know what you are looking for, you probably won’t find it. Water. Is this the right use of our water? Can our semi-arid region afford to use it’s scarcest resource in this manner? In this area of El Paso County, the newly acquired local oil and gas folks - Ultra Resources - have access to or own outright, 118,000 acres of land. At an estimated minimum of one million gallons per well per fracturing, over 118,000 acres, it has to add up to huge numbers of wells and a lot of water. Is this the right use for it? As a community, Colorado Springs, is already importing the majority of its water from the Western Slope. At enormous expense. Can we afford to waste it getting oil and gas out of the ground? What’s more, that fracking water will more than likely come from dispossessing ranches and farms - destroying the potential for a local food industry that will become critical in the coming, climate changed, years ahead. As a Community we cannot afford to take the short view of critical elements to our survival like food and water. In the end, you can’t drink the oil. And you can’t drink the water with the oil in it, either! Unfortunately, the oil and gas industry has earned the skepticism that prompts the writing of this letter. I am not an expert. I’m just one of the most likely victims of an industry that has consistently viewed the general populace with derision and contempt. Your job, as I see it, is to correct this imbalance and protect the lives and livelihoods of all the people (and the wildlife) of the State of Colorado. A small portion of that will include the oil and gas folks but not to the exclusion of all else in a mad rush to gain “jobs” or a bigger tax base in the short term. I trust, and I must trust, that you will fulfill your responsibilities. These new rules and regulations are a step in the right direction and I appreciate your efforts on my behalf. Thank you. Ferris Frost Frost Livestock Company Fountain Creek Ranch
Name: Sandra Toland Date: 11/25/2011 - 12:20PM,	Because oil and gas drilling is exempt from several key federal environmental acts, and Colorado's current oil and gas regulations fail to protect our environment and the public from harmful chemicals used in horizontal hydraulic fracturing, it is vital that there is complete disclosure of all the chemicals used in fracking. Drilling companies should be required to publicly disclose 100% of the chemicals used in fracking each well. I also think it is important to know the amounts of each chemical they use. There should be no exemptions for trade secrets: It is our environment they are affecting, and it is our right to know what they are putting into it. At a minimum, companies must disclose Chemical Abstracts Services Registry Numbers of every chemical product to allow easy identification. Generic names such as "petroleum distillate" do not give the public complete information. In addition, to protect public health, we should be requiring extensive air and water monitoring around oil and gas drilling sites, non-toxic fracking fluids, and closed-loop technology. The public has inalienable rights, such as the right of protections from known and preventable harms. These rights are integral to our national genetic code and cannot be severed or violated for the profit of a few, by exemptions of privilege or by any level of law or regulation or ordinance. As a division of Colorado state government, it is your responsibility to uphold the rights of Colorado citizens and protect their health and safety in requiring full disclosure of all chemicals used in horizontal hydraulic fracturing.
Name: Rep. Diana DeGette Date: 11/25/2011 - 12:27PM,	Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Attn. Peter Gowen, Acting Hearings Manager Docket No. 1112-RM-04 1120 Lincoln Street, Suite 801 Denver, Colorado 80203 November 23, 2011 To: Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission The development and spread of hydraulic fracturing has brought new economic opportunity to Colorado, and access to new oil and gas reserves via this process is affecting the energy outlook of not only Colorado and the United States, but the entire world. With any new practice or technology that significantly affects natural resources and personal livelihoods, the government has a responsibility to research and analyze its impact and determine whether current laws and regulations appropriately balance new economic and environmental concerns. I applaud the Commission’s efforts in amending their Rules of Practice and Procedure to increase transparency by requiring disclosure of fracturing fluid constituents. Their work will make it easier for citizens as well as the government to evaluate the efficacy of our current rules. In response to the proposed amendments I submit the following comments for the record. • In Rule 100, the definition of chemical should retain “and/or.” A mixture of elements and compounds is distinct from a mixture of elements or a mixture of compounds. • In Rule 100, the definition of chemical family should be “a group of chemicals that share similar chemical properties, including toxicity, typically referred to by a common general name." • In Rule 100, the definition of health professionals should also include those with out-of-state licenses. • In proposed Rule 205A subsections b.5 and d.2, disclosure of trade secrets to exposed individuals and/or their parent, spouse or guardian should be allowed when the information will only be used to inform medical decisions. • Proposed Rule 205A.d.2 should include an oversight mechanism for operators’ trade secret claims. I suggest independent, periodic, random and confidential audits of trade secret claims to prevent misuse of this claim. • The revision of Rule 205.c introduces a new loophole. If an operator sought to use diesel in fracturing fluid without disclosing it, the operator could account for the diesel onsite in the Chemical Inventory. • Rule 305.e.1.A should be strengthened and clarified so that landowners within one thousand (1000) feet of the horizontal and vertical component of the borehole of a proposed oil and gas location are provided prior notice. I view mandatory public disclosure of hydraulic fracturing fluid constituents to the Commission as a requirement that will help determine the existing and long-term impacts of hydraulic fracturing, and an integral step toward appropriate legislative or regulatory changes. Should the Commission have any questions about my comments, I may be reached at 202.225.4431. Sincerely, Representative Diana DeGette
Name: Julie Ward Date: 11/28/2011 - 3:04PM,	Please do not pass Rule 205A. It is a bad rule, and will not further the full disclosure to citizens of what chemicals and fluids are being used in the gas fracking process. We need to know and regulate these processes. Environmentally too much is at stake to let the oil and gas companies regulate themselves. What happens to the environment happens to us. Contamination of our resources necessary to our health and survival cannot always be repaired. We need to know what possibly harmful ingredients are being injected into our soils and aquifers.
Name: George H. Saum Date: 11/28/2011 - 8:03PM,	I have a right to know what chemicals are brought onto my land during any fracking operation. I am going to test my well water before the fracking operation begins and after it has concluded. Therefore, I must know what chemicals to test for - that is just plain common sense. Please do not pass the proposed regulation, it is much too vague and will not solve the problems that exist in fracking operations. We need more robust regulations than those on this docket.
Name: Buffy Lenth Date: 11/30/2011 - 8:43AM,	I am in support of requiring full disclosure of chemical ingredients used for hydraulic fracturing. I think the health of our environment and human communities is infinitely more important than the trade secrets that oil and gas companies would like to protect.
Name: Cooper Davis Date: 11/30/2011 - 4:06PM,	I am in the NG/Oil business. I agree that disclosure is essential. Many environmentally aware citizens will be shocked to learn when, upon this full disclosure, that over 90 percent of all fluids used are organic and water/bentonite based. For operations effecting local residents, specific to the Niobrara Shale formation, bentonite and water are almost exclusively used. The hydraulic fluids necessary for expansion and retraction of NG are seldom used here as they are seldom necessary. When used, removal of these contaminants is simplistic in nature because of the varying viscosity of the fluids in question. My income is dependant upon successful fracing (fracking) and I, along with most everyone on this forum, look forward to full disclosure. Information is empowerment.
Name: Cynthia Wutchiett Date: 12/01/2011 - 10:38AM,	Dear COGCC: Colorado citizens deserve full disclosure of the fracking fluids that gas companies pump into the ground. Loopholes that allow companies to hide behind 'trade secrets' must be closed. (1) the gas industry should not be able to hide behind "trade secrets": (2) I support full public disclosure of all drilling and fracking chemicals; (3) the chemical disclosure list must be posted on COGCC's website to ensure it is credible and publicly accessible; and (4) I request that the State legislature end the trade secret protection of drilling and fracking fluids under the Colorado Open Records Act and Colorado Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
Name: Katie Dean Date: 12/01/2011 - 11:40AM,	Please make the logical, moral choice and mandate that companies share all the chemicals they use, in this case, during fracking. Did you know that 1 out of 3 Americans have a cancer diagnosis?? We still all pretend to be shocked and saddened when someone new is diagnosed. We walk for a cure, donate through the phone lines, but rarely have the courage to take the steps to protect our water. When will it be enough? Where I live, now people in their 50's and 40's are routinely diagnosed, and a few children as well. I understand that regulations can be burdensome. I understand that documenting chemicals used, as well as the research of the harm caused, will lead to a public outcry and efforts to stop the use. These are challenging issues. We have framed the "debate" in terms of jobs and fuel vs health of people and our food system. Are there other options? Are there more costly, less toxic alternatives? I do feel that if the corporate executives who make the lion's share of the money visited an oncology ward, they would be moved, and be willing to make less profit to save lives. The problem is that these players never actually meet each other. Thank you for your work on these issues. Katie Dean, Hotchkiss, CO
Name: Margot Richardson Date: 12/01/2011 - 12:25PM,	Full disclosure is the very least the oil and gas industry should be required to do regarding fracking. They should bear the burden of proof to reassure citizens that water sources will not be damaged or impacted through their practices, and public health will not be at risk. If damage does occur, full disclosure of the fluids involved is imperative to providing a remedy. Frankly, I think no practices should be allowed to endanger water sources, and I don't see how fracking can be done without creating this risk. But at the very least, if we cannot agree to direct our full energies, collectively, to wiser energy sources, the industry should be take full responsibility for minimizing the risk and damage to nature and to public health. By the way, I see this insanity as the new Gold Rush in this part of the United States. But this time, the stakes are much higher and longer lasting. The damage already done, and the potential for future damage, is irreparable. It makes more sense to stop all this drilling immediately, and come up with a plan that protects these incredible treasures, this pristine land, for all the generations to come. Thank you.
Name: Hal Brill Date: 12/01/2011 - 12:54PM,	Hi, just a quick note. Thanks for updating the rules - very important! But I'm alarmed about the potential use of "trade secrets" to avoid full disclosure of ingredients. Public health and safety should trump this flimsy excuse to avoid disclosure. thanks for your time Hal Brill
Name: Nomi Gray Date: 12/01/2011 - 1:20PM,	I want to support full disclosure of drilling chemicals and fracking fluid contents to protect the health, safety and welfare of citizens in the vicinity of drilling operations. I believe that the gas industry should not be able to hide behind "trade secrets", and that the chemical disclosure list must be posted on COGCC's website to ensure it is credible and publicly accessible. The State of Colorado should follow the lead of other states, which are beginning to require full disclosure. I want to see the State legislature end trade secret protection of drilling and fracking fluids under the Colorado Open Records Act and Colorado Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The public should have the ability to know what's being pumped into the ground, particularly harmful chemicals which could migrate into and affect the ground and surface waters of our state.
Name: Kevin Kropp Date: 12/01/2011 - 2:36PM,	As a concerned Colorado citizen, I would like to voice my desire that all chemicals used in the hydraulic fracking process be disclosed to the general public and that those companies using this process no longer be able to hide behind the "proprietary loop-holes" excuses. Thank you.
Name: Maria Hodkins Date: 12/01/2011 - 3:21PM,	The gas industry should not be able to hide behind "trade secrets." I support full public disclosure of all drilling and fracking chemicals. Furthermore, the chemical disclosure list must be posted on COGCC's website to ensure it is credible and publicly accessible. I request that the State legislature end trade secret protection of drilling and fracking fluids under the Colorado Open Records Act and Colorado Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Please protect our health! Thank you!
Name: Robert Orlando Date: 12/01/2011 - 3:23PM,	I am writing to tell you my concerns about these fracking fluids. We are in a sensitive area for ground water and it's use for agriculture and domestic use. The water is more valuable than the gas and oil so to use a mix of undisclosed chemicals is dangerous and just plain wrong for the citizens, the farmers, the ranchers and the wildlife. Full disclosure!!!
Name: Paolo Bacigalupi Date: 12/01/2011 - 5:04PM,	I'm writing to express my concern that the gas industry should not be able to hide behind "trade secrets". To be clear, I want to see full public disclosure of all drilling and fracking chemicals, as this directly affects human and environmental health. The public deserves to know what's being done in the regions where we live. I believe the chemical disclosure list should be posted on COGCC's website to ensure it is credible and publicly accessible; and I would like to request that our State legislature end this trade secret protection of drilling and fracking fluids under the Colorado Open Records Act and Colorado Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Thank you for your attention.
Name: Peter Heller Date: 12/01/2011 - 5:23PM,	To Whom it May Concern: I feel strongly that: (1) the gas industry should not be able to hide behind "trade secrets": (2) you support full public disclosure of all drilling and fracking chemicals; (3) the chemical disclosure list must be posted on COGCC's website to ensure it is credible and publicly accessible; and (4) to request the State legislature end trade secret protection of drilling and fracking fluids under the Colorado Open Records Act and Colorado Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Sincerely, Peter Heller Denver, Colorado
Name: Sandy Norris Date: 12/01/2011 - 6:33PM,	Why do these oil and gas private companies have the right to take the minerals below someone's land, make billions in profits, which go directly into their pockets, destroy the neighbors and neighboring water and walk away without being accountable for what materials and how they are fracking or processing this. Make those CEO's drink the nearby water. They are not offering the counties or the states involved financial profits that could fix what is destroyed and/or to offer millions of dollars in school funding or health care. So until the above is fixed, those companies have to reveal everything and be accountable to all areas affected. It is no different than the scandal of CEO's of the banks that caused the economy collapse. They have to be accountable.
Name: Debra Cheesman Date: 12/01/2011 - 6:49PM,	I reside in the North Fork Valley and am extremely concerned about the gas drilling in our area. I strongly believe that all chemicals used in fracking should be disclosed to the public and should subsequently be posted on COGCC's website in a credible and accurate manor. I would also request the State legislature and trade secret protection of drilling and fracking fluids under the Colorado Open Records Act and Colorado Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Thank you for your time and consideration on this extremely important issue!
Name: Trish Pegram Date: 12/01/2011 - 7:47PM,	COGCC: The League of Women Voters of La Plata County is appreciative of the improvements that are proposed in Rule 250A on hydraulic fracturing disclosure; however, we are concerned that the new rules do not go far enough in guaranteeing transparency as to the content of fracking fluids and, therefore, of the wastewater generated during the fracking process. While we wish that the trade secrets exemption could be removed completely, if that cannot be accomplished right now, we urge you to tighten your rules to guarantee that medical professionals treating anyone coming in contact with these materials can essentially instantaneously obtain the specific composition of fracking fluid to which the patient has been exposed. MSDS sheets are insufficient to meet this purpose. We also believe all drilling companies, vendors, suppliers, or service providers should be required to use the Fracfocus Chemical Disclosure Registry website so that the composition of all materials used in fracking wells in Colorado can be known to the public. As a LWV in a county where much fracking currently happens, we are concerned specifically about a couple of issues: 1. We are concerned that subpart b of the proposed rule might not allow the trade-secret protected chemical or formula to be disclosed to the person/patient who has been exposed to it, even when it is disclosed to the health professional treating the person. The rule seems to be silent on whether the patient himself can know what he was exposed to and whether that info can be placed in his medical file. The patient MUST be allowed to know everything related to his medical condition and must be able to have it reflected in his medical record in perpetuity. 2. We are also concerned about subpart c: ‘Rule 205A will not require suppliers, service companies or operators to disclose chemicals which are not disclosed to them, were not intentionally added to the hydraulic fracturing fluid, or occur incidentally or are otherwise unintentionally present.’ which exempts suppliers, service companies or operators, etc., from revealing chemicals not disclosed to them. This to us is also a loophole. We cannot accept that companies who are fracking and exposing their employees or who are injecting fracking waste water into the ground can do so without thoroughly understanding and without complete accountability for what they are doing. This exemption would also seem to allow them to hide behind the excuse that the presence of some toxic chemical that went into the ground and/or got sprayed on someone was not disclosed to them or known to them. This unconscionable loophole could delay an appropriate medical response in case of accident, among other things. These are not unsubstantive matters. Please do not pass Rule 250A without clarification of #1 and removal of at least the first two clauses we address in #2. Thank you for consideration of these items of concern to us. LWV La Plata County, Trish Pegram, President
Name: Ashley Imboden Date: 12/01/2011 - 10:16PM,	I live in the North Fork Valley the heart of Colorado's agriculture. We provide peaches, pears, plums, apples, on a lucky year apricots for most of Colorado. Our valley also has the highest % of Organic farms per capita in all of Colorado. We live in a high mountain dessert that only exists because of clean water. Like a woman previously stated, "our watershed of 33,000 acres lies almost entirely in the Grand Mesa National Forest. A good portion of this watershed is currently leased for gas drilling." Any industry that is not willing to have full disclosure to the people who's community they directly effect leads to zero accountability. Using the excuse of non-diclosure to protect Proprietary ingredients gives the companies a loop-hole for no accountability and engenders an already unbalanced check and balances of companies disregard for the environment over profits. Please represent your citizens and more over the the health of our living earth. Require full disclosure and demand accountability and ethics over profit! Mother, lover of beautiful Colorado, and a person who is really loosing any trust in the government.
Name: Laura Avant Date: 12/01/2011 - 11:40PM,	I support Food and Water Watch in calling for disclosure of chemicals used in fracking and urge you to attend to Rep. DeGette's comments as she has studied this matter in detail and proposed similar legislation. This new rule is less than perfect since it would not require full disclosure of toxic chemicals used in fracking and thus the public will not have the full information we need to protect ourselves and our children. Nevertheless, it is an improvement over the current situation in which the oil and gas companies' profits take precedence over public health, environmental concerns, and the truth. Please pass these new rules for our sakes.
Name: Kim Krisco Date: 12/02/2011 - 8:03AM,	The "trade secrets" loophole is a sham. I live in Las Animas County and recently had to drill my well 320 feet deeper to 720 feet to continue getting water. Now I am worried about the quality of that water since I am certain the loss was caused by three gas wells that were put in within 1/4 mile of my well. I have five neighbors within a quarter of me and four of them have or recently died from colon cancer. Coincidence? The gas companies just don't want to take responsibility for making people sick and killing them. When they took my water I said, "What could be worse?" Now I know -- they can take my life. A key part of your job is PUBLIC SAFETY! Please do what is right.
Name: Rick Erker Date: 12/02/2011 - 8:50AM,	As we move toward in the development of "our" natural resources it seems appropriate that the regulatory bodies move away from supporting the clandestine environment of the Oil and Gas industries use of chemicals in fracking. I demand that Full disclosure of all materials used in the fracking process... (1) the gas industry should not be able to hide behind "trade secrets": (2) you support full public disclosure of all drilling and fracking chemicals; (3) the chemical disclosure list must be posted on COGCC's website to ensure it is credible and publicly accessible; and (4) to request the State legislature end trade secret protection of drilling and fracking fluids under the Colorado Open Records Act and Colorado Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Rick Erker
Name: Betty Walters Date: 12/02/2011 - 11:31AM,	Colorado has tens of thousands of oil and gas wells that have been fracked and will be re-fracked in the future. Colorado stands to have additional oil and gas development and new drilling for decades to come. Many wells are drilled near people's homes, ranches, in neighborhoods and on native and public lands. Coloradans deserve to know what chemicals are being injected in the oil and gas wells near their homes and trucked through their neighborhoods and ranches. For these reasons,it is crucial that the disclosure rule be amended to require: 1)the disclosure of all chemicals used in fracking operations; 2)the elimination of the trade secret loophole, and 3)disclosure to a chemical registry website that has the capability to search for chemicals by name and the ability to aggregate information to determine how many wells are fractured in a given area and/or the total quantity of a given chemical used in that area.
Name: Arthur Blackwell Date: 12/03/2011 - 10:46AM,	Let me tell you about a related story and personal experience with so called " experts ", government regulators and a for profit energy company. This energy company ( we know it as Excel ) wanted to build a hydroelectric dam just north of Chippewa Falls, WI. They held the usual round of hearings with the same kind of " experts " who assured us that residents would not be affected by the Lake Wissota draw down. This " expert " claimed that all the concerns were just " irrational fears " and FERC backed him up. He Lied. Well, within ONE MONTH, many of the wells surrounding Lake Wissota DRIED UP! When we tried to contact the various agencies including FERC and Excel, they flat out denied that lowering the water levels in Lake Wissota affected the local water table. " It's YOUR problem " was the response. We were lucky. As FERC and Xcel returned the lake to it's former levels, the wells ( including mine ) returned to their original output of potable water. Bottom line: experts WILL lie. Don't poison our water tables with " slant drilling ". Force the " for profit " companies to CONSTANTLY MONITOR LOCAL WATER TABLES FOR THEIR CHEMICALS OR DISCLOSE ALL THE CHEMICALS SO A THIRD INDEPENDENT PARTY can monitor levels of the chemicals that show up in water tables. Animals are smart enough to not befoul their nests. I cannot say the same for the human animal.