Citation
A Summary report of perceptions of the politics and regulation of hydraulic fracturing in Colorado

Material Information

Title:
A Summary report of perceptions of the politics and regulation of hydraulic fracturing in Colorado
Creator:
Pierce, Jonathan J.
Kagan, Jennifer
Heikkila, Tanya
Weible, Christopher M.
Gallaher, Samuel
Place of Publication:
Denver, Colo.
Publisher:
School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado
Publication Date:
Language:
English

Notes

Abstract:
This report presents the findings from a survey conducted in the spring of 2013 of people directly or indirectly involved in the politics and regulation of oil and natural gas development that utilizes hydraulic fracturing in Colorado. A total of 398 people were administered a survey and 137 people responded. These respondents include people from local, state, and federal governments, oil and gas service providers and operators and industry associations, environmental and conservation groups, local citizen groups, and academics and consultants.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of copyright holder or Creator or Publisher as appropriate]. Permission granted to University of Colorado Denver to digitize and display this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
University of Colorado Denver
School of Public Affairs
NOVEMBER 2013
A Summary Report of Perceptions of the Politics and Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing in Colorado

Produced by the School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado Denver Authors Jonathan Pierce, Post-Doctoral Scholar Jennifer Kagan, Graduate Assistant Tanya Heikkila, Associate Professor Chris Weible, Associate Professor Samuel Gallaher, Doctoral Candidate


Acknowledgements
We are grateful for the individuals in Colorado who volunteered their time to participate in this study. This research was funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, though the research design and results are the authors' alone. For their assistance in conducting this research, we also wish to thank Michael Jones, Elizabeth Shanahan, Deserai Crow, Benjamin Blair, Brian Gerber, and Alice Madden
Citing this Summary Report
Pierce, Jonathan J., Jennifer Kagan, Tanya Heikkila, Christopher M. Weible, and Samuel Gallaher. 2013. "A Summary Report of Perceptions of the Politics and Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing in Colorado." Published November 25, 2013 by the School of Public Affairs University of Colorado Denver.
Questions, Comments, and Requests for More Information
For questions, comments, concerns, and feedback regarding this survey and research project please contact the following:
Tanya Heikkila Associate Professor School of Public Affairs University of Colorado Denver 1380 Lawrence Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80217 Phone: 303-315-2269 Fax:303-315-2229 Email: Tanya.Heikkila@ucdenver.edu
Chris Weible
Associate Professor School of Public Affairs
University of Colorado Denver
1380 Lawrence Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80217
Phone:303-315-2010
Fax:303-315-2229
Email: Chris.Weible@ucdenver.edu
2


Table of Contents
Executive Summary..............................................................................4
Introduction to the Study......................................................................6
Hydraulic Fracturing in Colorado...............................................................7
Survey Methodology and Respondent Demographics.................................................8
Objective 1: Positions on Hydraulic Fracturing................................................10
Objective 2: Political Activities, Resources, and Collaborative Networks......................12
Objective 3: Problem Severity.................................................................17
Objective 4: Perceptions of and Preferences fo Regulations....................................20
Objective 5: Perceptions of Disclosure and Setbacks Regulation................................24
Conclusions...................................................................................26
References....................................................................................30
Appendix: Survey Questions....................................................................33
3


Executive Summary
This report presents the findings from a survey conducted in the spring of 2013 of people directly or indirectly involved in the politics and regulation of oil and natural gas development that utilizes hydraulic fracturing in Colorado. A total of 398 people were administered a survey and 137 people responded. These respondents include people from local, state, and federal governments, oil and gas service providers and operators and industry associations, environmental and conservation groups, local citizen groups, and academics and consultants.
Five key objectives guided this study. The objectives and the main survey findings related to each objective are summarized immediately below.
Objective 1: To identify respondents' general positions about hydraulic fracturing used in oil and natural gas development in Colorado. The findings show that respondents can be grouped according to their position about whether hydraulic fracturing should be i) stopped or limited (n = 48), ii) continued at the current rate (n = 43), or iii) expanded (n = 46). These three groups are used to guide the analysis for the remaining objectives. All environmental and organized citizen groups are members of the stop or limit group. In contrast, the oil and gas industry make up the majority of respondents in the expand group. Local, state, or federal governments, and academics or consultants favor a range of positions.
Objective 2: To understand the political activities, resources, and network relationships of respondents based on their position toward hydraulic fracturing. The most frequent activities that respondents engage in are attending public meetings and building and maintaining coalitions. Across all activities, respondents favoring the status quo are less politically active compared to respondents who either favor expansion or the stopping of hydraulic fracturing. The resource that respondents have the greatest capacity to utilize is their connection with others who share their position. Those who oppose hydraulic fracturing report a higher capacity to utilize their resources to achieve their objectives compared to those who favor the status quo or expansion of hydraulic fracturing. Respondents frequently collaborate with local and state government officials in pursuit of their interests. The most important criterion for choosing with whom to collaborate on hydraulic fracturing issues is professional competency.
Objective 3: To understand the extent that respondents perceive issues associated with hydraulic fracturing-inclusive oil and gas development as potential problems. Problems related to the politics, information, and process of regulating oil and gas development that uses hydraulic fracturing are perceived as more severe by all respondents than those related to pollution, health risks or environmental degradation. Respondents disagree more about the severity of issues related to pollution, health risks, or environmental degradation than about problems related to politics, information and the process of regulation. The stop or
4


limit group perceived problems related to oil and gas development that uses hydraulic fracturing to be more severe than the other two groups. The expand group perceived problems related to politics and information as more severe than other problems. The continue at the current rate group aligned more with the expand group, but tended to be more moderate in many of their responses
Objective 4: To assess respondents' perceptions of the level of stringency of current regulations and their preferences for the role of government. Respondents regard the regulations pertaining to the construction and designing of wells as the most stringent, but have the greatest differentiation in their perceptions about the adequacy of regulations of public nuisances caused by well site operations. A vast majority of respondents support some level of regulation over hydraulic fracturing. When considering which level of government they prefer for regulating various issues related to oil and gas development and hydraulic fracturing, most respondents, particularly those who support hydraulic fracturing, prefer the state level of government. Among those who oppose hydraulic fracturing we found substantial variance in their stated preferences for the level of government addressing hydraulic fracturing issues.
Objective 5: To assess respondents' perceptions of rules adopted by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) about disclosure and setbacks related to hydraulic fracturing-inclusive oil and gas development. Respondents held diverging opinions about the effectiveness of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission's disclosure rule of 2011 and the setbacks rule of 2013. However, the overall effectiveness of the disclosure rule is higher than the setbacks rule. Most respondents agree that neither rule has resolved the issue of public distrust of the oil and gas industry.
Across the five objectives, the survey findings highlight notable areas of agreement and disagreement across the three groups of respondents based on their position towards hydraulic fracturing of stop or limit, continue at the current rate, or expand. Areas of agreement between the groups include (i) the recognition that public distrust of the oil and gas industry is a problem; (ii) a preference for increased local government regulation of the nuisance to the general public caused by well site operations; and (iii) satisfaction with current regulations for the construction of wells and well pads. In contrast, areas of disagreement include (i) the severity of the threat posed by hydraulic fracturing-inclusive oil and gas development in relation to the environment and public health; (ii) the level of government at which most issues related to oil and gas development and hydraulic fracturing should be regulated; and (iii) the perceived adequacy of the disclosure and setbacks statewide rules in Colorado.
5


Introduction
This report summarizes a survey administered in the spring of 2013 to individuals who are directly or indirectly involved with the politics, policies, and rulemaking concerning oil and natural gas development that utilizes hydraulic fracturing in Colorado. The survey was conducted through the School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado Denver and funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.
The goal of this report is to provide an understanding of the politics surrounding the issue largely focused on the process of hydraulic fracturing and other oil and natural gas development processes in Colorado. We recognize that people relate to this issue from a variety of viewpoints that are impossible to describe entirely in a single report. Instead, this summary report provides a description of the opinions and perceptions of a sample of individuals who are actively involved in oil and natural gas development that utilizes hydraulic fracturing in Colorado. These individuals come from diverse professional and organizational affiliations including all levels of government, the oil and gas industry, businesses and trade associations, nonprofits, environmental groups, academia, consulting groups, and local citizen organizations.
In surveying this politically active population, we were guided by five objectives.
Objective 1: Objective 2: Objective 3: Objective 4: Objective 5:
To identify respondents' general positions about hydraulic fracturing used in oil and natural gas development in Colorado.
To understand the political activities, resources, and network relationships of respondents based on their position toward hydraulic fracturing.
To understand the extent that respondents perceive issues associated with hydraulic fracturing-inclusive oil and gas development as potential problems.
To assess respondents' perceptions of the level of stringency of current regulations and their preferences for the role of government.
To assess respondents' perceptions of rules adopted by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) about disclosure and setbacks related to hydraulic fracturing-inclusive oil and gas development.
In providing an understanding of the politics and regulations of oil and gas development that utilizes hydraulic fracturing in Colorado, the survey asks respondents to answer several value-oriented questions. We ask such questions not to push a political agenda or a position about hydraulic fracturing, but instead to measure the perceptions of the respondents and to identify areas of agreement and disagreement. Our hope is that through soliciting the perceptions of those actively involved in the issue, we might assist people inside and outside of government in understanding the differences in their positions and potentially find shared understandings that may be used to inform the governance of hydraulic fracturing in Colorado and elsewhere.
6


This Colorado survey is part of a larger research project that includes work in Texas and New York. In each state, researchers from the School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado Denver explore the politics of hydraulic fracturing-inclusive oil and gas development through interviews, surveys, and document analysis.
Brief Overview of Hydraulic Fracturing in Colorado
Hydraulic fracturing, also referred to as "fracking," "fracing," or "hydrofracking," is the process of pumping a mixture of water, sand or similar material, and chemical additives, under high pressure, into vertically or horizontally drilled wells. The process fractures rock formations thousands of feet underground to release oil and natural gas that travel through previously created wells to the surface. The combination of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling allows for oil and gas recovery from formations with low permeability (COGCC, 2011a). Since 2009, hydraulic fracturing has been used in at least 90% of the approximately 13,000 well permits reviewed and approved in Colorado (COGCC, 2012a).1
Intense political debates have emerged in Colorado, similar to other parts of the U.S., about the risks and benefits of hydraulic fracturing and how it should be regulated. These debates have focused on a range of issues related to oil and gas development, in addition to hydraulic fracturing, and have captured the attention of people inside and outside of government. The extent of media coverage in Colorado on topics related to oil and gas development that utilizes hydraulic fracturing underscores the saliency and diversity of these issues, a sample of which include the following:
Concerns associated with the effects of oil and gas development inclusive of hydraulic fracturing on water contamination (Finley, 2013a), handling produced water (Wineke, 2012), seismic activity (Chang, 2013), public nuisance (Fissinger, 2012), air contamination (Bailey, 2012), and methane leakage (Jaffe, 2012a);
Public distrust of the process of hydraulic fracturing (Wyatt, 2013) and of the oil and gas industry (Jaffe, 2012b);
Benefits of oil and gas development that uses hydraulic fracturing for energy independence and security (McCurdy, 2011).
At the same time, media coverage has highlighted how these issues have captured the attention of the public and policymakers across Colorado. For example, we have seen some of these issues:
1 When we use the term "hydraulic fracturing," unless otherwise stated, we are referring to the technical process of fracturing rock formations. We use phrases like hydraulic fracturing-inclusive oil and gas development to refer to the set of upstream oil and gas processes that use horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing to recover oil and gas from low permeable formations. The set of processes includes pre-drilling activities such as lease negotiations for subsurface mineral rights; well pad preparation; vertical and directional drilling; water, sand and chemical transportation; hydraulic fracturing; produced water processing; and post-drilling activities such as the transmission of gas or oil to consumers.
7


Political activity including bans or moratoriums of hydraulic fracturing in Longmont (Finley, 2012), Boulder (Fryar, 2013), Fort Collins (Finley, 2013b) and subsequent lawsuits by the state (Jaffe, 2013) and industry (Finley, 2012);
Public protests in opposition (Whaley, 2012) and in support (Robles, 2012) of hydraulic fracturing in oil and gas development;
Regulatory processes, especially ones targeting disclosure of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing (Jaffe, 2011) and setback distances from a well site to occupied buildings (Riccardi, 2013).
Despite the gravity of the issue for all of the citizens of Colorado, there has been little systematic research on the perceptions of individuals active in hydraulic fracturing politics and its governance in Colorado. As a result, many unexplored questions remain. What are the areas of disagreement on these issues? Are there areas of agreement? How should hydraulic fracturing and oil and gas development in Colorado be regulated? To what extent are individuals satisfied with recent government regulations? While a single report cannot offer unqualified answers to these questions, our hope is to provide insight into the different sides and positions on this issue.
Survey Methodology and Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
The content of the questions and answer categories are informed by information acquired from 14 interviews with experts representing various organizations and positions in Colorado. The survey consists of 23 questions with several subparts. A copy of the survey is available in the Appendix.
Survey respondents were identified through multiple sources, including the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) website list of recognized stakeholders during the 2011 disclosure and 2012-13 setback rule processes; attendees of state and local public hearings; attendees and presenters at academic, government, environmental, and industry sponsored conferences and meetings; organizers of public protests; and news media and online media covering events related to hydraulic fracturing and oil and natural gas development in Colorado. In total, the survey was emailed to 398 individuals and was completed by 137 people, resulting in a response rate of 34.42%.2 Table 1 provides a summary of the demographic information for respondents.
2 Out of the total sample surveyed per organizational affiliation type, the response rates are the following: academics (33%), environmental and conservation groups (36%), federal government (34%), industry and professional associations (38%), local government (38%), news media (0%), oil and gas service providers and operators (37%), organized citizen groups (53%), other (50%), regional government (33%), and state government (27%). Across the different types of organizations surveyed we received at least a 30% response rate from all except for media and state government. In the case of the media we received no responses and claim no representation of their viewpoints on this issue.
8


Table 1. Demographic Summary Information for Respondents
Summary Responses
Highest level of formal education
High school 2%
Some college 4%
Bachelors degree 29%
Masters or professional degree 57%
Ph.D. or M.D. 8%
Age distribution
18 to 29 5%
30 to 39 12%
40 to 49 20%
50 to 59 41%
60 or older 22%
Percent male and female
Male 67%
Female 33%
Organizational affiliation
Local Government 26%
State Government 7%
Federal Government 8%
Oil and Gas Service Providers and Operators 22%
Industry and Professional Associations 6%
Environmental and Conservation Groups 13%
Citizen Groups 6%
Academics and Consultants 8%
Other3 4%
Years involved in hydraulic fracturing
0 to 1 years 4%
2 to 4 years 31%
5 to 9 years 31%
10 to 20 years 18%
21 or more years 16%
Hour spent per week on hydraulic fracturing
9 hours or less 49%
10 to 20 hours/week 22%
21 to 30 hours/week 10%
31 to 40 hours/week 14%
41 or more hours per week 5%
3 Other includes respondents from regional government, agriculture, and real estate developers and home builders.
9


Objective 1: To identify respondents' general positions about hydraulic fracturing used in oil and natural gas development in Colorado
We asked respondents whether their current position is most closely aligned with the belief that hydraulic fracturing should be stopped, limited, continued at its current rate, expanded moderately, or expanded extensively. The results are shown below in Figure 1.
The distribution of responses is relatively balanced across the five categories, with the median respondent supporting continuing development at its current rate.4
m 35%
4>
S 30%
= 25%
8 20%
t 15%
2 10%
| 5%
=L 0%
Stop Limit Continue at Expand Expand
Current Moderately Extensively Rate
Figure 1. General positions regarding hydraulic fracturing
The positions on hydraulic fracturing in Figure 1 are used to categorize respondents in reporting the results for other survey items. Based on these general positions, we divided respondents into three position groups: the stop or limit group (n = 48); the continue at current rate group (n = 43); and the expand group (n = 46).
Each of these three position groups includes respondents representing various organizational affiliations. Figure 2 shows the distributions of these organizational affiliations among each position group. Government at all levels, as well as academics and consultants, are distributed fairly evenly among the three position groups. Oil and gas service providers and operators and industry and professional associations make up a majority of the expand
4 The mean was calculated by assigning numerical values to responses (1 indicates a belief that development should be stopped and 5 indicates a response that development should be expanded extensively). The mean response among respondents was 3.01, indicating an average response that development should continue at its current rate.
10


group (56%) and a large minority of those who comprise the continue at current rate group (28%). All respondents from environmental organizations and organized citizen groups believe that development should be stopped or limited, and they make up 57% of the stop or limit group.
Stop or Limit Group n = 48
Academics 0ther Federal Consultants 4?S 8% State
4%
Organized citizen A 19%
1
]
f
Environmental
groups
38%

2%
Local
23%
Oil and Gas Operators
2%
Continue at Current Rate Group n = 43
Other
Federal
Academics Consultants 7%
Industry__
Assoc.
7%
\
Oil and Gas. Operators 21%
v*


.11%
State
14%
Local
35%
Academics Consultants 7%
Industry Assoc. _
11%
Expand Group n = 46
Other
2%
\
Federal ^4%_ state
t 1%
V
Oil and Gas Operators 45%
Local
24%
Figure 2. Organizational affiliations by position group
11


Objective 2: To understand the political activities, resources, and network relationships of respondents based on their position toward hydraulic fracturing
Political Activities
One section of the survey investigated the extent to which respondents are involved in advocacy related to hydraulic fracturing-inclusive oil and gas development. Specifically, questions asked whether respondents engage in a range of 10 different activities to achieve their organizational objectives related to natural gas development that uses hydraulic fracturing and, if so, at what frequency.
Overall, a majority of respondents report that their organization engages in the following activities: participating in public meetings (87%), forming and maintaining a coalition with allies (74%), generating and disseminating research and reports (71%), testifying at public hearings (69%), communicating with the news media (69%), and posting information or advocating online (63%). We compared these responses across the three position groups to identify differences or similarities among their activities. The results based on the frequency of the activity, ranging from daily to never or not reported, per position group can be found in Figure 3 (means reported).
On a daily basis, the activities most frequently engaged in by respondents of the stop or limit group are forming and building a coalition, posting and advocating online, and lobbying. On a monthly basis, they are most frequently engaged in public meetings. They participate least frequently in lawsuits and public protests.
Respondents of the continue at current rate group engage in fewer activities than any other position group. A majority of the respondents from this group only engage in the following activities at least annually: public meetings, generating and disseminating reports, and forming and building a coalition. Respondents from the continue at current rate group are most likely to attend public meetings at a weekly and monthly basis. Respondents in the continue at current rate group rarely engage in lawsuits and public protests.
Members of the expand group are active in a range of activities. A majority of the respondents on at least a monthly basis attend public meetings, form and build coalitions, attend public hearings, contact the media, post information and advocate online, generate and disseminate reports, and lobby. They are least likely to report lawsuits or public protests as activities.
The level of activity among the stop or limit and the expand position groups is higher than the activity of the continue at current rate group. All of the groups have a presence at public meetings and hearings, and all build and maintain coalitions.
12


Expand Group Continue at Current RateGrpup Stop or Limit Group
Lawsuits Public Protests Complaints Public Hearings Public Meetings Reports Media Lobby
Post / Advocate Online Form / Build Coalition
Lawsuits Public Protests Complaints Public Hearings Public Meetings Reports Media Lobby
Post / Advocate Online Form / Build Coalition
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Quarterly
Annually
Never or N/A
Lawsuits Protests Complaints
Public Hearings
Public Meetings Reports
Lobby
Post / Advocate Online Form Coalition
I iii in
096 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Figure 3. Activities by position group
13


Organizational Capacity
We asked respondents about the capacity of their organizations to use or mobilize 10 types of resources for achieving their objectives. Organizational capacities with respect to each of the 10 resources were asked on a four-point scale (from 1 = no capacity to 4 = substantial capacity).
Table 2 presents the means per capacity item by position group. The items measured for organizational capacity are ranked from the highest to lowest capacity for all respondents. We highlight in bold the resources that are significantly different between at least two of the three groups.
Table 2. Mean organizational capacity by position group5
Stop or Limit Group n = 48 Continue at Current Rate Group n = 43 Expand Group n = 46
1. Access to people with a similar position 3.5 3.0 3.3
on hydraulic fracturing
2. Access to government officials 3.3 3.2 3.2
3. Access to media 3.2 3.0 2.9
4. Access to people with a different position 3.1 2.9 2.7
on hydraulic fracturing
5. Effective leadership in organization 3.2 3.1 3.1
6. Access to elected officials 3.1 3.1 3.0
7. Support from the general public 3.0 2.4 2.4
8. Technical support to generate and 2.9 2.9 2.6
disseminate information online
9. Generate and disseminate scientific reports and analysis 2.6 2.6 2.3
10. Financial resources 2.2 2.5 2.6
1 = No Capacity, 2 = Limited Capacity, 3 = Moderate Capacity, 4 = Substantial Capacity. Statistically significant differences between groups are highlighted in bold.
Only two resources are significantly different between the position groups: support from the general public and generating and disseminating reports. In the case of getting support from the general public, the stop or limit group report more capacity compared to the others. In generating and disseminating reports, the stop or limit and continue at current rate groups have more capacity relative to the expand group. For the remaining capacity items, the stop or limit group report slightly higher levels of capacity with the exception of financial resources, but these differences are not statistically significant between the groups.
5 The differences in resources between the respondent groups are not significant except for support from the general public and the capability to generate and disseminate scientific reports and analysis which are significant to 0.01 using an ANOVA test.
14


Collaborative Networks
The survey included a roster of organizational affiliations for respondents to indicate the types of organizations they collaborate with to achieve their goals related to oil and natural gas development and hydraulic fracturing in Colorado. Respondents could check zero or all of the organizational affiliations with whom they collaborate. The results, divided by respondent group, are shown below in Table 3. The percentages indicate the proportion of respondents per group that cite a particular organization for collaboration. The top four cited organizational affiliation categories, by position group, are identified in bold and italicized.
Table 3. Percentage of respondents by position group who report collaboration with the following_categories of organizational affiliations_____________________________________
Stop or Limit Group n = 48 Continue at Current Rate Group n = 43 Expand Group n = 46
1. Local government 79% 63% 70%
2. State government 69% 81% 80%
3. Federal government 52% 51% 54%
4. Regional government 65% 49% 54%
5. Oil and gas service providers and operators 42% 72% 87%
6. Industry and professional associations 46% 77% 83%
7. Environmental and conservation organizations 79% 58% 52%
8. Organized citizen groups 71% 37% 30%
9. Academics and consultants 58% 35% 46%
10. News media 50% 35% 50%
11. Agriculture organizations 33% 40% 44%
12. Real estate developers and home builders 23% 16% 37%
The types of organizations that respondents in each position group cited most frequently as collaborators are local and state governments. Similarly, about half of respondents per position group collaborate with federal and regional governments. More than 71% of respondents in the stop or limit group report collaborating with environmental and organized citizen groups. In contrast, a minority of respondents from the stop or limit group collaborate with oil and gas service providers and operators and industry and professional associations (42% and 46%, respectively). For respondents in the continue at current rate or expand groups, 72% collaborate with oil and gas service providers and operators and 77% with industry and professional associations. The least cited organization categories include real estate developers and home builders for the stop or limit group and the continue at the current rate group as well as the organized citizens groups for the expand group.
We also asked respondents about the factors that are important to them in choosing
15


which organizations to collaborate with on issues related to hydraulic fracturing. We asked respondents to rate each factor on a five-point scale (from 1 = not important to 5 = extremely important). The mean scores per reason by the three position groups are shown in Table 4. The factors that are significantly different between position groups are in bold.
Table 4. Mean reported reasons for collaboration by position groups6
Stop or Limit Group n = 48 Continue at Current Rate Group n = 43 Expand Group n = 46
1. They are professionally competent 4.5 4.0 4.2
2. I trust them to keep their promises 4.0 3.5 3.8
3. I have worked with them in the past 2.5 2.4 2.8
4. They have political influence 3.0 2.1 2.5
5. They share my position about major issues 2.8 1.9 2.7
6. They have access to financial resources 2.2 1.7 2.2
1 = Not Important, 3 = Modetaretly Important, 5 = Extemely Important. Statistically significant differences between groups are highlighted in bold.
Respondents indicate that the most important factor in deciding with whom to collaborate is the professional competence of the collaborating party and the least important factor is financial resources. Professional competence and political influence were both significantly higher determinants of collaboration for the stop or limit group than the continue at current rate or expand groups. Shared positions are significantly more important for determining who to collaborate with for the stop or limit and expand groups in comparison to the continue at current rate respondents. In addition to professional competence, trust in their collaborative partners is reported as an important reason for collaboration.
6 The differences between the position groups on why they regularly collaborate are statistically significant for professional competence, and political influence at 0.01 and for sharing my position at 0.05 using an ANOVA test.
16


Objective 3: To understand the extent that respondents perceive issues associated with hydraulic fracturing-inclusive oil and gas development as potential problems
To understand the types of issues that respondents are most concerned about in relation to hydraulic fracturing, we asked them to rate the extent that 20 issues are problems. The range of response categories includes whether they believed each issue was not a problem, a minor problem, a moderate problem, a serious problem, or a severe problem. We assigned values for the response categories on a five-point scale (from 1 = being not a problem to 5 = being a severe problem). The results are divided by issues related to pollution and environmental degradation (Table 5), and issues related to information, politics, and economics (Table 6). We rank the issues from highest to lowest based on the total mean for the full sample of respondents. The mean scores across all issues are significantly different between at least two groups.
Table 5. Mean perceptions about the level of severity of potential problems related to pollution and environmental degradation by position group7___________________
Stop or Limit Continue at Current Expand
Group Rate Group Group Total
n = 48 CO II c n = 46 n = 137
1. Public nuisance impacts from well site operations 3.9 2.8 2.8 3.2
2. Competition over water supplies 4.3 2.8 2.2 3.1
3. Air pollution from well site operations 4.3 2.6 2.1 3.0
4. Air pollution from methane 4.3 2.6 1.9 3.0
5. Destruction of public lands 4.1 2.5 1.8 2.8
6. Surface degradation at well site 3.8 2.5 1.9 2.8
7. Ground and surface water contamination from hydraulic fracturing fluids 4.0 2.4 1.5 2.7
8. Groundwater pollution from methane 3.7 2.3 1.6 2.6
9. Risks of induced seismic activity 3.2 1.7 1.4 2.1
1 = Not a problem, 3 = Moderate problem, 5 = Severe problem. Statistically significant differences between at least two position groups are highlighted in bold.
As shown in Table 5, perceptions of the problems diverge most widely between the stop or limit group from the expand group. The perceptions of the continue at current rate group lean toward the expand group. Of the three groups, the stop or limit group report perceiving the issues related to pollution and environmental degradation as most severe. Given the statistically significant differences between the groups, the areas where the show the least disagreement is on the public nuisance impacts from well site operations.
7 All of the issues listed in Table 5 are significantly different based on an ANOVA test to 0.001.
17


The largest differences (greater than two points on the 5-point scale; e.g. from a minor problem =2, to a major problem = 4) in perceptions between the stop and limit group and the expand group are for the following issues: competition over water supplies, air pollution from well site operations, air pollution from methane, destruction of public lands, ground and surface water contamination from hydraulic fracturing fluids, and groundwater pollution from methane.
Table 6 shows the mean perceptions by position groups for the level of severity of potential problems related to information, politics, and economics. The mean values per group and the total are provided with statistically significant differences between at least two groups highlighted in bold.
Table 6. Mean perceptions about the level of severity of potential problems related to information, politics, and economics by position group8_____________________________
Stop or Limit Continue at Current Expand
Group Rate Group Group n Total
n = 48 n = 43 = 46 n = 137
1. Misinformation among general 3.6 4.3 4.6 4.2
public
2. Public distrust of industry 3. Distribution of biased 3.6 3.8 4.0 3.8
information against hydraulic fracturing 2.5 4.1 4.7 3.7
4. Scare tactics against hydraulic fracturing 5. Conflict over mineral rights 6. Incomplete information by 2.4 4.1 3.8 4.0 3.1 3.2 4.7 3.0 3.1 3.6 3.4 3.4
industry about effects
7. Patchwork of local regulations 2.8 3.0 3.3 3.0
8. Ineffective monitoring by the 4.3 2.5 1.7 2.9
state
9. Political influence of industry 4.4 2.4 1.6 2.9
10. Boom-and-bust economic cycle 3.5 2.7 2.4 2.9
11. Burdens on local government 3.3 2.6 2.4 2.8
1 = Not a problem, 3 = Moderate problem, 5 = Severe problem. Statistically significant differences between at least two position groups are highlighted in bold.
The largest differences in perceptions of the issues identified in Table 6 are between the stop or limit group and the expand group. These differences in the perceptions of the severity of problems exceed two points (on the 5-point scale) on the following political issues: distribution of biased information against hydraulic fracturing; scare tactics against
8 The differences of all of the problems listed in Table 6 are statistically significant based on an ANOVA test to 0.01, except for a patchwork of local regulations and public distrust of industry, which are not statistically significant between groups.
18


hydraulic fracturing; ineffective monitoring by the state; and political influence of industry. Areas of the most agreement include perceptions of problems associated with a patchwork of local regulations and public distrust of industry.
Of the three position groups, the expand group expressed greater concerns about issues related to misinformation, distrust, and scare tactics whereas the stop or limit group expressed greater concern for conflict over mineral rights, ineffective monitoring by the state, political influence by industry, a boom-and-bust economic cycle, and burdens on local governments. The continue at current rate group expressed more moderate perceptions of the issues, but leaned toward the expand group on most of the items.
Although we find statistically significant differences between the groups for most of the items in Table 6, respondents agree on average that the following issues are moderate problems (means at least > 3): misinformation about hydraulic fracturing among the general public; public distrust of industry; conflict over mineral rights; and incomplete information by industry about effects.
In comparing Tables 5 and 6, the results indicate three major trends. First, respondents overall perceive problems related to information, politics, and economics as more severe than problems related to pollution and environmental degradation from hydraulic fracturing. In other words, the total means in Table 6 tend to be higher than the total means in Table 5. Second, respondents disagree more about issues of pollution compared to politics, economics, and information; that is, the differences between the position groups are greater in Table 5 compared to Table 6. Third, the continue at current rate group and the expand group tend to share more similar perceptions of issues than with the stop or limit group.
19


Objective 4: To assess respondents' perceptions of the level of stringency of current regulations and their preferences for the role of government
Perceptions of Current Regulations
We asked respondents a series of questions about their opinions regarding the leniency or stringency of regulations and enforcement in Colorado on nine issues. Respondents indicated their perceptions on a five-point scale (from 1 =very lenient to 5 = very stringent). For each category, responses are averaged and divided into position groups, and the results are shown below in Table 7. We find statistically significant differences between position groups for all items in Table 7.
Table 7. Mean perceptions of current regulations in Colorado by position group9
Stop or Limit Continue at Current Expand
Group Rate Group Group Total
n = 48 n = 43 n = 46 n = 137
1. Designing and constructing wells 2.4 3.6 3.8 3.2
2. Constructing well pads 2.3 3.4 3.6 3.1
3. Setbacks of wells from occupied buildings or natural features 1.8 3.1 3.9 2.9
4. Disclosure of chemicals in hydraulic fracturing fluids 1.9 3.2 3.8 2.9
5. Monitoring of water quality 1.9 3.2 3.7 2.9
6. Disposing or treating produced water 1.8 3.3 3.7 2.9
7. Monitoring of air quality 1.8 2.9 3.6 2.7
8. Mitigating risks from induced seismic activity 2.0 3.1 3.4 2.6
9. Mitigating risks and nuisance to the general public caused by truck traffic, noise, and light form well site operations 1.8 2.9 3.4 2.6
Position group average 1.96 3.19 3.65
1 = Lenient, 3 = Adequate, 5 = Very Stringent. Statistically significant differences between at least two position groups are highlighted in bold.
From Table 7, the total mean among respondents shows that regulations and enforcement related to designing and constructing wells are perceived as the most stringent, and that regulations and enforcement related to mitigating nuisances to the general public caused by truck traffic, noise, and light from well site operations are perceived as the most lenient. The results shown in Table 7 also indicate differences between the position groups in their perceptions of the adequacy of current regulations. The biggest difference is between
9 The differences in the perception of current regulations in Table 4 are statistically significant based on an ANOVA test to 0.001.
20


the stop or limit and the expand groups. The differences between these groups range from a minimum difference of 1.3 points on the 5-point scale for constructing well pads to a maximum difference of 2.1 points.
Preferences for the Role of Government
The survey investigated respondents' perceptions of the role of government in two ways: 1) by exploring if they have become more or less supportive of the role of government in relation to regulating the issues listed in Table 7, and 2) whether they have preferences for particular levels of government to play a dominant role in regulating these issues.
In relation to their level of support for regulation, we asked respondents whether they have generally become less supportive (1), reported no change (2), or become more supportive
(3) of government regulation. The results are divided among each position group and reported in Figure 4 (below). Figure 4 shows that the stop or limit group differs from both the continue at current rate group and the expand group. The stop or limit group have become more supportive of government regulations for all categories of issues. In contrast, the continue at current rate group and the expand group have not changed their positions on government regulation. The only exception is that a near majority of members of the expand group have become less supportive of government regulation on setbacks.
To examine the preferences among respondents for the level of government at which different issues or problems should be regulated, respondents were asked the following: "If you were to select only one level of government to regulate the following issues related to natural gas development that uses hydraulic fracturing, which would you prefer, if any?" The choices are on a four-point scale (no regulation = 1, local government = 2, state government = 3, and federal government = 4). The issues used were the same nine issues from Table 7 and Figure 4. The results by position group are found in Figure 5.
Figure 5 highlights three key findings. First, in no cases did the majority of any respondent group support no regulation. Second, a majority of respondents from all of the groups favor local government regulatory authority for mitigating public nuisance. Third, other than mitigating public nuisance, a majority of the continue at current rate and expand groups support regulation of these issues by the state government, whereas the stop or limit group is mixed about the preferences for regulation at different levels of government.
21


Expand Position Continue at Current Rate Position Stop or Limit Position
Mitigating Public Nuisance Seismic Induced Activity Constructing Well Pads Disposing Treated Water Well Construction Setbacks Disclosure Monitor Air Quality Monitor Water Quality
Mitigating Public Nuisance Seismic Induced Activity Constructing Well Pads Disposing Treated Water Well Construction Setbacks Disclosure Monitor Air Quality Monitor Water Quality
I Less Supportive Status Quo More Supportive
Mitigating Public Nuisance Seismic Induced Activity Constructing Well Pads Disposing Treated Water Well Construction Setbacks Disclosure Monitor Air Quality Monitor Water Quality
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Figure 4. Changing perception for the level of government regulations by position group
22


Mitigating Public Nuisance Seismic Induced Activity
£
.2 Constructing Well Pads
W
o Disposing Treated Water g Well Construction
£ Setbacks
Q.
o Disclosure
to
Monitor Air Quality Monitor Water Quality
0
a.
01 4-< (0 oc
01
(0
01
o
u
Mitigating Public Nuisance Seismic Induced Activity Constructing Well Pads Disposing Treated Water Well Construction Setbacks Disclosure Monitor Air Quality Monitor Water Quality
No Regulation Local Government State Government Federal Government
Mitigating Public Nuisance Seismic Induced Activity Constructing Well Pads Disposing Treated Water Well Construction Setbacks Disclosure Monitor Air Quality Monitor Water Quality
o
a.
re
Q.
X
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Figure 5. Preferences regarding level of government regulation by position group
23


Objective 5: To assess respondents' perceptions of rules adopted by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) about disclosure and setbacks related to hydraulic fracturing
The survey included questions to examine respondents' perceptions of the two recent regulations established by the COGCC, which is the statewide agency that regulates oil and gas development. The first is the 2011 disclosure rule, which mandated the reporting of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids on the fracfocus.org website while allowing for the protection of industry trade secrets. The second is the 2013 setback rule requiring a minimum distance of 500 feet between wells and occupied buildings. We asked respondents to indicate the extent to which they agreed that certain issues that were mentioned as key concerns during the respective rulemaking processes were resolved by the rules (COGCC, 2011b, 2012b). The responses are on a five-point scale (froml = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Table 8 show results for the disclosure rule, and Table 9 presents the results for the setbacks rule.
Perceptions of the 2011 Disclosure Rule
Table 8. Mean perceptions of the following issues being resolved by the COGCC 2011 disclosure rule by position group10_____________________________________________
Stop or Limit Continue at Current Expand
Group Rate Group Group Total
Issues n = 48 n = 43 n = 46 n = 137
1. What chemical information must be disclosed 2.2 3.6 4.3 3.3
2. Where chemical information should be made available 2.3 3.7 4.2 3.4
3. Accessibility of chemical information to the public 2.0 3.6 4.2 3.2
4. Protection of trade secrets 2.4 3.5 4.1 3.3
5. Disclosure of chemical information in a health or other emergency 2.1 3.7 4.2 3.3
6. When disclosure of chemical information must be made 2.0 3.7 4.0 3.2
7. Public distrust of the hydraulic fracturing process 1.7 2.4 2.4 2.1
1 = Strongly Disagree, 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree. Statistically significant differences between at least two position groups are highlighted in bold.
The results show statistically significant differences among the position groups in their perception of whether the disclosure rule resolved various issues that would have prompted
10
All of the problems listed in Table 5 are statistically significantly different based on an ANOVA test to 0.001.
24


the need for industry to disclose the chemicals in hydraulic fracturing fluids. On most of the issues, the stop or limit group disagree that the rule has resolved the problem. In comparison, the expand group agrees that the rule has resolved all of the above issues besides public distrust. The largest differences in perceptions of the effectiveness of the disclosure rule are between the stop or limit group and the expand group on addressing the following issues: what chemical information must be disclosed; accessibility of chemical information to the public; disclosure of chemical information in a health or other emergency; and when disclosure of chemical information must be made.
Perceptions of the 2013 Setbacks Rule
For the setbacks rule, the stop or limit group disagrees that the issues have been resolved, except with respect to the rights of mineral owners, on which they are somewhat satisfied. The continue at current rate group and the expand group are also more equivocal about whether the rule resolved the issues. The general consensus is that the rule was not highly effective in addressing issues that were discussed during the setbacks rulemaking process.
Table 9.Mean perceptions of the following issues being resolved by the COGCC 2013 setbacks rule by position group11
Stop or Limit Continue at Current Expand
Group Rate Group Group Total
Issues n = 48 n = 43 n = 46 n = 137
1. Public nuisance impacts 1.9 3.1 3.4 2.8
2. A patchwork of local regulations on setbacks 2.0 2.8 2.8 2.5
3. Priorities of surface owners 2.1 3.2 3.3 2.8
4. Priorities of mineral rights 2.8 3.1 2.7 2.9
owners
5. Health impacts upon the population living in proximity to well pads 1.5 2.9 3.4 2.6
6. Impacts from open pits of wastewater 1.8 3.1 3.6 2.7
7. Public distrust of the hydraulic fracturing process 1.6 2.2 2.3 2.0
8. Communications between oil and gas operators and nearby communities 2.2 3.2 3.4 2.9
1 = Strongly Disagree, 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree. Statistically significant differences between at least two position groups are highlighted in bold.
11 All of the problems listed in Table 6 are statistically significantly different based on an ANOVA test to 0.01, except for rights of mineral owners, which is not significant.
25


Conclusions
This report presents results of a 2013 survey administered to people directly or indirectly involved in the politics of oil and gas development that utilizes hydraulic fracturing in Colorado. Below we summarize the key findings according to each of the five study objectives, as well as identify areas of substantial agreement and disagreement among respondents.
Objective 1: To identify respondents'general positions about hydraulic fracturing used in oil and natural gas development in Colorado. The findings show that respondents can be grouped according to their position about whether hydraulic fracturing should be stopped or limited (n = 48), continued at the current rate (n = 43), or expanded (n = 46). These three groups are used to guide the analysis for the remaining objectives. All environmental and organized citizen groups are members of the stop or limit group. In contrast, the oil and gas industry make up the majority of respondents in the expand group. Local, state, or federal governments, and academics or consultants favor a range of positions.
Objective 2: To understand the political activities, resources, and network relationships of respondents based on their position toward hydraulic fracturing. The most frequent activities that respondents engage in are attending public meetings and building and maintaining coalitions. Across all activities, respondents favoring the status quo are less politically active compared to respondents who either support the expansion or the stopping of hydraulic fracturing. The resource that respondents have the greatest capacity to utilize is their connection with others who share their position. Those who oppose hydraulic fracturing report a higher capacity to utilize their resources to achieve their objectives compared to those who favor the status quo or expansion of hydraulic fracturing. Respondents frequently collaborate with local and state government officials in pursuit of their interests. The most important criterion for choosing with whom to collaborate on hydraulic fracturing issues is professional competency.
Objective 3: To understand the extent that respondents perceive issues associated with
hydraulic fracturing-inclusive oil and gas development as potential problems.
Problems related to the politics, information, and process of regulating hydraulic fracturing are seen as more severe by all respondents than those related to pollution, health risks or environmental degradation. Respondents disagree more about the severity of issues related to pollution, health risks, or environmental degradation than about problems related to politics, information and the process of regulation. The stop or limit group perceived problems related to hydraulic fracturing to be more severe than the other two groups. The
26


expand group perceived problems related to politics and information as more severe than other problems. The continue at the current rate group aligned more with the expand group, but tended to be more moderate in many of their responses
Objective 4: To assess respondents' perceptions of the level of stringency of current
regulations and their preferences for the role of government. Respondents regard the regulations pertaining to the construction and designing of wells as the most stringent and regard the adequacy of regulations of public nuisances caused by well site operations as the least stringent. A vast majority of respondents support some level of regulation over hydraulic fracturing. When considering which level of government they prefer for regulating various issues related to hydraulic fracturing, most respondents, particularly those who support hydraulic fracturing, prefer the state level of government. Among those who oppose hydraulic fracturing we found substantial variance in their stated preferences for the level of government addressing hydraulic fracturing issues.
Objective 5: To assess respondents' perceptions of rules adopted by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) about disclosure and setbacks related to hydraulic fracturing-inclusive oil and gas development. Respondents held diverging opinions about the effectiveness of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission's disclosure rule of 2011 and the setbacks rule of 2013. However, the overall effectiveness of the disclosure rule is higher than the setbacks rule. Most respondents agree that neither rule has resolved the issue of public distrust of the oil and gas industry.
Drawing generalized lessons across the objectives, we find a number of areas of agreement and disagreement among respondents. As summarized in Table 10, there are a few areas of agreement that could prompt opportunities for public or private action and possibly negotiations and consensus. Respondents are not against regulation of hydraulic fracturing and other aspects of oil and gas development but rather the amount of regulation, the particular focus of the regulation, and from what level of government regulators intervene. Outside of regulations for well and well-pad design and construction, the position groups do not agree on which other areas surveyed are adequately regulated or not. While the continue at current rate group and the expand group believe regulations for water and air monitoring and disposing of produced water is more than adequate, they report, along with the stop or limit group, a slight increase in support for future regulations in these areas. Respondents across the position groups also agree that public nuisance from well site operations are a moderate problem and the local government is the appropriate level for dealing with public nuisance problems related to well site activity. Finally, respondents agree that public distrust of hydraulic fracturing and of the oil and gas industry is a severe problem that is not being resolved through the current state regulations.
27


Table 10. Areas of substantial agreement and disagreement between position groups
Areas of Substantial Agreement Areas of Substantial Disagreement
Perceived Severity of Environmental Pollution and Degradation Issues
- Public nuisance impacts from well site operations are a moderate problem - The perceived severity of problems related to contamination of water sources; air pollution; competition over water supply; and destruction of public lands
Perceived Severity of Information and Politics Issues
- Public distrust of industry and misinformation among the public are serious problems; - Local government issues related to regulation, boom-and-bust economic cycles, and burden on services are moderate problems -The perceived severity of problems related to distribution of biased information against hydraulic fracturing; scare tactics against hydraulic fracturing; ineffective monitoring by the state; and political influence by industry
Perception of Current and Future Regulation
- hydraulic fracturing should be regulated; - Well and well pad design/construction regulations are adequate - The perceived stringency of current regulations and preferences for future regulation
Perception of Regulation at Various Levels of Government
- Mitigating the public nuisance caused by well site operations is best regulated by the local government -The preferred level of government for regulating most issues related to hydraulic fracturing
Effectiveness of 2011 Disclosure Rule in Addressing Issues
- Public distrust of hydraulic fracturing was not resolved by the 2011 disclosure rule - Whether the 2011 Disclosure rule resolved i) what and when chemical information must be disclosed; ii) accessibility of the information to the general public; or iii) disclosure of chemical information in an emergency
Effectiveness of 2013 Setbacks Rule in Addressing Issues
- Public distrust of the hydraulic fracturing process was not resolved by the 2013 setbacks rule; - The rule had relatively no effect on local regulations, priorities of mineral rights and surface owners, and communication between operators and local communities - Whether the 2013 setbacks rule resolved public nuisance by well site operations; health impacts upon those living nearby well pads; or impacts from open pits of wastewater
28


In summary, these findings may help clarify the underlying concerns, preferences, and resources of a diverse range of people involved in the issues surrounding oil and gas development that utilizes hydraulic fracturing. We recognize that this survey offers only a partial representation of the politics at a specific point in time and that it does not apply to the preferences and opinions of all citizens in Colorado. Despite these limitations, we hope to offer interested individuals and organizations a better understanding of one of the most politically contentious environmental issues today in Colorado.
29


References
Bailey, K. (April 26, 2012). Guest Commentary: The dangers of hydraulic fracturing in Colorado. Denver Post,
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci 20478569/columns?IADID=Search-www.denverpost.com-www.denverpost.com
Chang, A. (July 11, 2013). Study: Distant quakes can affect oil, gas fields. Denver Post, http://www.denverpost.com/ci 23641728/study-distant-quakes-can-affect-oil-gas-f ields?l ADI D=Sea rch-www.denverpost.com-www.denverpost.com
Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. (2011a). Hydraulic Fracturing Information. http://cogcc.state.co.us/
Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. (2011b). Rulemaking 2011: Hydraulic Fracturing Chemical Disclosure, http://cogcc.state.co.us/
Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. (2012a). Staff Testimony for Setback Rulemaking, December 11, 2012. http://cogcc.state.co.us/
Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. (2012b). Setback Rulemaking 2012: Establishing New and Amended Rules for Statewide Setbacks, http://cogcc.state.co.us/
Finley, B. (December 17, 2012). Colorado oil and gas industry sues to kill Longmont fracking ban. Denver Post, http://www.denverpost.com/environment/ci 22211514/colorado-oil-and-gas-indust ry-sues-kill-longmont?l ADI D=Sea rch-www.denverpost.com-www.denverpost.com
Finley, B. (February 14, 2013a). Water fouled with fracking chemicals spews near Windsor. Denver Post, http://www.denverpost.com/environment/ci 22586154/water-fouled-fracking-chem ica Is-spews-nea r-windsor?l ADI D=Sea rch-www.denverpost.com-www.denverpost.com
Finley, B. (March 5, 2013b). Threat of Colorado lawsuit looms as fracking ban OK'd in Fort Collins. Denver Post, http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci 22724633/threat-state-la wsuit-looms-fort-coll ins-votes-f racking?! ADI D=Sea rch-www.denverpost.com-www.denverpost.com
Fissinger, K. (October 26, 2012). Guest Commentary: In Longmont, protecting our families from fracking is our right. Denver Post,
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci 21856556/protecting-longmont-families-from-f racking-is-our-right?l ADI D=Sea rch-www.denverpost.com-www.denverpost.com
Fryar, F. (June 18, 2013). Boulder County extends oil and gas moratorium for 18 months. Longmont Times-Call, http://www.timescall.com/news/longmont-local-
30


news/ci 23487702/boulder-county-extends-oil-and-gas-moratorium-18
Jaffe, M. (August 2, 2011). Colorado moving to require full disclosure on drilling industry fracking fluids. Denver Post,
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci 18601083?IADID=Search-www.denverpost.com-www.denverpost.com
Jaffe, M. (March 19, 2012a). Colorado study finds fracking risks for nearby residents. Denver Post, http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci 20206688/colorado-study-finds-fracking-risks-nearby-residents?! ADI D=Sea rch-www.denverpost.com-www.denverpost.com
Jaffe, M. (August 16, 2012b). Hickenlooper: Colorado drilling regulations need more work. Denver Post, http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci 21323355/hickenlooper-colorado-d rilling-regulations-need-more-work?l ADI D=Sea rch-www.denverpost.com-www.denverpost.com
Jaffe, M. (July 11, 2013). Colorado joins in suit to knock down Longmont fracking ban. Denver Post, http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci 23643679/state-ioins-suit-knock-down-longmont-fracking-ban?IADID=Search-www.denverpost.com-www.denverpost.com
McCurdy, D. (July 10, 2011). Hydraulic fracturing is a safe process that results in needed energy. Denver Post, http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci 1843600271ADI D=Search-www.denverpost.com-www.denverpost.com
Riccardi, N. (February 27, 2013). As energy boom nears Colorado cities, a backlash grows. Denver Post, http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci 22680620/energy-boom-nears-colorado-cities-backlash-grows?IADID=Sea rch-www.denverpost.com-www.denverpost.com
Robles, Y. (November 13, 2012). Protestors show up at Capitol rally in support of hydraulic fracturing. Denver Post, http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci 21988642/protestors-ra lly-aga inst-patchwork-loca l-oil-and-gas?l ADI D=Sea rch-www.denverpost.com-www.denverpost.com
Whaley, M. (March 7, 2012). Anti-fracking protest casts shadow over jobs promise in Commerce City. Denver Post, http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci 20121571/anti-fracking-protest-casts-shadow-over-iobs-promise?IADID=Sea rch-www.denverpost.com-www.denverpost.com
Wineke, A. (April 30, 2012). Drilling oil in Colorado makes water, takes water. The Colorado Springs Post Gazette, http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci 20513019/drilling-oil-colorado-ma kes-water-takes-water?l ADI D=Sea rch-www.denverpost.com-www.denverpost.com
31


Wyatt, K. (March 21, 2013). Debate over Colorado drilling regulations begins. Denver Post, http://www.denverpost.com/ci 22837905/oil-gas-drilling-debates-begin-colorado?IADID=Sea rch-www.denverpost.com-www.denverpost.com
32


Appendix. Survey Questions
Q1A. Please indicate the extent to which the following issues are current problems related to natural gas development that uses hydraulic fracturing.
Not a Minor Moderate Serious Severe
Problem Problem Problem Problem Problem
- Misinformation among the general public about the risks, benefits, and effects of hydraulic fracturing. O O O O O
- Contamination of ground and surface water supplies from chemicals in hydraulic fracturing fluids. O O O o O
- A patchwork of local regulations on hydraulic o o o o o
- Conflict between mineral rights and property rights owners. o o o o o
- Contamination of ground water from methane migration. o o o o o
- Degradation of air quality from fugitive methane emissions. o o o o o
- Degradation of air quality from flares, diesel exhaust, and dust from well site operations. o o o o o
- Competition for available water supplies from hydraulic o o o o o
- Nuisance to the general public caused by truck traffic, noise, and light from well site o o o o o
- Surface degradation and erosion from access roads at well site operations. o o o o o
33


Q1B. Please indicate the extent to which the following issues are current problems related to
natural gas development that uses hydraulic fracturing.
Not a Minor Moderate Serious Severe
Problem Problem Problem Problem Problem
- Public distrust of the oil and gas industry. O O O O O
- Ineffective monitoring by state regulatory agencies of hydraulic fracturing. O O O o O
- Scare tactics and demonizing of the oil and gas industry by opponents of hydraulic fracturing. o o o o o
- Influence of the oil and gas industry over state administrative and legislative branches. o o o o o
- Boom-and-bust economic cycles from natural gas development. o o o o o
- Burdens on local government services from temporary employees for well site operations. o o o o o
- Risks of induced seismic activity caused by hydraulic fracturing. o o o o o
- Inadequate or incomplete communication by the oil and gas industry about the risks, benefits and effects of hydraulic fracturing to the general public. o o o o o
- Distribution of biased information against hydraulic fracturing. o o o o o
- Destruction of public lands by well site operations, processing facilities, and pipelines. o o o o o
34


Q2. Please indicate what comes closest to your current position in relation to natural gas
development that uses hydraulic fracturing. It should be...
Stopped
Limited
Continue at Current Rate Expanded Moderately Expanded Extensively
Q3. Please indicate your general opinion of the current regulations in Colorado, and their enforcement, in relation to natural gas development that uses hydraulic fracturing.
Very Lenient Lenient Adequate Stringent Very Stringent
- Monitoring of water quality O O O O O
- Monitoring air emissions O o o o o
- Disclosure of chemicals in hydraulic fracturing fluids o o o o o
- Setbacks of wells from occupied buildings or natural features o o o o o
- Designing and constructing wells o o o o o
- Disposing or treating produced water o o o o o
- Constructing well pads o o o o o
- Mitigating risks from induced seismic activity o o o o o
- Mitigating risks and nuisances to the general public caused by truck traffic, noise, and light from well site o o o o o
- Other: o o o o o
35


Q4. Since you have become aware of issues related to natural gas development that uses hydraulic fracturing, to what extent have you changed your position on the need for government regulation on the following issues?
Have become less No Have become more
supportive of Change supportive of
government regulation government regulation
- Monitoring of water quality O O O
- Monitoring of air emissions O O O
- Disclosure of chemicals in hydraulic fracturing fluids o o o
- Setbacks of wells from occupied buildings or natural features o o o
- Designing and constructing wells o o o
- Disposing or treating produced o o o
water
- Constructing well pads o o o
- Mitigating risks from induced seismic activity o o o
- Mitigating risks and nuisances to the general public caused by truck traffic, noise, and light from well site operations o o o
- Other: o o o
36


Q5. If you were to select only one level of government to regulate the following issues related to natural gas development that uses hydraulic fracturing, which would you prefer, if any?
No Local State Federal
Regulation Government Government Government
- Monitoring of water quality O O O O
- Monitoring of air emissions O O O O
- Disclosure of chemicals in hydraulic fracturing fluids o o o o
- Setbacks of wells from occupied buildings or natural features o o o o
- Designing and constructing wells o o o o
- Disposing or treating produced water o o o o
- Constructing well pads o o o o
- Mitigating risks from induced seismic activity o o o o
- Mitigating risks and nuisances to the general public caused by truck traffic, noise, and light from well site operations o o o o
- Other: o o o o
37


Q6. During the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) disclosure rule making process of 2011 the following issues were mentioned. To what extent do you agree that these issues have been resolved by the disclosure rule of 2011?
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Agree Strongly
Disagree nor Disagree Agree
- What chemical information must be disclosed O O O O O
- Where chemical information should be made available O o O o O
- Accessibility of chemical information to the public o o o o o
- Protection of trade secrets o o o o o
- Disclosure of chemical information in a health or other emergency o o o o o
- When disclosure of chemical information must be made o o o o o
- Public distrust of the hydraulic fracturing process o o o o o
38


Q7. During the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) setbacks rule making process of 2012-13 the following issues were mentioned. To what extent do you agree that these issues have been resolved by the setbacks rule of 2013?
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Agree Strongly
Disagree nor Disagree Agree
- Public nuisance impacts (i.e. traffic, noise, lights, odors, etc.) O O O O O
- A patchwork of local regulations on setbacks O o O o o
- Priorities of surface owners o o o o o
- Priorities of mineral rights o o o o o
- Health impacts upon the population living in proximity to well pads o o o o o
- Impacts from open pits of wastewater o o o o o
- Public distrust of the hydraulic fracturing process o o o o o
- Communications between oil and gas operators and nearby communities o o o o o
39


Q8. Please identify the extent that your organization has engaged in the following activities for achieving its objectives in natural gas development that uses hydraulic fracturing.
Daily Weekly Monthly Quarterly Annually Never
- Posting information or advocating online O O O O O O
- Communicating with the news O o o o o o
- Forming and maintaining a coalition with allies o o o o o o
- Formal complaining to regulatory commissions o o o o o o
- Lobbying elected officials o o o o o o
- Participating in public meetings o o o o o o
- Generating and disseminating research and reports o o o o o o
-Taking legal action (e.g. lawsuits) o o o o o o
- Organizing or participating in public protests o o o o o o
- Testifying at public hearings o o o o o o
- Other: o o o o o o
40


Q9A.
Photo by David Zalubowski, Associated Press 2008
Q9B. Above is a picture of a well pad utilizing hydraulic fracturing. Please identify the response that best corresponds to your interpretation of this picture.
Provides strong evidence of the negative effects that hydraulic fracturing has on the environment.
Provides weak evidence of the negative effects that hydraulic fracturing has on the environment.
This picture is vague and does not demonstrate any evidence of the effects that hydraulic fracturing has on the environment.
Provides weak evidence of the harmony between hydraulic fracturing and the environment.
Provides strong evidence of the harmony between hydraulic fracturing and the environment.
41


Q10. To what extent does your organization have the capacity to use or mobilize the following resources to achieve its objectives?
No Capacity Limited Capacity Moderate Capacity Substantial Capacity
- Financial resources O O O O
- Generate and disseminate scientific reports and analysis O o O o
- Support from the general public o o o o
- Access to elected political officials o o o o
- Access to government officials o o o o
- Access to people with a different position on hydraulic fracturing o o o o
- Access to people with a similar position on hydraulic fracturing o o o o
- Access to media o o o o
- Technical support to generate and disseminate information online o o o o
- Effective leadership in o o o o
- Other: o o o o
42


Qll. Over the past three years, how effective has your organization been in increasing its capacity to achieve its goals in relation to natural gas development that uses hydraulic fracturing?
Very Ineffective Ineffective
Neither Effective nor Ineffective
Effective
Very Effective
Q12. Please indicate whether you regularly collaborate with any of the following organizations to achieve your goals related to natural gas development that uses hydraulic fracturing.
Check all that apply
- Federal Government including elected
- Regional Government
- State Government including elected
- Local Government including elected
- Oil and gas service providers and operators
- Industry and professional associations
- Environmental and conservation
- Real estate developers and home builders
- Agriculture organizations
- Organized citizen groups
- Academics and consultants
- News media
- Other
43


Q13. In general, what factors are important in choosing what organization(s) you collaborate with on issues related to natural gas development that uses hydraulic fracturing?
Not Somewhat Moderately Very Extremely
Important Important Important Important Important
- They share my position about major O O O O O
issues
-1 trust them to keep their promises O O O O O
- They are professionally competent o o o o o
-1 have worked with them in the past o o o o o
- They have access to financial resources o o o o o
- They have political influence o o o o o
44


Q14. The following statements reflect general attitudes. Please indicate whether you agree or
disagree with each statement.
Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Moderately Agree Strongly Agree
- Government should put limits on the choices individuals can make so they do not get in the way of what is good for society. O O O O
- The government should do more to advance society's goals, even if that means limiting the freedom and choices of individuals. O O O O
- Sometimes government needs to make laws that keep people from hurting themselves. o o o o
- It is not the government's business to try to protect people from themselves. o o o o
- The government should stop telling people how to live their lives. o o o o
- The government interferes far too much in our everyday lives. o o o o
- We need to dramatically reduce inequalities between the rich and the poor, as well as between men and women. o o o o
- Our society would be better off if the distribution of wealth was more equal. o o o o
45


Q15. Please indicate the type of organization you represent.
Federal Government Regional Government State Government Local Government
Oil and gas service providers and operators Industry and professional associations Environmental and conservation groups Real estate developers and home builders Agricultural organizations Organized citizen groups Academics and consultants News media Other ______
Q16. Please indicate your gender.
Male
Female
Q17. Please indicate your age.
O 18-29 O 30-39 O 40-49 O 50-59 60 or older
Q18. Please indicate the highest level of education you have attained:
Not a High School Graduate
High School Graduate
Some College
Bachelor's Degree
Master's or Professional Degree
Ph.D. or M.D.
46


Q19. How many years have you been involved in natural gas development that uses hydraulic fracturing?
0-1 years 2-4 years 5-9 years 10-20 years 21 or more years
Q20. On average, how many hours per week do you spend on issues related to natural gas development that uses hydraulic fracturing?
Less than 9 hours 10-20 hours 21-30 hours 31-40 hours More than 40 hours
Q21. Please indicate your professional expertise.
No knowledge Little knowledge Some knowledge Moderate knowledge Expert knowledge
Law O O O O O
Policy, Planning and Management O o o O o
Public Relations o o o o o
Ecology or Biology o o o o o
Geology o o o o o
Chemistry o o o o o
Engineering o o o o o
Mining o o o o o
Business Administration o o o o o
Other o o o o o
47


Q22. If you have any additional thoughts, considerations, or opinions you would like to share with us about natural gas development that uses hydraulic fracturing, please provide them below.
Q23. Do you want a copy of the final report?
Yes
No
48


Full Text

PAGE 1

NOVEMBER 2013 A Su m m a ry Report of Pe r cepti o ns of t h e Polit i cs and Reg u lation of Hydr a ul i c Fracturi n g in Col o r a do Pro d uced by t he School of P ub l ic Aff a i rs a t t h e Univ e rs i ty o f Colo r a d o D e nv e r Au t hors J o nathan P i er c e, Pos t D octo r al Sc h olar J e nnifer Ka g an, G r a d ua t e Assist a nt T an y a Hei kk ila, A ssociate P r o f essor C h r is Weible, A ssociate Pr of essor Sam uel Gallaher, Docto r al Can d i d ate

PAGE 2

2 Ac k n o w l e dgem e n t s We are gra t e ful f or the i ndivi d uals i n Colo r a d o w ho vo l u n tee r ed t h eir ti m e to pa r ti c i p a te in this study. This resear c h w as f u nd e d by t he Al f r ed P. Sloan F o u nd a tio n t hou g h t he resear c h desi g n a n d resu l ts are t he a u t h o alo n e. F o r t heir assis t a n c e in c o n du c t i ng this r esearch, w e al s o w ish to th a nk Mi c hael J o nes, El i za b e t h S h a n a ha n Deser a i Cro w B e n ja m in B lair, B rian Ge r ber, a n d Alice M a d d en Citing this Summary Report Pi e rce, J on a th a n J., J e nn i fer Kagan Tanya H eik k ila, Christopher M. Wei b le, a n d Sa m uel Galla h er. 2 0 1 3. A S um m ary Repo r t o f P e rce p ti on s of t h e P oli t i c s a nd Reg u la t ion o f H ydr a ulic Fra c tur i ng in Color a d o P u bli s hed November 2 5 2 0 1 3 by t he School of P u b lic A f fa i rs Unive r s i ty o f Colora d o D e nver. Questions, Comments, and Requests for More Information For q ues t i ons, c o mme nt s, co n c er n s, a n d f ee d ba c k regar d i n g t his sur v ey a nd r esearch pr o je c t please c o nta c t t he fol l ow i n g: T an y a H ei kk ila A ssociate P r o f essor Sc h ool of Public Aff ai r s Unive r sity of C ol or a d o Denver 13 8 0 Law r ence Street, Suite 50 0 Denve r C O 8 0 21 7 Phone: 303 3 1 5 2 2 6 9 Fax: 30 3 3 1 5 2 22 9 Email: T a nya .H eik k ila@ucde n ver. e du Chris Wei b l e A ssociate P r o f essor Sc h ool of Public Aff ai r s Unive r sity of C ol or a d o Denver 13 8 0 Law r ence Street, Suite 50 0 Denve r C O 8 0 21 7 Phone: 303 3 1 5 2 0 1 0 Fax: 30 3 3 1 5 2 22 9 Email: Chris We i ble@u c de n ver. e du

PAGE 3

3 Table of Contents E x ecu t ive S umm a r y ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 4 Int r o d uc t ion to the Study ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 6 H ydrau l ic F r ac t ur i ng in Co l or a do ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 7 Survey M e t h o d ol o gy a nd Respondent D e m o g ra ph ic s ................................ ................................ .............. 8 O b j e ctive 1: Positions on Hydraulic Fracturing ................................ ................................ ......................... 10 O b j e ctive 2: Political Activities, Resources, and Collaborative Networks ................................ ................. 12 Ob j e ctive 3: Problem Severity ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 17 O b j e ctive 4 : Perceptions of and Preferences fo Regulations ................................ ................................ .... 20 Ob j e ctive 5: Perceptions of Disclosure and Setbacks Regulation ................................ .............................. 24 Co n clu s ions ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 26 R ef e renc e s ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 30 Appe n di x : Su r vey Quest io ns ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 33

PAGE 4

4 E x ecu t ive S umm a r y This r e po r t pres e nts t h e fi n d i ngs from a sur v ey c o ndu c ted in t he s p ri n g of 2 0 13 of pe o p l e direc t ly or i ndi r ectly i n volv e d i n the po l i t i c s a n d regu l a t i o n o f oil a n d n a tu r al gas devel o pment th a t util i z e s hydr a ulic f r actur i ng i n Colora d o. A t o tal o f 3 9 8 pe o p l e w ere a d mini s ter e d a survey an d 1 3 7 pe o ple r es p o n d e d T hese r es p o nd e nts i n c l ude p e op l e f r om local, st a te, a nd f e deral g over n m e nts, oil a nd gas servi c e prov i ders a nd o p erators a n d i ndu s try associa t io n s, e n vi r onm e ntal a n d c ons e rva t i o n g r oups, local c i t i z e n gr o up s a n d acad e mics a n d c onsul t a nts. Five k ey obje c tives g u i d e d t his s tudy. T h e o bje c t i ves a n d t he m ain s urvey fi n d i ngs rela t e d to ea c h o bje c ti v e are s ummar i zed imm e d i a t ely b el o w Obj e c t ive 1: To id e n t ify r e s pond e n ge n e r a l po s itions a b o u t h y dr a u lic fr a c t u r ing us e d in o i l a nd n a t u r a l ga s d e v e lo p m e nt i n C o l o r a do. T h e f i nd i ngs s h ow th a t respo n d e nts c a n b e gr ou p e d ac c or d i n g t o t heir p osition a b o u t w h e th e r h ydra u lic fract u ri n g s hou l d be i) s t opp e d or lim i t e d ( n = 4 8), i i ) c o n ti n u ed at t he c u rr e n t ra t e ( n = 4 3 ) o r iii) e x p a nd e d ( n = 4 6). T hese t h r ee gr o ups a re used to g u i d e the a n alysis f o r t he rema i ni n g obje c tives. All envi r o n me n tal a n d orga n i zed c i t i z en groups are m em b ers o f t he s t o p o r limit gr o u p I n c ontra s t, t he o il a nd gas i n du s try ma k e up t he ma jori t y o f r es p o nd e nts in t he ex p an d g ro u p Local, sta t e, or f e d eral gove r nm e nts, a n d ac a demi c s o r c on s u l ta n ts fav o r a ra n ge of po sitio n s. Obj e c t ive 2: To u nd e r s tand t h e p o l i tic a l a ctiv i t i e s, r e so u rce s a nd n e two r k r e l a tio n s h i ps of r e spo n d e n ts b a sed on t h e ir pos i t i o n t o w a r d h y dr a u l ic fr a ct u r i n g T h e most fre q ue n t a c tivities t hat r es p o n de n ts e ngage in a r e a t te n di n g p ublic m eet i ngs a n d buil d i n g a nd mai n ta i ni n g c oali t i o ns. Across all a c t ivities, re s po n d e nts fav o ri n g the st a tus quo are less p oli t i c ally a c tive c om p a r e d t o re s po n d e nts wh o e it her favor e x pa n si o n o r t he s t opp i ng o f hydra u lic f ra c t uri n g. T he resour c e t h a t respo n d e nts have t h e g r eatest c a p acity to u tili z e is t h eir c o nnect i on w i t h oth e rs w ho share t heir pos i ti o n. Tho s e w ho o p pose hyd r a u lic fra c tur i ng r e po r t a higher c a p acity t o u tili z e the i r r esources to a c hieve t h eir obje c tives c o m pared t o those w ho favor t he s ta t us quo or e x pa n si o n o f hydr a ul i c fract u ri n g Res p o n de n t s fre q ue n tly c oll a bor a te w i t h l o c al a nd s ta t e gove r nment o ffi c ials in p u rsuit of their i n ter e s ts. T he m ost im p o r ta n t c ri t eri o n f or c hoosing w i t h w hom to c olla b or a te on hydr a ulic fract u ri n g is s ues is pr o f e ssio n al c o m pe t e n c y. Obj e c t ive 3: To u nd e r s tand t h e e xt e n t t h a t r e s p o n d e n t s p e r c e ive iss u e s a sso c i a ted w ith h y dr a u l ic f r a ct u r i ng inclusive oil and gas development a s p o t e nt i a l p ro b l em s. P ro b lems rel a ted t o t he pol i t i c s, i n for m a t i o n, a nd p r o c ess of regul a ti n g oil and gas development that uses hy d ra u lic f ractur i ng are perceived as m o re severe by all r es p o nd e n t s th a n tho s e rel a t e d to p oll u t i on, hea l th ris k s or e n viro n mental degr a da t i o n Resp o n d e n ts disag r e e more a b o u t t he severi t y of issues rel a t e d t o poll u ti o n, h eal t h ris k s or e n v i r o nmental degr a da t i on th a n a b o u t pro b lems r elat e d t o pol i ti c s, i nfo r ma t i o n a n d t he pro c ess of regul a t i on. The s t o p o r

PAGE 5

5 limit g r o u p perceived p r o blems r ela te d t o oil and gas development that uses hydraulic fracturing to be more seve r e th a n the o t her t w o gr o ups. T he ex p an d g r o u p perceived pr o blems rela t e d to pol i ti c s a n d i n f ormati o n as more severe th a n o t her pr o blems. Th e c on ti nu e a t t h e c u r r ent r a te g r o u p aligned mo r e w i t h t he ex p an d g r o u p but te n ded t o b e mo r e m o d e ra t e i n m a ny o f the i r re s ponses Obj e c t ive 4: To a ssess r e spo n d e p e rcept i o n s of t h e l e v e l of s t r i n ge ncy of cu r r e nt r eg ul a t i o n s a nd t h e i r p r e f e r e nces for t he r o le of g ov e rn me n t Res p on de nts regard t h e re g ula t i ons p er t ai n i n g to t h e c on s tr u c tion a n d desig n i ng o f w e l ls as the most str i nge n t b u t h ave t he gr e a t e s t di f fer e n tia t i o n i n the i r p erce p ti o ns a b o u t the a d e q u acy of r eg u la t i o n s of p u blic n ui s a n c es c a u s e d by w ell si t e oper a tio n s. A vast maj o r i ty of res p o n de n ts s u p p o r t some level of reg u la t i o n o ver hydra u lic frac t ur i ng. W h en c o nsider i ng w hi c h le v el of gove r nment t h ey p r e f er for r eg u l a ti n g v a rious issues rel a t e d to oil and gas development and hydr a ulic f ractur i ng, mo s t re s po nd e n t s par t i c u l arly t hose w ho s up p ort hyd r a u l i c frac t ur i ng, p r e f e r t he s ta t e lev e l of gover n m e n t Am o ng t h o se w ho o p p ose hydra u l ic frac t uri n g w e f o u nd subst a ntial varia n c e in th eir st a ted p r e f e ren c es f o r t h e lev e l o f gove r nm en t a d dress i ng h y dra u lic fra c tur i ng issues. Obj e c t ive 5: To a ssess r e spo n d e p e rcept i o n s of r u l e s a d o pted by t h e C o l o r a do O il a nd Gas Conserv a tion C om m iss i o n (C O GCC) a b o ut di s c l os u re a nd setb a cks r e l a ted to h y d r a u l ic f r a ct u r i n g inclusive oil and gas development R es p on d e n ts h eld diver g i n g o pi n i o ns a bo u t the e f fe c tive n ess of t he Co l o ra d o Oil a n d Gas C o nser v a t ion Commissi o d is c l osure r u le of 2 0 1 1 a nd t h e s e t b ac k s r u le o f 2 0 1 3. H o w e v er, t he overall effe c tiv e n ess of the dis c los u r e r ule is hi g h er th a n the se t bac k s r u l e. M ost r es p o nd e nts ag r ee t hat neither r u le has resolv e d t h e issue o f p ublic dis t r u st o f t he oil a nd gas i n d u str y Across t h e f ive o bje c tiv e s, t h e survey f i nd i ngs hi g hlight n ot a ble a reas o f a gre e ment a nd disagre e m e nt a c ross the thr e e gr o ups of res p on d e n ts bas e d o n their p osi t ion to w ar d s hydr a ulic fract u ri n g of s t o p or lim i t c ont i n u e a t t he c urr e nt ra t e or e x pa n d A r eas o f agr e eme n t be t w e e n the gro u ps i n c l u de ( i) t h e re c o g ni t i on t h at p ublic dis t r u st o f t he o il a n d gas i n d ustry is a pr o ble m ; ( ii) a pre f er e n c e for i n c reas e d l o c al g o ver n ment r eg u l a ti o n o f t he nuisan c e t o t he ge n eral p u blic c a u s e d by w ell site oper a ti o n s ; a nd ( iii) satisfacti o n w i t h c u rr e n t regul a ti o ns for the c ons t r u c t i on of w el l s a n d w ell p a d s. In c o n tr a st, areas of disag r eem en t i n c l ude ( i) t h e severi t y o f the t hre a t p o sed by hydr a ulic fract u r i ng inclusive oil and gas development in rel a tion t o the e n v i ron m e nt a n d p ublic heal t h; ( ii) th e level of g o ver n ment a t w hi c h mo s t issues rel a t e d t o oil and gas development and hydraulic fracturing s ho u ld be re g ula t e d ; a n d ( iii) t h e percei v ed a d e quacy o f the dis c los u r e a nd se t b a c k s sta t ewide r u les in Colora d o.

PAGE 6

6 Int r o d uc t ion This r e po r t s ummar i zes a survey a dmi n i s ter e d i n t he s p ri n g of 2 0 1 3 to i n d i viduals w ho are d i re c tly o r i n dire c tly i nvolved w i t h t h e p oli t i c s, poli c ies, a n d r ulema k i n g c on c er n i ng oil a n d na t ural gas deve l opm e nt that utilizes hydraulic fracturing i n Co l orado. Th e survey w as c ond u c ted t hrou g h the S c hool o f Public A f fairs a t the Unive r s i ty of Color ad o D e nver a n d f u n ded by t he A l fr e d P. Sloan F o und a ti o n. The g oal o f this re p ort is to provi d e a n u n d ers t a n d i n g of t h e p oli t i c s s urr o und i ng the issue largely focused on the process o f h y dra u lic frac t u r i n g a n d other o il a nd na t ural gas devel o pm e nt processes in Colo r a d o W e re c o g ni z e th a t p e o p l e re l a t e to t his issue from a var i e t y o f v i ewpoi n ts t hat are im p o s sible to describe e n ti r ely in a s i ngle r e p o r t Inst e a d this summary repo r t provi d es a descri p tion of t he op i nio n s a n d perc e pti o ns o f a s a m p le of i ndiv i duals w ho are actively i n volv e d i n oil a n d na t ural gas deve l opm e nt that utilizes hydraulic fracturing i n Co l orado. Th ese i n divi d uals c ome f r o m diverse p r ofessi o nal a n d orga n i za t i onal a f fili a tio n s i n c l u di n g all lev e ls of gov e r n m e nt, t he oil a nd gas i n dus t ry, busi n esses a n d trade as s o c ia t io n s n o np r of i ts, en viro n m e ntal gro u p s ac a demia, c o nsu l ti n g groups, a n d local c i t i z en orga n i z a t i o ns. In surveying t his p oli t i c a l ly active p o p ula t i on, w e w ere gui d ed by five o bj e c tive s Obj e c t ive 1: To i d e nt i fy re s p o nd e ge n eral p ositi o ns a b o ut hydra u lic f r actur i ng us e d in o i l a n d na t ural gas d evel o p me n t in Color a do Obj e c t ive 2 : To u n der s ta n d t he p oli t i c al activities, res o urce s a n d n e t w ork rel a tio n s hi p s o f respo n d e nts bas e d o n t h e ir p ositi o n to w ard hyd r a u lic fra c tur i ng Obj e c t ive 3: To u nder s ta n d t he e x t e n t th a t re s po n de n ts p erceive issues associa te d w i t h hydra u lic frac t ur i ng inclusive oil and gas development as p ote n tial pr o blems Obj e c t ive 4: To assess r es p o nd e p erce p t i ons of t h e level o f stri n g e n c y o f c ur r e n t regula t i ons a n d t heir pr e fer e n c es f or the role of g over n m e nt Obj e c t ive 5: To assess r es p o nd e n t s p erce p t i ons of r u les a d o p t ed by t he Co l ora d o Oil a nd Gas Conserva t i o n Commiss i o n ( C O G C C) a b out dis c lo s ure a nd se t bac k s rela t ed to hydra u lic frac t ur i ng inclusive oil and gas development. In p r ovidi n g an u nder s t a ndi n g of t he pol i ti c s a n d regula t i ons of oil and gas development that utilizes hydr a ulic f ractur i ng in C olora do t he s urvey as k s resp o nd e nts to a n s w er several val u e or i e n ted q ues t i o n s W e ask su c h q ues t i ons n o t to p u sh a pol i ti c al ag e nda or a pos i tion a b out h y dra u lic frac t uri n g, b ut i n ste a d to m easure t he p erce p t i ons of t h e re s po n de n ts a n d to i d e nt i fy ar e as of agre e m e nt a n d disagre e m e n t O ur ho p e is th a t th r ough solici t i ng the perc e pt i ons of t h ose actively i n volv e d i n the issue, w e mig h t assi s t p e o p l e i n s i de a n d o uts i d e o f gov e r n m e nt in u n d ers t a n d i n g t he di f f er e n c es in t heir pos i t i ons a nd p ot e ntially f i nd shared u nder s ta n di n gs t hat may be us e d to i n form t he g over n a n c e o f h y dra u lic frac t uri n g in Colorado a n d else w her e

PAGE 7

7 This Colo r a d o survey is p art o f a larger resear c h p roje c t th a t i n c l u d es w ork in Texas a n d New Yor k I n each s t a t e, r esearchers f r om t h e School o f P ublic A f f airs at t h e Univ e rsi t y o f Colora d o D e nver explore t h e p oli t i c s of hydr a ulic fract u ri n g inclusive oil and gas development th r ou g h i n ter v iew s survey s a n d do c um e nt a n alysi s B rief Overview o f H ydrau l ic F r ac t ur i ng in Co l or a do H ydra u lic fra c tur i n g also ref e rred t o as f rac k ing f rac i o r hydr o fra c k t he pro c ess o f pu m pi n g a m i x ture of w a t er, s a nd or similar m a teri a l, a n d c he m i c al a d d i tives, u n der high pressu r e, i nto ve r ti c ally or hor i zo n tally drill e d w ells. T he pro c ess fra c tures ro c k f o rmat i ons th o usa n ds o f f eet u nd e r grou n d to r el e ase oil a nd na t ural gas t hat t r avel t hrou g h previ o usly c rea t ed w ells t o the su r f ace. The combination of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling allows for oil and gas recovery from formation s with low permeability (COGCC 2011a ). Since 2 0 0 9 hydr a u l ic frac t uri n g has be e n used i n a t lea s t 9 0% of the a p pro x imately 1 3 ,0 0 0 w ell p ermi t s revie w ed a n d a p p r o ved in Color ad o ( C O G C C, 20 1 2 a ). 1 I nte n s e p oli t i c al d e ba t es have e m erg e d in Color ad o similar to o t her pa r ts of the U S., a b o u t the ris k s a n d b e n e fi t s of hydr a ulic f ractu r i n g a n d how i t s hou l d be r eg u la t e d The s e de b a tes have fo c us e d o n a r a nge o f is s ues related to oil and gas development in addition to hydraulic fracturing, a nd h a ve c a p t ur e d t he a t te n ti o n o f p e o p l e i nside a n d outs i de of g over n m e n t. The exte n t of m e d ia c o v erage i n Color a do on t op i c s rela t e d to oil and gas development that utilizes hydraulic fracturing u n d erscores t he s a lie n c y a nd divers i ty of t h e s e issues, a sam p l e o f w hi c h in c l u de t he fol l o w i ng : C on c er n s associ a ted w i t h t he effe c ts of oil and gas development inclusive of hydr a ulic frac t uri n g on w a t er c o nt ami n a t i on ( Fi n ley, 2 0 1 3 a ) ha n dli n g pro d u c ed w a t er ( W i ne k e 2 0 1 2), seismic ac t iv i ty ( Chang, 2 0 1 3), public n u isan c e ( Fissin g e r, 2 0 1 2 ) air c o n tami n a t i on (B ailey, 2 0 1 2 ) a nd m e t h a ne l ea k age ( Ja f fe, 2 0 1 2 a ) ; P u blic dist r u st of t he pr o c ess of hydr a ulic fra c tur i ng ( Wyatt, 2 0 1 3 ) a nd of t he oil a n d gas i n du s try ( Jaffe, 2 0 1 2 b ) ; B e n e f i ts o f oil and gas development that uses hydraulic fracturing f or e nergy i n d e p e nd e n c e a nd se c u r i t y ( M c Curdy, 2 0 1 1). At the same time, media c overage has hi g hlig h ted how these issues have c a p t ured t he a t t e nt i on of t he p u blic a nd poli c yma k ers across C olora d o. F o r exam p le, w e have seen some of these issue s : 1 W h e n we us e the t e r m hydraulic u nl es s o t h e r w i s e stat e d, w e a re r efe r ring to the t e chnical proc e s s of fracturing rock f o r m atio n s. We use phrases like hydraulic fracturing inclusive oil and gas development to refer to the set of upstream oil and gas processes that use horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing to recover oil and gas from low permeable formations. The set of processes includes p r e dril l ing acti v it i e s such as l e ase ne gotiatio n s f or s u b s ur f a ce m in e ral rights; well pad preparation; vertical and directional d rill i ng; water, sand and chemical transportation; hydraulic fracturing; produced water processing; and p o s t drill i ng acti v iti e s such as the tr a n sm i ss ion of g a s or oil to c on s u me r s

PAGE 8

8 P o li t i c al activity i n c l u di n g ba n s or mor a t ori u ms o f h y dra u lic frac t uri n g in L ongmo n t ( Fi n ley, 2 0 1 2 ) B ou l der ( Fryar, 2 0 1 3), Fo r t Coll i ns ( Fi n ley, 2 0 1 3 b ) a n d s ubs e qu e nt la w sui t s by t h e st a te ( Jaffe, 2 0 1 3) a n d i n du s try (F i nley, 2 0 1 2 ) ; P u blic pr o tes t s in o p pos i tion (Whaley, 2 0 1 2) a n d in s u pp o rt ( R o bles, 2 0 1 2) of hydr a ulic fract u ri n g i n o il a nd gas devel o pmen t ; Regula t ory pro c esses, e s pecially o n es targe t i ng d i s c los u re o f c h emi c als u s ed i n h y dra u lic fract u ri n g ( J a ffe, 2 0 1 1 ) a nd s e tback dist a n c es f r o m a w ell s i te to o cc upi e d bui l di n gs ( Ri c c ar d i, 2 0 1 3). Des p i te the gravi t y of th e issue for all of t h e c i t i z e n s o f Colo r a d o, t here h as be e n l i tt l e s y stema t ic re s earch on t he perce p ti o ns o f i ndivi d uals active in hydr a ulic f r acturi n g po l i t i c s a nd i t s gove r na n c e in Co l or a do. As a resu l t, m a ny un explor e d q ues t io n s rem a i n W hat are t h e areas o f disa g reem e nt o n t h e s e issues? Are t h e r e areas of agre e m e n t? H ow shou l d hydra u lic fract u ri n g a nd oil a n d g a s devel o pm e nt in Co l or a do be r eg u l a te d ? To wh at ex t e n t are i n divi d uals s a tisfi e d w i t h re c e n t gove r nment r eg u l a t io n s ? Whi l e a s i ngle r e port c a n n ot o f fer un q ual i fied a n s w ers to t hese que s ti o ns, o ur ho p e is t o provi d e i n si g ht i nt o t he di f fer e nt sides a n d pos i tio n s on t his iss u e Survey M e t h o d ol o gy a nd D e m o g ra ph ic C h a r act e ri s ti c s o f R e sp o nd e n t s The c o n t e n t o f the q ues t io n s a nd a n s w er c a t egor i es are i n f orm e d by i n fo r ma t ion acquir e d f rom 14 i n t erv i ews w i t h ex p er t s rep r es e nti n g vari o us org a ni z a ti o ns a n d posit i ons i n Colora d o. T h e s u rvey c o nsists o f 2 3 que s ti o ns w i t h se v eral s ub p ar t s. A c o py of t he s urvey is availa b le i n the A p p e ndi x Survey re s po n de n ts w e r e i d e nt i fi e d thr o ugh m u l t i p le s o urces, i n c l u d i ng t h e Color a do Oil a n d Gas Conserv a ti o n C o mmission ( C O G CC ) w e b site li s t o f r ecog n i z ed sta k e h ol d ers dur i ng t he 2 0 11 dis c los u re a nd 2 0 1 2 13 se t back r u le p r o c esse s ; a t te n dees of st a te a nd l o c al p ublic heari n gs; a t t e nd e es a n d prese n ters at academi c gover n m e nt, e n vi r onm e ntal, a n d i n du s try sponso r ed c o n f er e n c es a nd m eet i ng s ; orga n i zers of p u blic p r ote s ts; a nd n ews me d ia a nd o n li n e me d ia c ov e ri n g events r e la t ed to h y dra u lic frac t u r i n g a n d o il a nd na t ural gas devel o pm e nt in Colora d o. I n t otal, t he s u rvey w as emailed t o 3 98 i n divi d uals a nd w as c o m ple t e d by 1 37 pe o ple, resul t i ng i n a resp o nse r a te o f 3 4 42 % 2 Ta b le 1 p r ovides a summary of t he demogr a phic i n for m a t i o n for resp o n d e n t s 2 Out of the total s ample su r v e y e d p e r orga n izational af f il i at i on typ e the r es pon s e rat e s a re the follo w ing: acad em i c s (3 3 % ), e n v iro nm e n tal and con se r v ation groups ( 36 % ), f e d e ral g o v e r n me nt ( 3 4 % ), indu s try a nd pro fe s s io n al a s s ociations ( 3 8 % ), local g o v e r nm e nt (3 8 % ), n e w s m e dia (0%), oil and gas s e r v i ce p ro v i d e rs a nd op e rators (3 7 % ), orga n ized ci t izen gro u ps (5 3 % ), ot h e r (5 0% ), r e gio n al go v e r nm e nt (3 3 % ), a nd state go v e r n me nt (2 7 % ). Acr o s s the d i f fe r e nt t y p e s of orga n izations s ur v e y e d we r e c e i v e d a t l e a s t a 3 0 % r e s pon s e rate f rom a ll e xc e pt f or me dia a n d state g o v e r n me nt. In the ca s e o f the m e dia w e r e c e i v e d n o r es po n s e s a n d claim n o r e pr e s e ntation of th e ir v i ew p oints on this i ss u e

PAGE 9

9 Table 1. Demographic Summary Information for Respondents Summary Responses Highest level of formal education High school 2% Some college 4% 29% 57% Ph.D. or M.D. 8% Age distribution 18 to 29 5% 30 to 39 12% 40 to 49 20% 50 to 59 41% 60 or older 22% Percent male and female Male 67% Female 33% Organizational affiliation Local Government 26% State Government 7% Federal Government 8% Oil and Gas Service Providers and Operators 22% Industry and Professional Associations 6% Environmental and Conservation Groups 13% Citizen Groups 6% Academics and Consultants 8% Other 3 4% Years involved in hydraulic fracturing 0 to 1 years 4% 2 to 4 years 31% 5 to 9 years 31% 10 to 20 years 18% 21 or more years 16% Hour spent per week on hydraulic fracturing 9 hours or less 49% 10 to 20 hours/week 22% 21 to 30 hours/week 10% 31 to 40 hours/week 14% 41 or more hours per week 5% 3 Other includes respondents from regional government, agriculture, and real estate developers and home builders.

PAGE 10

10 O b j e ctive 1: T o i d e n t ify re s p o nd e n t gene r al p o s it io ns a bout hy d rau l ic frac t ur i ng us e d i n oil a n d natu r al g as develo p me n t i n C o lor a do We as k ed r es p o nd e n t s w he t her t h eir c u r re n t pos i tion is mo s t c losely alig n ed w i t h t he beli e f t hat hy d ra u lic fra c tur i ng s h ould b e s t opp e d limi t e d c on ti nu ed at i t s c u r r ent r a t e ex p a n d ed mo d e r a tel y or ex p and e d extensiv e l y T he re s ul t s are s ho w n be l ow in Fi g ure 1. T he distr i bu t ion of res p onses is rel a tively b ala n c e d ac r oss t h e f ive c a t egorie s w i t h t h e m e dian respo n d e nt s u p po r ti n g c ont i nu i ng d evel o pment at i ts c urr e nt r a te 4 F i g ure 1 Gener a l po s i t i o n s r ega rd i ng h y dr a u lic fr a ctur i ng The pos i tio n s on hyd r a u l ic frac t uri n g in Fi g ure 1 a re us e d to c a tegor i ze re s po n de n t s i n repo r ti n g t he r es u l t s f o r oth e r sur v ey i t e m s B as e d o n t hese ge n eral posit i ons, w e divid e d respo n d e nts i n t o thr e e p osition gr o ups: t he s t o p o r limit g r o u p ( n = 4 8 ) ; t h e c on ti nu e a t c u r r ent ra te g r o u p ( n = 4 3 ) ; a nd t he e xpan d g ro u p ( n = 4 6 ). Ea c h o f these t hree pos i t ion gr o ups i n c l u d e s res p ond e nts re p rese n ti n g v a rious orga n i z a t i o nal a ffi l ia t i on s Figure 2 s h o w s t h e di s t ri b u tio n s of t hese orga n i za t i o n al a f f ilia t i o n s among e ach posit i on g r o u p Gove r nm e nt at all l e vel s as w ell as academi c s a n d c onsu l t a nt s a re distr i bu t ed fairly eve n ly among the t hree p ositi o n gr o ups. Oil a nd gas se r vi c e provi d ers a nd oper a tors a nd i n du s try a nd pr o fessio n al associa t i ons ma k e up a ma j ori t y of the ex p an d 4 T he m e an was ca l culat e d b y a ss igni n g nu m e rical v al ue s to r es pon s e s ( 1 i n dicates a b e l i e f th a t d e v e lo p me nt s hould b e sto p p e d a n d 5 indicates a r e s pon s e that d e v e lo p me nt s hould b e expa n d e d ex t e n s i v e ly). T he m e an r es pon s e a m ong r e s pond e nts w as 3. 0 1, indicati n g an a v e ra g e r es po n s e that d e v e lo p me nt s hould conti n ue a t its curr e nt rate.

PAGE 11

11 g r o u p ( 5 6 % ) a n d a large mi n o r i ty of t hose wh o c o m pri s e t he c on ti nu e a t c u r r ent r a te g r o u p ( 2 8 % ) All respo n d e n t s from e n vi r o nmental orga n i za t i ons a nd orga n i zed c i t i zen gr o ups beli e ve t hat devel o pment s hou l d be s to p ped or limi t e d a n d th ey ma k e u p 5 7% of t he s t o p o r limit g r o u p Figure 2. Organizational affiliations by position group

PAGE 12

12 O b j e ctive 2: T o u n ders ta nd the p o l it i c a l ac t iv i ties, re so urce s a nd net w o rk re l at io n s hips o f re s p o nd e n t s b a sed o n t heir p o s i t io n t o w a r d hyd r aulic fr a ct u r in g Poli t ical Ac t iv i t ies One sect i on of t h e s u rv e y i n vestig a ted t he exte n t to w hi c h re s p o nd e nts a r e i n volv e d i n a d voca c y rela t ed to hyd r a u lic fra c tur i ng inclusive oil and gas development S pecifi c ally, q u es t i o ns as k ed wh e t h e r re s po n d e nts e n gage i n a ra n g e o f 1 0 d i f fe r e n t activ i ties to ach i eve t heir orga n i za t io n al obje c tives rel a ted t o n a tu r al gas devel o pm e nt th a t uses hydra u lic frac t ur i ng a n d, if so, at wh at fr e qu e n c y. O v erall, a ma j ori t y of re s po n de n ts r e po r t th a t th e ir orga n i z a tion enga g es i n t he follo w i n g activitie s : p ar t i c i p a t i n g in p u blic m e e t i n gs (8 7 % ) form i ng a n d m ai n ta i ni n g a c oal i tion w i t h allies ( 7 4 % ) ge n e r a ti n g a nd dissem i na t i n g r esearch a nd re p or t s ( 7 1 % ) tes t i f y i ng at p ublic heari n gs ( 6 9 % ) c omm u n i c a t i n g w i t h the news m e dia ( 6 9 % ) a n d post i ng i n form a tion or a d vocati n g o n li n e ( 6 3 % ) We c o m p ar e d the s e re s ponses across t he t h ree positi o n g r o u ps t o i d e n ti f y di f fer e n c es o r s i milari t ies among t heir activities. T h e re s ul t s bas e d o n t he fr e q u e n c y o f the activity, ra n g i ng f r o m daily to never or n o t r e p o r te d p e r p ositi o n g r o up c a n b e fo u nd in Figure 3 ( me a ns r e po r t e d). On a daily b asis, the a c t i vities mo s t fre q u e ntly en gaged i n by resp o n d e n ts of the s t o p o r limit g r o u p are form i ng a nd bu i ldi n g a c oal i ti on p osti n g a n d a d v o c a t i n g o n li n e, a nd lobbying. On a m o n t hly basis, t hey are m ost fr e qu e ntly e n g aged i n p u blic me e ti n gs. They pa r ti c i p a te least fre q u e ntly i n la w su i ts a n d p u blic p r ote s ts. Resp o n d e n ts o f the c on t i nu e a t c u r r ent r a te g r o u p e n gage i n fewer activ i t i es t h an a n y oth e r p ositi o n g r o u p. A majori t y of t h e re s p o nd e nts from t his gr o up only e n gage i n t he follo w i n g activities at le a st a n nually: p ublic m ee t i ngs, ge n erat i ng a nd dis s emi n a t i n g r e p o r t s, a n d form i ng a nd b uil d i ng a c oal i tio n Resp o n d e n t s from t he c on ti nu e a t c u r r ent r a te g r o u p are most li k ely to a t t e n d p u b lic me e t i ngs a t a w ee k ly a n d mo n thly basis. Resp o nd e nts i n the c on ti nu e a t c u r r ent r a te g r o u p rarely e n gage in l a w sui t s a n d pub l ic p r ote s t s. Mem b ers o f the ex p an d g r o u p are active i n a ran g e of activit i es. A m a jori t y of the res p o n d e nts on at least a mo n thly basis a t t e n d p ublic m e e t i ngs, form a nd bui l d c oal i ti o ns, a t t e nd p ublic hear i ngs, c onta c t t he me d i a p ost i n form a tion a n d a dvocate onli n e, g e ner a te a nd dissem i n ate re p or t s, a n d l obby. They are l east li k ely to r e p o rt l a w sui t s or p ublic pro t es t s as activities. The l evel o f a c tivity a mo ng t he s t o p o r limit a nd t he ex p an d positi o n gr ou ps is higher th a n t he activity of t h e c on ti nu e a t c u r r ent r a te g r o u p All of t he g r o u ps h ave a prese n c e at public me e ti n gs a nd h e a ri n gs, a n d all b uild a n d m ai n ta i n c oal i ti o ns.

PAGE 13

13 Figure 3. Activities by position group

PAGE 14

14 Organi z a t i onal Ca p acity We as k ed r es p o nd e nts a bo u t the c a p acity of t h e i r orga n i z a tio n s to use or mobili z e 1 0 types o f r esources f o r a c hievi n g t h eir o bje c ti v e s Organi z a tio n al c a p aci t ies w i t h r es p ect t o ea c h of the 10 res o urces w ere as k ed o n a f o u r po i nt s c ale ( from 1 = n o c apa ci t y to 4 = s ub s t an ti a l c apa ci ty ). Ta b le 2 pres e nts t h e m e a n s p er c a p ac i ty i t em by positi o n g r o u p. T he i te m s measur e d for orga n i za t i onal c a p ac i ty are ra n k ed f r om the h i ghest to lowest c a pacity for all re s po n de n ts. We hi g hlig h t in b old t h e reso u rces th a t a re sig n i f i c a n t ly d i f f er e n t b e t w een at l east t w o o f t h e thr e e gr o ups. T a b le 2 Me a n o rg a n i z a t i o n a l c a p a c i ty b y po s it i o n g r ou p 5 Stop or Limit Group n = 48 Continue at Current Rate Group n = 43 Expand Group n = 46 1. Access to people with a similar position on hydraulic fracturing 3.5 3.0 3.3 2. Access to government officials 3.3 3.2 3.2 3. Access to media 3.2 3.0 2.9 4. Access to people with a different position on hydraulic fracturing 3.1 2.9 2.7 5. Effective leadership in organization 3.2 3.1 3.1 6. Access to elected officials 3.1 3.1 3.0 7. Support from the general public 3.0 2.4 2.4 8. Technical support to generate and disseminate information online 2.9 2.9 2.6 9. Generate and disseminate scientific reports and analysis 2.6 2.6 2.3 10. Financial resources 2.2 2.5 2.6 1 = No Ca p acit y 2 = Li m ited C a p acit y 3 = Mod e rate Capaci t y, 4 = Sub s tantial Ca p acit y Stati s tically s i gni f ica n t d iffe r e nc e s b e t w ee n groups a re highlig h ted in bold. Only t w o re s ources are s igni f i c a n tly d i f f er e n t b etw een t he pos i tion gr o u p s: su p po r t from t h e g e neral p u blic a nd g e ner a ti n g a n d diss e mi n a t i ng r e po r ts. In t h e c ase of g e t ti n g sup p ort fr o m t he ge n e r a l p u bli c the s t o p o r limit g r o u p report more c a p a c i t y com p a r ed to t he oth e rs. I n ge n erat i ng a n d disse m i n a ti n g rep o r t s, the s t o p o r limit a n d c on t i nu e a t c u r r ent r a te groups have more c a p ac i ty rel a tive to t h e ex p an d g r o u p For t he rema i ni n g c a p acity i tems, the s t o p o r limit g r o u p repo r t slig h tly hi g her levels of c a p acity w i t h t he ex c e pt i on o f fi n a n c ial reso u rces, b u t the s e d i f f er e n c es a re not st a tisti c a lly signi f i c a n t be t w e e n t h e gro u ps. 5 T he d i f f e r e n c e s in r es our c e s b e tw e e n the r es pond e nt gro u ps a re n ot s ignif i ca n t e xc e pt f or s upport f rom the g e n e ral p ublic a nd the capa b i lity to genera t e a nd d i s s e m in a te s c i e ntif i c r e ports and a nal y s is w hich are s ignif i ca n t to 0.01 u s ing an A N OVA t e s t.

PAGE 15

15 Coll a bora t ive N e t w orks The s urvey i n c l u d e d a r o ster o f orga n i za t i onal a f f i lia t io n s f o r re s po n d e nts t o i n di c a t e t he types o f orga n i za t i ons t h ey c olla b or a te w i t h to achieve the i r goals rel a ted to o i l a n d na t ural g as devel o pment a nd hyd r a ulic fra c tur i ng in Color ad o Resp o nd e nts c ou l d c h eck zero or all o f t he orga n i z a t i o nal a ffi l ia t i on s w i t h w h o m t hey c o l l a b ora te T h e re s ul t s, div i d ed by res p o n de n t grou p are sho w n be l ow in T a ble 3. The perc e nt a ges i n di c a te t h e p ro p or t i on o f r es p o nd e nts per g r oup t hat c i t e a par t i c ular org a ni z a ti o n for c o lla b or a tio n T he t o p f our c i t ed org a ni z a ti o nal a f fili a ti o n c a t ego r ies, by positi o n g r o u p are i d e n t i f ied in bo l d a nd i t alic i z e d T a b le 3 P e r c en t a ge o f r e s ponden ts by po si t i o n g r o u p w h o r epo rt c o l l a bo r a t i o n w ith t h e f o ll o wi n g c a teg o r i e s o f o r g a n iz a t i on a l a f fi l i a t i on s Stop or Limit Group n = 48 Continue at Current Rate Group n = 43 Expand Group n = 46 1. Local government 79% 63% 70% 2. State government 69% 81% 80% 3. Federal government 52% 51% 54% 4. Regional government 65% 49% 54% 5. Oil and gas service providers and operators 42% 72% 87% 6. Industry and professional associations 46% 77% 83% 7. Environmental and conservation organizations 79% 58% 52% 8. Organized citizen groups 71% 37% 30% 9. Academics and consultants 58% 35% 46% 10. News media 50% 35% 50% 11. Agriculture organizations 33% 40% 44% 12. Real estate developers and home builders 23% 16% 37% The types of org a ni z a ti o ns t hat res p o n de n ts i n e ach pos i ti o n gr o up c i t e d most fre q ue n tly as c olla b o ra t o rs are l o c al a n d s ta t e go v er n m e nt s Similarly, a b o ut half o f respo n d e nts per pos i ti o n gro u p c oll a bor a te w i t h f e de ral a n d reg i onal gov e r n ments. More t han 7 1 % of res p o n de n ts i n th e s t o p o r limit g r o u p report c oll a bor a t i n g w i t h e n viro n m e ntal a n d orga n i z ed c i t i z en g r o u ps. In c o n tras t a m i nor i ty of r es p o nd e nts from t he s t o p o r limit gr o up c olla b or a te w i t h o i l a n d gas servi c e p r oviders a n d ope r a t ors a n d i n d ustry a nd pr o fessio n al associa t io n s ( 4 2 % a n d 46% respectively ) For res p ond e n t s in t he c on ti nu e a t c u r r ent r a te or ex p a n d groups, 7 2 % c ol l a b or a te w i t h oil a n d gas servi c e prov i ders a nd o p erators a n d 7 7% with i n du s try a nd pr o fessi o n a l associa t i o n s T he least c i t ed orga n i za t i on c a t e g ories i n c l ude real es t a t e d evel o p ers a nd h ome b uil d ers for t h e s t o p o r limit g r o u p a n d t he c on ti nu e a t t h e c u r r ent r a te g r o u p as w ell as the orga n i z ed c i t i z e n s g r o up s for t he ex p an d g ro u p We also as ke d re s po n d e nts a b o ut t h e f actors t h a t are im p or t a nt to t hem i n c h o osing

PAGE 16

16 w hi c h orga n i z a tio n s to c olla b or a te w i t h on issues rela t ed to hyd r a u lic fra c tur i ng. We as k ed respo n d e nts to ra t e ea c h fact o r o n a fiv e po i nt s c a l e ( from 1 = no t im p o rta n t t o 5 = extreme l y im p o rta n t ) T h e mean s c ores p er r eason by the th ree p ositi o n g r o u p s are s ho w n i n T a ble 4. The factors t h at are si g ni f i c a ntly di f fer e nt b e t w een p osition gr o ups a re i n bo l d. T a b le 4 Me a n r epo rted r e a s on s f o r c o ll a bo r a t i o n by po sit i o n g r oup s 6 Stop or Limit Group n = 48 Continue at Current Rate Group n = 43 Expand Group n = 46 1. They are professionally competent 4.5 4.0 4.2 2. I trust them to keep their promises 4.0 3.5 3.8 3. I have worked with them in the past 2.5 2.4 2.8 4. They have political influence 3.0 2.1 2.5 5. They share my position about major issues 2.8 1.9 2.7 6. They have access to financial resources 2.2 1.7 2.2 1 = Not Important, 3 = Modetaretly Important, 5 = Extemely Important. Statistically significant differences between groups are highlighted in bold. Resp o n d e n ts i n di c a t e th at t he most im p or t a nt f a c tor i n d ecidi n g w i t h wh om t o c olla b or a te is t he pro f e s sio n al c o m pe t e n c e of th e c olla b ora t i ng par t y a nd t h e lea s t i m po r ta n t factor is f i na n c ial res o ur c es. Pr o fessi o nal c o m pe t e n c e a nd pol i ti c al i nf l ue nc e w ere b o t h signi f i c a n tly hi g her d e te r mi n a n ts o f c oll a bor a tion for the s t o p o r limit g r o u p th a n the c on ti nu e a t c u r r ent r a te or ex p an d gro u ps. S h a r ed pos i tions are sig n i f i c a n tly mo r e i m p or t a n t f or de t e r m i n i ng w ho to c oll a borate w i t h f or the s t o p o r limit a n d ex p an d gro u ps in c om p ari s on to the c on ti nu e a t c u r r ent r a te res p o n de n ts. In a d d i tion t o p r ofessi o nal c o m pe t e n c e, tr u s t i n their c olla b or a t i v e par t ners is repo r ted as a n i m po r ta n t rea s on for c olla b ora t i o n. 6 T he d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n the po s ition groups on why th e y r e gularly colla b orate are s tat i s tically s ignif i ca n t f or pro fe s s io n al com p e ten c e a nd p olitical i n f lu e nce a t 0.01 and for s haring my po s ition a t 0. 0 5 u s ing an A N OVA t e s t

PAGE 17

17 O b j e ctive 3: T o un ders ta nd t he e x te n t t h at r e s p o n de n ts perceive i s su e s as s o c iated w i th h y drau l ic f r a c tu r i n g inclusive oil and gas development as p o te n t i al p r obl e ms To u n d ers t a nd t h e types of iss u es t hat re s po n de n t s are most c on c e r ned a bo u t i n rela t i o n to hydr a ulic f r actur i ng, w e as k ed t hem to ra t e t he exte n t th a t 20 i ssues are pr o ble m s The r a n ge of res p onse c a t egories i n c l u d e s wh e t he r t h ey b eli e v e d ea c h iss u e w as no t a p r o b le m a mi n o r p r ob lem a m o d er a te p r o b le m a ser iou s p r o b le m or a severe p r o b le m We assign e d values f or the re s ponse c a t egories on a fiv e po i nt s c ale ( from 1 = b eing no t a p r o b lem to 5 = b eing a severe p r o b le m ) The res u l t s a re divid e d b y issues rel a t e d to poll u t i on a nd e n viro n mental degr a da t i on ( T a ble 5 ) a n d iss u es r elat e d t o i nf o rmat i on, p oli t i c s, a n d eco n omics ( Ta b le 6 ) We r a n k t he issues f r om highe s t to l o w est b ased on t he t o tal m ean for t h e full sam p le o f r es p o nd e nts. The m ean s c ores across all issues a re si g ni f i c a n t ly di f fer e n t b e t w een at least t w o gr o ups. T a b le 5 Me a n pe r c ep t i on s a b ou t t h e l e v e l o f s e v e ri t y o f po te n t i a l pr ob l e m s r e l a ted to po ll u t i o n a n d en vir on me n t a l de gr a d a t i o n b y po si t i o n g r oup 7 Stop or Limit Group n = 48 Continue at Current Rate Group n = 43 Expand Group n = 46 Total n = 137 1. Public nuisance impacts from well site operations 3.9 2.8 2.8 3.2 2. Competition over water supplies 4.3 2.8 2.2 3.1 3. Air pollution from well site operations 4.3 2.6 2.1 3.0 4. Air pollution from methane 4.3 2.6 1.9 3.0 5. Destruction of public lands 4.1 2.5 1.8 2.8 6. Surface degradation at well site 3.8 2.5 1.9 2.8 7. Ground and surface water contamination from hydraulic fracturing fluids 4.0 2.4 1.5 2.7 8. Groundwater pollution from methane 3.7 2.3 1.6 2.6 9. Risks of induced seismic activity 3.2 1.7 1.4 2.1 1 = Not a problem, 3 = Moderate problem, 5 = Severe problem. Statistically significant differences between at least two position groups are highlighted in bold As sho w n i n Ta b le 5 pe r c e p ti o ns o f the p r oblems diverge most w i d ely be t w een t he s t o p o r limit g r o u p from t he e xp a n d g r ou p The perc e pti o ns o f the c on ti nu e a t c u r r ent r a te g r o u p lean to w ard t he ex p an d g r o u p Of t h e t hree gr ou ps, the s t o p o r limit g r o u p repo r t perceivi n g the issues rela t ed to pol l uti o n a nd e n vir o nm e ntal degr a da t i on as mo s t se v er e Giv e n the sta t isti c ally si g ni f i c a nt d i f fer e n c es b e t w een t he g r oups, t h e a r eas w he r e th e show the least disagre e m e nt is o n the p ublic nuis a n c e im p acts f r om w ell si t e o per a ti o ns. 7 All of the i s s u e s li s t e d in Table 5 are s i gni f ica n tly d i f f e r e nt bas e d on a n A N OVA te s t to 0 001.

PAGE 18

18 The l a rge s t d i ffe r e n c e s ( greater t han t w o poi n ts on the 5 po i nt s c al e ; e.g. from a m i nor prob l em = 2, to a major p roblem = 4 ) in perc e pt i o n s b e t w een t he s t o p an d limit g r o u p a n d the ex p a n d g ro u p are for the follo w i ng issues: c om p e ti t i o n o v er w a t e r s u ppl i e s, air p oll u ti o n f rom w ell site oper a ti o ns, air poll u ti o n f rom m e t ha n e, des t r u c ti o n o f p u blic la n ds, gr o und a n d sur f ace w a ter c o ntam i n a tion f r om h y dra u lic frac t uri n g fl u i ds, a nd gro u n dw a t er p oll u tion f r om me t h a ne. Ta b le 6 s ho w s t he m ean perce p ti o ns by pos i tion groups for t he l evel o f s e veri t y o f pot e nt i al p rob l ems re l a t ed to i nf o rmat i on, pol i ti c s, and economics. T he m ean va l u es per g r o u p a n d t h e t otal are p r ovid e d w i t h st a tisti c ally si g ni f i c a n t di f fer e n c es b e t w e e n at lea s t t w o gro u ps highlig h t e d in b ol d T a b le 6 Me a n p e r c ep t i on s a b ou t t h e l e v e l o f s e v e ri t y o f p o te n t i a l pr ob l e m s r e l a ted to i n f o rma t i on po lit i c s a n d ec ono m i c s b y po sit i o n g r oup 8 Stop or Limit Group n = 48 Continue at Current Rate Group n = 43 Expand Group n = 46 Total n = 137 1. Misinformation among general public 3.6 4.3 4.6 4.2 2. Public distrust of industry 3.6 3.8 4.0 3.8 3. Distribution of biased information against hydraulic fracturing 2.5 4.1 4.7 3.7 4. Scare tactics against hydraulic fracturing 2.4 4.0 4.7 3.6 5. Conflict over mineral rights 4.1 3.1 3.0 3.4 6. Incomplete information by industry about effects 3.8 3.2 3.1 3.4 7. Patchwork of local regulations 2.8 3.0 3.3 3.0 8. Ineffective monitoring by the state 4.3 2.5 1.7 2.9 9. Political influence of industry 4.4 2.4 1.6 2.9 10. Boom and bust economic cycle 3.5 2.7 2.4 2.9 11. Burdens on local government 3.3 2.6 2.4 2.8 1 = Not a problem, 3 = Moderate problem, 5 = Severe problem. Statistically significant differences between at least two position groups are highlighted in bold. The l a rgest d i ffe r e n c e s i n p erce p tio n s of t he is s u es i d e nt i fied in T a ble 6 a r e b e t w een t he s t o p o r limit g r o u p a n d t he ex p an d g ro up These di f f er e n c es in t he perce p tio n s of t he sev e ri t y of prob l ems ex c e e d t w o poi n ts ( on t he 5 poi n t s c ale) on t he follo w i n g pol i ti c al issues: d istr i bu t ion of bia s ed i n f ormati o n aga i nst hyd r a u l ic frac t uri n g ; sc are tacti c s agai n st 8 The di f fe r e n c e s of all o f the p robl em s l i s ted in Tab l e 6 are s tati s tica l ly s i gni f ica n t bas e d on a n A N OVA te s t to 0.01, e x c e pt f or a patch w ork of local r e gulatio n s a nd p ublic d i s tr u s t of i n du s tr y which are n ot s tati s tically s ignif i ca n t b e tw e e n group s.

PAGE 19

19 hyd r a u lic fract u ri n g; in e f f ective m oni t ori n g by the st a t e ; a nd p ol i ti c al i n fl u e n c e of i ndu s try. A r eas o f the most ag r eem e nt i n c l u de perce p ti o ns o f p rob l ems associa t ed w i t h a p a t c hw ork of local regula t i ons a n d p ublic d i str u st of i n du s try. Of t he th r ee posit i on gr o ups, the ex p an d g r ou p e x pressed g r e a t er c on c e r ns a b o u t issues rela t e d to mis i n f ormat i o n, di s tr u s t, a nd s c are tacti c s w her e as t h e s t o p o r limit g r o u p expressed greater c on c e r n for c o nf l i c t over mi n e ral ri g hts, in e f fe c tive m on i tori n g by t he s t a t e, p o li t i c al i n fl u e n c e by i n d ustry, a b oo m a n d bu s t ec o nomic c y c le, a n d bu r de n s on l o c al gover n m e nts. The c on ti nu e a t c u r r ent r a te g r o u p expressed mo r e mo d era t e perce p ti o ns of the issue s b u t lean e d t o w ard the ex p an d g r o u p on most of t he i t ems. Al t h o ugh w e f i nd st a tist i c ally signi f i c a n t di f fer e n c es b e t w een t he gr o ups f or mo s t o f the i t ems i n T a ble 6, r es p o n d e n ts agree on average th at t he fol l o w i n g iss u es a r e mo d era t e prob l ems ( me a ns at lea s t > 3): mis i nf o rmat i on a b out hydr a ulic frac t uri n g among the ge n eral public; p ublic dist r ust of i ndu s try; c o nfl i c t over m i neral rig h t s ; a nd i n c om p l e t e i n f orma t ion b y i n du s try a b o u t e f f ects. In c om p ar i ng Ta b les 5 a n d 6, t he r es u l t s i n di c a t e t hree major tr e nds. F irs t resp o n d e n ts overall perceive pr o ble m s rela t ed to i n form a tio n poli t i c s, a nd economics a s more s evere th a n prob l ems re l a t e d to pol l uti o n a nd e n vir o nm e ntal degr a da t i on from hy d r a ulic fra c tur i ng. In oth e r w or d s, t he t o tal m eans i n T a ble 6 te n d to b e hi g her th a n the t otal m eans i n T a ble 5. Se c o n d, res p o n de n ts di s agree m o re a bo u t is s ues of poll u ti o n c o m par e d t o pol i ti c s, e c o n omic s a n d i n f orma t io n ; t hat is, t he d i ffe r e n c es b e t w een the pos i ti o n gr o ups are g rea t er in Ta b le 5 c om p ared t o T a ble 6. T h ir d the c on ti nu e a t c u r r ent r a te g r o u p a n d t he ex p a n d g ro u p te n d to share m ore simi l ar perc e pti o ns o f iss u es t han w i t h t he s t o p o r limit g r o u p

PAGE 20

20 O b j e ctive 4 : T o as s ess r es p o n de n t s p ercep t ions o f the l ev e l o f s t r i ng e n c y o f curr e nt r egu l at io ns a nd their prefer e n c e s f or t he r ole of g o ve r nm e nt P e r c eptions of Cur r ent R egula t ions We as k ed r es p o nd e n t s a seri e s o f q ues t io n s a b o ut t h eir o pi n i ons regar d i ng the le n i e n c y or str i nge n c y of regul a ti o ns a n d e n f orceme n t i n C olora d o o n n i n e issues. Resp o n d e n t s i n di c a t ed t h eir perce p ti o ns on a fiv e po i nt s c a l e ( from 1 = very l enie n t t o 5 = very s t r ing en t ) For ea c h c a t e g ory, re s pons e s a re ave r aged a n d div i d ed i nto pos i ti o n gr o u p s a n d t h e re s u l t s are sho w n b el o w in T a ble 7. We fi n d st a tisti c ally si g n i f i c a n t d i ff e ren c e s b e t w een posit i on g r o u ps for all i t ems i n T a ble 7 T a b le 7 Me a n pe r c ep t i on s o f c u r r en t r e g u l a t i on s in C o l o r a d o b y po si t i o n gr ou p 9 Stop o r L i mit Gro u p n = 4 8 Co n ti nu e a t Cu rre n t Rate G r o u p n = 4 3 Expa n d Gro u p n = 46 Total n = 1 37 1. Desi gn i n g and c o n structi n g wells 2 4 3 6 3 8 3.2 2. Co n structi n g well pa d s 2 3 3 4 3 6 3.1 3. Setbacks o f wel l s fr o m o cc up ied bu i ld i n g s o r nat u ral fe a tur e s 1 8 3 1 3 9 2.9 4. Disc l o su r e o f c h e m i cals in h y d ra u l i c fractu r i n g fl u i d s 1 9 3 2 3 8 2.9 5. M o n i t o ri n g o f w a ter q u al i t y 1 9 3 2 3 7 2.9 6. Dis p o si n g o r treati n g p r o du ced water 1 8 3 3 3 7 2.9 7. M o n i t o ri n g o f air qu al i t y 1 8 2 9 3 6 2.7 8. Miti g ati n g ris k s f r o m in d u ced seis m i c act i vi t y 2 0 3 1 3 4 2.6 9. Miti g ati n g ris k s and n u isa n ce t o the general p u b l i c ca u sed b y tr u c k traff i c, n o ise, a n d li gh t fo r m well site o p erat i o n s 1 8 2 9 3 4 2.6 Position g roup a verage 1.96 3.19 3.65 1 = Leni e nt, 3 = A d e quat e 5 = Very String e n t Stati s t i cally s i gni f ica n t di f f e r e n ce s b e t w e e n a t l e ast t w o p o s ition gro u ps a re h ighlig h ted in bold. From T a ble 7, the t otal mean a mong res p on d e n ts sho w s th a t re g ul a tio n s a n d e n f o rceme n t r elat e d to desig n i ng a n d c o nst r u c t i ng w ells are p e rceived as t h e mo s t s tri n g e n t a n d th a t r eg u l a ti o ns a n d e n f o rceme n t r elat e d to mi t iga t i ng nuisan c es to t he g e neral p ublic c a u sed by t r u c k tr a ffi c n oise, a n d li g ht f r om w e l l site o per a ti o ns are perc e ived as t h e mo s t le n ie n t. T he resu l ts s h o w n in T a ble 7 also i n di c a t e di f f er e n c es b e t w een t he positi o n g r o u ps in their p e rce p tio n s of t he a d e q uacy of c urr e nt re g ula t i o n s The bigge s t d i f f er e n c e is b e t w een 9 T he d i f f e r e n c e s in the p e r c e p tion of c u rr e nt r e gulatio n s in T a b le 4 are s tati s tic a lly s igni f i ca n t bas e d on a n A N OVA te s t to 0.001.

PAGE 21

21 t he s t o p o r limit a nd t h e ex p an d g r o u p s The di f fer e n c es be t w e e n the s e gr o u p s ra n ge fr o m a m i n im u m d i ff e ren c e of 1 .3 po i nts on t he 5 p oi n t s c ale for c on s tr u c t i ng w ell pa d s to a m aximum d if f er e n c e o f 2.1 p oi n ts. P r eferences for t h e R ole of G overn m ent The s urvey i nvestig a ted r es p o n de n perc e pti o ns of t h e r ole o f g over n m e nt i n t w o w ay s : 1) by e x p l ori n g if t hey have b ecome m ore or less s up p or t i v e o f the role o f gov e r n m e nt in rela t i o n to r eg u l a ti n g t he issues li s ted in Ta b le 7 a nd 2) w he t her t hey ha v e p re f er e n c es for par t i c u l ar levels o f gove r nment to play a dom i na n t ro l e in re g ula t i ng these issues. In rel a tion t o t heir level of s u p p ort f o r re g ula t i o n w e as k ed r es p o nd e nts w he t h e r t hey have g e nerally b e c o me l ess s uppo rti v e ( 1), re p o rted n o c hang e ( 2), or b e c o me m o re s upp o rti v e ( 3) of gov e r n m e nt reg u l a tio n T he r es u l t s are div i ded among ea c h pos i ti o n gr o up a n d r e po r ted in Fig u re 4 ( be l o w ) Fig u re 4 s ho w s t hat t he s t o p o r limit g r o u p di f fers fr o m b o th t he c on ti nu e a t c u r r ent r a te g r o u p a n d t he ex p an d g ro u p The s t o p o r limit g r o u p have become more sup p or t ive of gove r nm e nt r eg u l a ti o ns f or all c a t e gories o f iss u es. In c o nt r ast, t he c on ti nu e a t c u r r ent r a te g r o u p a n d t he ex p an d g ro u p have n ot c h a nged t heir pos i ti on s on g over n m e n t regula t i on. T h e o nly ex c e p t i on is t hat a near ma j ori t y o f m embers o f t he ex p a n d g ro u p have become l ess s u pp o r t ive of gov e r n m e nt regu l a t i o n o n s e tbac k s. To exam i ne the p r e f e r e nc es among resp o n d e n ts f or t he l evel o f go v er n m e nt a t w hi c h dif f er e nt is s ues o r p rob l e ms shou l d be regul a t e d, respo n d e nts w ere as k ed the fol l o w I f y o u w ere to sele c t only o n e l evel of gove r nm e nt to r e gula t e t he follo w i n g iss u es r el a ted to n a tu r al gas devel o pm e nt t h at u s es hydr a ulic fract u ri n g, w hi c h w ould you pr e fer, if a n y ? The c hoi c es are o n a f o u r poi n t s c ale ( n o re g u l a ti o n = 1, l o c a l go ver n me n t = 2, s t a te g o ver n me n t = 3 a n d feder a l go ver n me n t = 4). The issues us e d w ere t h e s ame ni n e issues f r om Ta b le 7 a nd Figure 4 The r es u l ts by pos i tion g r oup are f o u n d in Figu r e 5. Figure 5 hi g hlig h ts thr e e k ey fi n d i ng s Fir s t, i n no c ases did t he ma j ori t y of a n y respo n d e nt g ro u p s u p p o rt n o r eg u l a tio n S econd, a maj o ri t y o f r es p o nd en ts f r om all of t he groups favor local go v e r nment r eg u l a tory a u t ho r i t y f o r m i tiga t i ng p ublic n uisan c e. Thi r d, o t h er th a n m i tiga t i ng p ublic n u isan c e, a m ajor i ty of t he c on ti nu e a t c u r r ent r a te a n d ex p an d g r o u p s sup p ort regul a ti o n o f th e se issues by t he s ta t e g o ver n men t wh er e as t h e s t o p o r limit g r o u p is mixed a b o u t the p r e f e re n c es f o r re g ula t i on at di f fer e nt l evels o f go v er n m e n t

PAGE 22

22 or m P P e r r e e P M i tiga t i n g P u b lic N u isan c e Seismic I n d u c e d A c t ivity Cons t r u c t ing Well P a ds Dis p osing Trea t ed Wa t er Well C o nst r u c ti o n Se t bac k s Dis c los u re M o ni t or A ir Quali t y M o ni t or W a t er Quali t y M i tiga t i n g P u b lic N u isan c e Seismic I n d u c e d A c t ivity Cons t r u c t ing Well P a ds Dis p osing Trea t ed Wa t er Well C o nst r u c ti o n Se t bac k s Dis c los u re M o ni t or A ir Q uali t y M o ni t or W a t er Quali t y Less S u p p or t i v e S t a t u s Quo M o re S up p or t ive M i tiga t i n g P u b lic N u isan c e Seismic I n d u c e d A c t ivity Cons t r u c t in g Well P a ds Dis p osing Trea t ed Wa t er Well C o nst r u c ti o n Se t bac k s Dis c los u re M o ni t or A ir Quali t y M o ni t or W a t er Quali t y 0% 2 0 % 4 0 % 6 0 % 8 0 % 1 0 0% F i g ure 4 Ch a n g i ng p e rc e pt i o n f or t h e l e v e l of g o v e rn me nt r eg ul a tions by po s ition g r o u p

PAGE 23

23 S t o p o r Lim i t P o sit i o n E x pan d P o s i ti o n C on t i nu e at C u rr en t Rate Pos i t i o n M iti g ati n g P u b l i c N u is a n c e Seis m ic I n du c e d Acti v ity C o n structing W ell Pa d s D is p o si n g T reat e d Wa t er W e ll C o n str u c t i o n Se t b a c ks D iscl o su r e M o n it o r A i r Qu a l i ty M o n it o r W at e r Qua l ity M iti g ati n g P u b l i c N u is a n c e Seis m ic I n du c e d Acti v ity C o n structing W ell Pa d s D is p o si n g T reat e d Wa t er W e ll C on struc t i o n Se t b a c ks D isc l o s u re M o n it o r A i r Q u al i ty M o n it o r W at e r Qua l ity N o Reg u lati o n L o cal G o ve r n me n t Sta t e G ov ern m ent Fe d er a l G o v e r n me n t M iti g ati n g P u b l i c N u is a n c e Seis m ic I n du c e d Acti v ity C o n structing W ell Pa d s D is p osi n g T reat e d Wa t er W e ll C on struc t i o n Se t b a c ks D iscl o su r e M o n it o r A i r Qu a l i ty M o n it o r W at e r Q u al i ty 0 % 2 0% 4 0% 6 0% 8 0% 1 0 0 % F i g ure 5 Pr e f e r e nces r e ga rding l e v e l o f g ov e r n me nt r eg ul a t i o n by po s i t ion g r o u p

PAGE 24

24 Ob j e ctive 5: T o as s ess r es p o n de n t p ercep t ions o f rules a d op t ed by t he Colo r a d o Oil and Gas C o n s er v a t ion Co mmis s ion (COGC C ) a b o ut disc l o s ure a n d se t backs r e l a ted t o h y drau l ic f r a c tu r i n g The s urvey i n c lud e d qu e stio n s to exami n e re s po n de n p tio n s o f t he t w o re c e nt regula t i ons es t a blish e d b y t he C O G C C, w hi c h is th e st a tewide age n c y th a t regula t es oil a n d gas devel o pment. The fir s t i s the 2 0 11 dis c los u r e r u l e, w hi c h m a n d a t e d the r e p o r ti n g of t he c hemi c als us e d i n h y draulic frac t uri n g f l ui d s on t h e fra c fo c us org we bsite w hile allo w i n g for t he pro t ecti o n o f i n d ustry t r a d e secr e ts. T h e sec o nd is t he 2 0 1 3 s e tback r u l e requi r i n g a mi n i m u m dista n c e o f 5 00 fe e t be t w een w ells a nd o cc upi e d bui l di n gs. W e as ke d re s po n de n ts to i ndi c a te the ext e nt to w hi c h t h ey agre e d t h at c e r t a i n iss ue s th a t w ere m e nti o n e d a s k ey c on c er n s du r i n g the res p ective r ulema k i n g pro c es s es w e r e resol v e d by t h e r ul e s ( C O G C C, 20 1 1 b 2 0 1 2 b ). The respon s e s are on a fiv e p oi n t s c ale ( f r om1 = s tr o ng ly d is ag ree to 5 = s tr o ng ly ag re e ) Ta b le 8 show resu l ts for t h e d is c l osure r u le, a n d T a ble 9 p rese n ts t he r es u l t s f or t h e se t bac k s r u l e P e r c eptions of t h e 2 0 1 1 Disclosure R ule T a b le 8 Me a n pe r c ep t i on s o f t h e f o ll o w i n g i ss ue s b ei n g r e s o lv e d by t h e C O G C C 2 0 11 d i s c l o s u re r u le b y po si t i o n g r oup 10 Iss u es Stop o r L i mit Gro u p n = 4 8 Co n ti nu e a t Cu rre n t Rate G r o u p n = 4 3 Expa n d Gro u p n = 46 Total n = 1 37 1. What ch e mical i n fo r mat i o n m u st b e d isclo s ed 2 2 3 6 4 3 3.3 2. Where ch e mical in f o rm a ti o n should be ma d e a vai l a b le 2 3 3 7 4 2 3.4 3. Accessi b i l i t y o f ch e mical i n form a ti o n to t h e pub l i c 2 0 3 6 4 2 3.2 4. Pr o te c ti o n o f tra d e s ecr e ts 2 4 3 5 4 1 3.3 5. Disc l o su r e o f c h e m i cal i n form a ti o n in a health o r o ther e m erge n cy 2 1 3 7 4 2 3.3 6. When disc l o su r e o f c h e m ic al i n form a ti o n m u st be ma d e 2 0 3 7 4 0 3.2 7. P ub l i c d istr u st o f t h e h y d r a u l i c fractu r i n g pro c ess 1 7 2 4 2 4 2.1 1 = Strongly Di s a g r ee 3 = N e i t h e r Agr e e n or Di s ag r ee 5 = Strongly Agr e e Stat i s tically s ig n i f ica n t di f f e r e n ce s b e tw e e n a t l e ast t w o p o s ition groups a re highlig h ted in b old. The r es u l ts s h ow sta t i s ti c ally sig n i f i c a n t di f fer e n c e s among t h e posit i on g r o ups i n their perce p ti o n o f w h e th e r t he dis c los u re r u le resol v ed vari o us iss u es t h a t wo uld have pro m p t ed 10 A ll of the probl em s li s ted in Tab l e 5 are stat i s tical l y s i gni f ica n tly d i f f e r e nt ba s e d on a n A N OVA te s t to 0.001.

PAGE 25

25 the n e ed f or i n dus t ry t o dis c lose t he c hemi c als i n hydra u lic frac t ur i ng f l ui d s On most o f t he issues, t he s t o p o r limit g r o u p disagree th a t t h e r u le has resolv e d t he pr o b l em. I n c om p ari s o n the ex p an d g r o u p agre e s th a t t h e r ule has re s olv e d all of t he a bove is s ues besi d es p ublic d istr u s t. T he l argest d i ff e ren c es i n p erce p tio n s of the effe c tiv e ness o f t h e dis c los u re r u le are be t w e e n the s t o p o r lim i t g r o u p a n d t he ex p an d g r o u p on a d dress i ng the f ollo w i n g issue s : w h a t c hemi c al i n form a ti o n m u st be dis c los e d; a cc essi b i li t y of c hemi c al i n f orm a t i on to the p ubli c ; d is c los u re of c hemi c al i n form a tion in a heal t h or oth e r e m erg e n c y; a n d w hen dis c los u r e o f c hemi c al i n form a ti o n m u st be m a de. P e r c eptions of t h e 2 0 1 3 Setbacks R ule For t he s e t bac k s r u le, t h e s t o p o r limit g r o u p disagre e s t hat t he is s ues ha v e b e en resolve d ex c e p t w i t h re s pect to t h e ri g hts of mi n eral o w n e r s o n w hi c h t h ey are so m ewhat satisfi e d T he c on ti nu e a t c u r r ent r a te g r o u p a n d the ex p an d g r o u p are al s o more e q uivocal a b o u t w h e t h er the r u l e r esol v ed t h e issues. T he ge n eral c on s e nsus is t h at t h e r ule w as not highly e f f ective i n a dd r essi n g issues t h at w e r e di s c ussed d ur i ng t he s e t bac k s r u lema k i n g pro c ess. T a b le 9 Me a n p e r c ep t i on s o f the f o ll o w i n g i s s ue s b ei n g r e s o lv e d by t h e C O G C C 2 0 13 s e t b a c k s r u le by po sit i o n g r oup 11 Iss u es Stop o r L i mit Gro u p n = 4 8 Co n ti nu e a t Cu rre n t Rate G r o u p n = 43 Expa n d Gro u p n = 46 Total n = 1 37 1. P ub l i c nu isa n ce i m p a c ts 1 9 3 1 3 4 2.8 2. A p atch w o rk o f l o cal reg u latio n s o n s et b ac k s 2 0 2 8 2 8 2.5 3. Prior i ties o f sur f a ce o w n ers 2 1 3 2 3 3 2.8 4. Prior i ties o f mi n eral ri gh ts o wne r s 2.8 3.1 2.7 2.9 5. H ealth im p a cts u p o n t h e p o pu lation l i vi n g in p rox i mity t o w ell p ad s 1 5 2 9 3 4 2.6 6. Im p acts fr o m o p en p i t s o f wast e wa t er 1 8 3 1 3 6 2.7 7. P ub l i c d istr u st o f t h e h y d ra u l i c fractu r i n g p r o ce s s 1 6 2 2 2 3 2.0 8. C o mm un ic a ti o n s b et w een o il and gas o p er a t o rs and n ear b y co mm un it i es 2 2 3 2 3 4 2.9 1 = Strongly Di s a g r ee 3 = N e i t h e r Agr e e n or Di s ag r ee 5 = Strongly Agr e e Stat i s tically s i g ni f ica n t di ffe r e nc e s b e tw e e n a t l e ast t w o p o s ition groups a re highlig h ted in bold. 11 All of the p robl e m s li s t e d in T a b le 6 are stat i s tical l y s i gni f i c a n tly d i ffe r e nt bas e d on a n A N OVA te s t to 0. 0 1, e xc e pt f or righ t s of m in e ral o w n e r s w hich is n ot s ign i f ica n t.

PAGE 26

26 Co n clu s ions T h is r e po r t pres e nts r es u l t s o f a 2 0 1 3 s u rvey adm i niste r ed to pe o ple dire c t ly or i n dire c tly i n volv e d i n the pol i ti c s of oil a nd gas d e velopm e nt that utilizes hydraulic fracturing in Colora do B el o w w e s u mmari z e t he k ey fi n di n gs ac c or d i n g to ea c h of t he five s t u dy o bje c tives, as w ell as i d e n ti f y a reas of s u bst a nt i al agr e eme n t a n d disag r eem e nt amo n g resp o nd e nts. Obj e c t ive 1: To id e n t ify r e s pond e n ge n e r a l po s itions a b o u t h y dr a u lic fr a c t u r ing us e d in o i l a nd n a t u r a l ga s d e v e lo p m e nt i n C o l o r a do. T h e f i nd i ngs s h ow th a t respo n d e nts c a n b e gr ou ped ac c or d i n g t o t heir p osition a b o u t w h e th e r h ydra u lic fract u ri n g s hou l d be s to p ped or l i mi t e d ( n = 4 8 ) c ont i nu e d a t the c ur r e n t r a t e ( n = 4 3 ) or ex p a n d ed ( n = 4 6). The s e thr e e gr o ups a re us e d to g ui d e t he a n a l y s is for the rema i ni n g o b je c t i ves. All e nvir o nmental a nd orga n i zed c i t i zen gr o ups a r e members of t he s t o p o r limit gr o u p I n c o n tras t t he oil a n d gas i n d ustry m a k e up the major i ty o f re s p o nd e nts i n the ex p an d grou p Local, st a te, or f e deral gover n m e nts, a n d acad e mics or c on s ul t a nts favor a r a nge o f posit i ons. Obj e c t ive 2: To u nd e r s tand t h e p o l i tic a l a ctiv i t i e s, r e so u rc e s, a nd n e two r k r e l a t io n s h i ps of r e spo n d e n ts b a sed on t h e ir pos i t i o n t o w a r d h y dr a u l ic fr a ct u r i n g T h e most fre q ue n t a c tivities t hat r es p o n de n ts e ngage in a r e a t te n di n g p ublic m eet i ngs a n d buil d i n g a nd mai n ta i ni n g c oali t i o ns. Across all a c t ivities, re s po n d e nts fav o ri n g the st a tus quo are less p oli t i c ally a c tive c om p a r e d t o re s po n d e nts wh o e it her sup p ort t he e x pa n si o n o r t h e s t o p pi n g of hydr a ul i c fract u ri n g. T he res o urce t hat respo n d e nts have t h e g r eatest c a p acity to u tili z e is t h eir c o nnect i on w i t h oth e rs w ho share t heir pos i ti o n. Tho s e w ho o p pose hyd r a u lic fra c tur i ng r e po r t a higher c a p acity t o u tili z e the i r r esources to a c hieve t h eir obje c tives c o m pared t o those w ho favor t he s ta t us quo or e x pa n si o n o f hydr a ul i c fract u ri n g. Res p o n de n t s fre q ue n tly c oll a bo r a te w i t h l o c al a nd s ta t e gove r nment o ffi c ials in p u rsuit of their i n ter e s ts. T he m ost im p o r ta n t c ri t eri o n f or c hoosing w i t h w hom to c olla b or a te on hydr a ulic fract u ri n g is s ues is pr o f e ssio n al c o m pe t e n c y. Obj e c t ive 3: To u nd e r s tand t h e e xt e n t t h a t r e s p o n d e n t s p e r c e ive iss u e s a sso c i a ted w ith h y dr a u l ic f r a ct u r i ng inclusive oil and gas development a s p o t e nt i a l p ro b l em s. P ro b lems rel a ted t o t he pol i t i c s, i n for m a t i o n, a nd p r o c ess of regul a ti n g hy d ra u lic f ractur i ng are se e n as m o re severe by all r es p o nd e n t s th a n tho s e rel a t e d to p oll u t i on, hea l th ris k s or e n viro n mental degr a da t i o n Resp o n d e n ts disag r e e more a b o u t t he severi t y of issues rel a t e d t o poll u ti o n, h eal t h ris k s, o r e n v i r o nmental degr a da t i on th a n a b o u t pro b lems r elat e d t o pol i ti c s, i nfo r ma t i o n a n d t he pro c ess of regul a t i on. The s t o p o r limit g r o u p perceived p r o blems r ela te d t o h y dra u lic frac t ur i ng to be more seve r e th a n the o t her t w o gr o ups. T he

PAGE 27

27 ex p an d g r o u p perceived pr o blems rela t e d to pol i ti c s a n d i n f ormati o n as more severe th a n o t her pr o blems. Th e c on ti nu e a t t h e c u r r ent r a te g r o u p aligned mo r e w i t h t he ex p an d g r o u p but te n ded t o b e mo r e m o d e ra t e i n m a ny o f the i r re s ponses Obj e c t ive 4: To a ssess r e spo n d e p e rcept i o n s of t h e l e v e l of s t r i n ge ncy of cu r r e nt r eg ul a t i o n s a nd t h e i r p r e f e r e nces for t he r o le of g ov e rn me nt. Res p on de nts regard t h e re g ula t i ons p er t ai n i n g to t h e c on s tr u c tion a n d desig n i ng o f w e l ls as the most str i nge n t a nd r egard the a d e q uacy of r e gula t i o ns o f p u blic n uis a n c es c a u sed by w ell si t e o per a tio n s as t he least str i ng e n t A vast m ajor i ty of respo n d e nts s u p po r t s o me level of regu l a t i o n o v er hy d ra u lic frac t uri n g. When c onsider i ng w hi c h level o f gove r nm e nt t h ey p r e f e r for re g ula t i ng vari o us i s sues rela t e d to hydr a ulic f r ac t uri n g, most res p o n de n ts, pa r ti c ularly tho s e w ho sup p ort hydr a ulic fract u r i n g, p r e f e r t he st a te le v el of gover n m e n t A m ong those w ho o p pose hydr a ulic f r acturi n g w e f o u nd s ub s t a n tial varia n c e in t h eir s t a t ed pre f er e n c es for t he level of gov e r n m e nt a d dressi n g hydr a ulic f r actur i ng is s ues. Obj e c t ive 5: To a ssess r e spo n d e n t p e rcept i o n s of r u l e s a d o pted by t h e C o l o r a do O il a nd Gas Conserv a tion C om m iss i o n (C O GCC) a b o ut di s c l os u re a nd setb a cks r e l a ted to h y d r a u l ic f r a ct u r i n g inclusive oil and gas development Resp o n d e n ts h eld diver g i n g o pi n i o ns a bo u t the e f fe c tiveness of t he Co l o ra d o Oil a n d Gas C o nser v a t ion Commissi o d is c l os u re r u le of 2 0 1 1 a nd t h e s e t b ac k s r u le o f 2 0 1 3. H o w e v er, t he overall effe c tiv e n ess of the dis c los u r e r ule is hi g her th a n the se t bac k s r u l e. M ost r es p o nd e nts ag r ee t hat neither r u le has resolv e d t h e issue o f p ublic dis t r u st o f t he oil a nd gas i n d u stry. Dra w i n g g e neral i zed les s ons across t h e o bje c tive s w e f i nd a n um b er o f ar eas of agre e ment a nd disag r e e me n t am o ng re s po n d e n t s. As summar i zed in T a b l e 1 0 t here are a f ew areas o f agr e eme n t th a t c ould pro m pt o p po r t u ni t ies for p ublic or priva t e a c tion a nd poss i b ly negot i a t i o ns a nd c o nse n sus. R es p o nd e nts are n o t aga i nst r eg u l a tion o f h y dra u lic frac t uri n g and other aspects of oil and gas development b ut ra t h e r t he amo u nt o f re g ula t i o n t h e p a r t i c ul a r fo c us of t he r eg u l a tio n a n d f r om w h a t le v el o f gover n m e nt regul a tors i nterv e ne. O u tsi d e o f r eg u la t i o ns for w ell a n d w el l pad desi g n a nd c onstr u c tio n t he pos i ti o n gr o ups do n o t agr e e o n w hi c h o th e r ar e as surv e yed are a d e qu a tely regula t ed or not. W hile the c on ti nu e a t c u r r ent r a te g r o u p a n d t he ex p an d g r o u p beli e ve regula t i ons for w a t er a n d air mon i tor i ng a nd d i s p osing o f pro d u c ed w a t er is more t h an a d e q ua t e, t hey r e p o r t a l ong w i t h t he s t o p o r lim i t g r o u p a slight i n c rease in s u pp o rt for f u t ure regula t i ons i n t h ese a r e a s. Resp o n d e nts ac r oss t he posit i on g r o u ps also a gree t hat p ublic nuisan c e f r om w ell s i te o perat i ons are a m o der at e pr o blem a n d the local gover n m e nt is t he a p pr o pri a te l evel for de a li n g w i t h p ublic nuis a n c e prob l ems re l a t e d to w ell site activ i t y Fi n ally, respo n d e nts a g ree th a t public dis t r u st o f h y dra u l ic frac t uri n g a n d o f the o il a n d gas i n d ustry is a severe p rob l em th a t is n ot bei n g resolv e d th r ou g h t he c urr e nt s ta t e re g u l a t io n s.

PAGE 28

28 T a b l e 1 0. Ar ea s of s u bs t a nt i a l ag r eeme nt a nd d i s ag r ee m e nt b e t w ee n p o s i tion g r o u ps Ar ea s of Subst a n t i a l A g r eeme nt Ar ea s of Subst a n t i a l Di s ag r ee m e nt P e rcei v ed Se v er i ty o f En v i ron me n t a l Poll u ti o n a n d Deg r ada ti o n Iss u es P ublic nuis a n c e i m pacts from w ell si t e oper a tio n s are a m o der a te prob l em T h e perceived sever i ty of prob l ems r e la t e d to c o ntam i na t i on of w a t er sour c es; air poll u ti o n; c o m pe t i t i o n o ver w a t er s u p pl y ; a nd des t r u c ti o n o f p u blic la n ds P e rcei v ed Se v er i ty o f I n f o r ma ti o n a n d Poli t ics Iss u es P ublic dist r ust of i n dus t ry and misi n fo r ma t i o n a m ong t he pu b lic are seri o us pr o blems; Local gov e r n m e nt issu e s rela t ed to regula t i on, b o o m a n d b u st economic c y c les, a n d bu r den on s e rvi c es are moder a te pr o blems The p e rceived s everi t y o f p r obl e ms rel a t e d t o distr i bu t ion of bia s ed i n f ormati o n aga i nst hydra u lic frac t ur i n g ; s c a r e tacti c s agai n st hydra u lic frac t ur i n g ; i neffe c tive mon i tor i ng by the st a te; a n d p oli t i c al i n fl u e n c e by i n dus t ry P e rce p ti o n o f C u r r ent an d Futu r e Re g u l a ti o n hy d ra u lic frac t uri n g sh o uld be regul a t e d; Well a n d w ell pad desi g n/ c on s tr u c t ion regula t i ons are a d e qu a te T h e perceived str i ng en c y o f c ur r e n t regula t i ons a n d p r e f e re n c es for f u t u re regula t i on P e rce p ti o n o f Re g u l a ti o n a t V a r iou s Le v els o f G o v e r n me n t M i tiga t i ng the p ublic n uisan c e c a used by w ell site oper a ti o ns is b e st re g ula t e d by t he local governme n t T h e pre f er r e d level o f g over n m e nt for regula t i ng m ost is s ues r e la t ed to h y dra u lic fract u ri n g E f f e ct i veness o f 2 0 1 1 Di s cl o s u re R u le in A dd ressi n g Iss u es P ublic dist r ust of hydr a ulic fra c tur i ng w as not resolv e d by t he 2 0 1 1 dis c los u r e r ule Wh e t h er the 2 0 11 Dis c l osure r u le resolv e d i) w hat a nd wh en c hemi c al i n f orma t ion m u s t b e dis c losed; ii) ac c essi b ili t y of t h e i nfo r ma t i on to the ge n e ral pu b li c ; or iii) dis c los u re of c hemi c al i n form a ti o n i n an e m erg e n c y E f f e ct i veness o f 2 0 1 3 Se t ba c k s R u le in A dd r e ssi n g Iss u es P ublic dist r ust of t he hydra u lic frac t uri n g pro c ess w as n ot resolv e d by t he 2 0 1 3 se t bac k s r u l e; T h e r ule had rel a tively no e f f ect o n l o c al regula t i ons, pri o ri t ies of mi n eral rig h ts a n d sur f ace o w ners, a nd c o m m u ni c a t i on be t w e e n o per a tors a nd l o c al c omm u ni t ies Wh e t h er the 2 0 13 s e t b ac k s r u le resol v ed public n u isan c e by w ell s i te o per a ti o ns; heal t h im p acts up o n tho s e livi n g nea r by w ell pa d s; or im p acts from o p en pi t s o f w astewat e r

PAGE 29

29 I n summary, t hese fi n di n gs may he l p c lar i fy t he u nderly i ng c on c e r ns, pre f er e n c es, a nd reso u rces of a di v erse r a nge o f pe o ple i nvolved in the issu e s surrounding oil and gas development that utilizes hydraulic fracturing We re c ogn i ze th a t t his survey off e rs o nly a par t i al r e p r esent a ti o n o f the p oli t i c s at a spec i fic p oi n t in t im e a n d th a t i t d oes not a p ply to t h e p ref e ren c es a n d op i nio n s of all c i ti z e ns in Color a do. Des p i te t hese lim i t a tio n s, w e hope t o o ff e r i n te r es t e d i n divi d uals a nd org a ni z a t io n s a b e tt e r u n d ers t a n d i n g o f o ne of t h e most poli t i c ally co n t e n t i ous e nviro n mental is s u e s to d ay in Color a do.

PAGE 30

30 R ef e renc e s B ailey, K. (April 2 6 2 0 1 2 ) G u est Comme n tary: T h e d a ngers o f hydr a ulic f r acturi n g in Color a do. Denver P o s t, h t tp : // www .de n ve r post. c om / op i ni o n/ c i_ 2 0 4 7 8 5 6 9 / c ol u m n s ? I A D ID=Searc h ww w .de n ver p o s t. c o m www .de n ver p ost. c om Chang, A. ( J uly 1 1 2 0 1 3 ) St u dy: Dist a nt q u a k es c an a f fect oil, gas f i el d s. D e n ver Pos t ht t p : // www .de n ver p o s t. c om/ c i_ 2 3 6 4 1 7 2 8 / s t u d y dist a n t q ua k es c a n a f fe c t oil ga s fiel d s ? IAD I D=Searc h www .de n ver p o s t. c o m ww w .de n ve r post. c om Colora d o Oil a n d Gas Conserva t i o n Com m issio n ( 2 0 1 1a ) Hydraulic Fracturing Information. ht t p : //co g cc.state.co.us/ Colora d o Oil a n d Gas Conserva t i o n Com m issio n ( 2 0 1 1 b ) Rulema k i n g 2 0 1 1 : H ydra u lic F ractu r i n g Chemical D is c lo s ure. ht t p : //co g cc.state.co.us/ Colora d o Oil a n d Gas Conserva t i o n Com m issi o n. ( 2 0 1 2 a). S t a ff Te s tim o ny for S e t back Rulema k i n g, Decem b er 1 1, 2 0 1 2 h t tp : // c og cc s t a te. c o.us/ Colora d o Oil a n d Gas Conserva t i o n Com m issio n ( 2 0 1 2 b ) S e t b ack Rulem ak i n g 2 0 1 2: Es t a b li s hi n g New a nd A me n d ed R ules f or S ta t ew i d e Se t bac k s. htt p : //co g cc.state.co.us/ Fi n ley, B (Dece m ber 1 7 2 0 1 2 ) Colo r a d o oil a n d g as i n d ustry s ues to k ill L o ngmo n t frac k i n g ba n Denver Pos t h t tp : / /ww w .de n ver p o s t. c om/ e nviro n m e n t / c i_ 2 2 2 1 1 5 1 4 / c olor a d o oil a n d ga s i n d ustry s ues k ill l o n gmont? I A D I D=S earch www .de n ver p ost. c o m www .de n ver po s t. c om Fi n ley, B (Fe b r uary 1 4, 2 0 13 a). Wa t er fou l ed w i t h frac k i n g c h emi c als spe w s near Wi n dsor. Denver P o s t, h t tp : // www .de n ve r post. c om / e n vir o nment / c i_ 2 2 5 8 6 1 5 4 / w a t e r f o ul e d frac k i n g c hemi c als spew s n ear w i ndsor? I A D I D=Search www .de n ver p o s t. c o m ww w .de n ve r post. c om Fi n ley, B (March 5, 2 0 1 3 b ) Thre a t of Co l orado l a w suit lo o ms as frac k ing b in Fo r t Colli n s. Den v er Pos t h t tp : / / www .de n ver p o s t. c o m /brea k i n g new s / c i_ 2 2 7 2 4 6 3 3 / th r ea t st a t e la w sui t l o oms f or t c olli n s vo t es frac k i n g ? IADID= S earc h www .de n ver p o s t c o m ww w .de n ver p o s t. c om Fiss i nger, K. ( Oc t o ber 2 6 2 0 1 2 ) G u est Comm e nt a ry: In L o ngm o nt, pr o tect i ng o u r f amili e s from frac k i n g is o ur r ight. De n ver Pos t ht t p : // www .de n ver p o s t. c om/op i nion/ci_2 1 8 5 65 5 6 / p ro t ecti n g lo n g m o n t famili e s fro m frac k i n g i s o ur r ight? I A D ID=Search www .de n ver p ost. c o m www .de n ver p o st. c om Fryar, F. ( J u n e 1 8, 2 0 13 ) B oul d er Cou n ty e x t e n ds oil a n d gas mor a tori u m f or 18 m o n t hs. L ong m on t Time s C a ll, h t t p: / / www .timescall .c om / new s /lo n g m on t loca l

PAGE 31

31 new s / c i_ 2 3 4 8 7 7 0 2 / bo u l de r c o u n t y ext e nd s oil a n d ga s mor a tor i u m 18 Ja f fe, M. ( A ugu s t 2, 2 0 1 1) Colora d o moving to r e quire f ull dis c los u re on d rilli n g i n d ustry frac k i n g f l ui d s. Denver P o s t ht t p : // www .de n ver p o s t. c om/brea k i n g new s / c i_ 1 8 6 0 1 0 8 3?IAD I D=Searc h ww w .de n ver p o s t. c o m www .de n ver p ost. c om Ja f fe, M. ( March 1 9 2 0 1 2 a). Colora d o s t udy fi n ds frac k i n g ris k s for nea r by reside n ts. D enver Post, h t t p : // www .denve r post c om / brea k in g new s / c i_202 0 668 8 / c olor a d o s t ud y find s frac k in g ris ks near b y resid e nts ? I A D ID=Se a rc h www .de n ver p ost. c o m www .de n ver p ost. c om Ja f fe, M. ( A ugu s t 1 6, 2 0 1 2b ) Hi c k e n lo o p er: Co l o r a d o drilli n g re g ula t i o ns n eed m ore w or k Denver P o s t, h t tp : // www .de n ve r post. c om / bus i n e ss/ci_21 3 2 3 3 5 5 / hi c k e n l o ope r c o l orado drilli n g regul a ti o ns n ee d mor e w or k ? I A D ID=Sea r c h www .de n ver p ost. co m ww w .de n ver p o s t. c om Ja f fe, M. ( J uly 1 1, 2 0 13 ) Colora d o joi n s in suit t o k no c k do w n L o ngmo n t f r ac k i n g ba n Denver Pos t h t t p : // www .de n ve r post. c om / brea k i n g new s / c i_ 2 3 6 4 3 6 7 9 /st a t e joi n s sui t kn o ck do w n lo n gm o n t frac k i n g ba n ? I A D ID=Se a rc h www .de n ver p ost. c o m www .de n ver p ost. c om M c Curdy, D. (July 1 0, 2 0 1 1 ) H y dra u lic frac t uri n g is a sa f e p r o c ess t hat re s ul t s i n ne e ded e n ergy. Denver P o s t, h t tp : // www .de n ve r post. c om / op i ni o n/ c i_ 1 8 4 3 6 0 0 2?IAD I D= S earc h ww w .de n ver p o s t. c o m www .de n ver p ost. c om Ri c c ar d i, N. (Fe b r uary 2 7 2 0 1 3 ) As e nergy b oom nears Col o ra d o c i t ies, a b ac k lash gro w s. Denver P o s t, h t tp : // www .de n ve r post. c om / brea k i ngnew s / c i_ 2 2 6 8 0 6 2 0 /e n erg y bo o m n ears c olora d o c i t ies bac k l a s h gro w s ? IADID=Searc h www .de n ver p o s t. c o m ww w .de n ve r post. c om Robles, Y. ( Novem b er 1 3 2 0 1 2 ) P r o tes t ors s h ow up a t C a pi t ol rally i n s up port of h y dra u lic fract u ri n g. Denver P o s t ht t p : // www .de n ver p o s t. c om/brea k i n g new s / c i_ 2 1 9 8 8 6 4 2 /pr o te s tor s rally agai n s t p a t c h w ork l o c al oil a n d gas ? IADID= S earc h www .de n ver p o s t c o m ww w .de n ver p o s t. c om Whaley, M. (March 7, 2 0 1 2 ) A n ti f rac k i n g p r ote s t c asts sh a dow over j o bs promise in Commerce City. D enver Pos t h t t p : // www .de n ve r post. c om / brea k i n g new s / c i_ 2 0 1 2 1 5 7 1 /a n t i frac k i n g p r ote s t c ast s s h a d o w ove r job s pr o mis e ? I A D ID=Searc h www .de n ver p o s t. c o m ww w .de n ver p o s t. c om Wi n e k e, A. ( A pril 3 0, 2 0 1 2 ) D rilli n g oil in Co l orado ma k es w a t er, ta k es w a ter. T h e C o l o r a d o S p r i n g s Post G a zette, h t t p: / / www .de n ve r post. co m/brea k i n g new s / c i_ 2 05 1 3 0 1 9 / d rill i n g oil c olora d o ma k es w a t e r t a k es w a t er?IADID=S e arc h www .de n ver p o s t. c o m ww w .de n ver p o s t. c om

PAGE 32

32 Wyatt, K. ( March 2 1 2 0 1 3 ) D e b a te over Co l orado drill i ng re g ula t i ons beg i ns. Denver Pos t ht t p : // www .de n ver p o s t. c om/ c i_ 2 2 8 3 7 9 0 5 / oi l g a s drill i ng d e b a tes begin c olora d o? I A D I D=Search ww w .de n ver p o s t. c o m www .de n ver p ost. c om

PAGE 33

33 Appe n di x Su r vey Quest io ns Q1A. Pl e ase i n di c a t e t h e exte n t to w hi c h t he foll ow i n g issues a r e c ur r e n t p roblems rel a ted to na t ural gas deve l opm e nt th a t uses hydr a ulic fra c t uri n g. Not a Probl e m Mi n or Probl e m Mod e ra t e Probl e m Serious Probl e m Severe Probl e m Mis in fo r m a ti o n am o n g t h e g eneral pub l i c a b o u t the ri s ks, b enefits, and effe c ts o f hy d ra u l i c fractu r i n g Co n t a mi n at i o n o f g r o un d a n d su r face w ater su p p l i es f r o m chemi c als in hydra u l i c frac t u ri n g fl u i d s. A p atch w o rk o f l o cal re gu l atio n s o n hydra u l i c fr a ctur ing Co n fl i ct be t ween mi n e r al ri g h ts a n d pro p er t y ri gh ts o w n er s Co n t a mi n at i o n o f g r o un d water from met h a n e m i g r a ti o n Degr ad at i o n o f air qu al i t y from f ug itive m e tha n e e miss i o n s Degr ad at i o n o f air qu al i t y from fl a res, d ie s el e xha u st, a n d du st from w ell si t e o p erat i o n s. C o m p et i ti o n f o r a vai l a b le water su p p l i es fr o m hydra u l i c fr a ctur ing Nu isa n ce t o t h e g eneral p u b l i c ca u sed by truck traff i c, n o i s e, a n d l igh t fr o m w ell si t e o p erat i o n s. S u rface deg r a d at i o n and er o s i o n from ac c ess r o a d s a t w ell s i te o p erat i o n s.

PAGE 34

34 Q1 B P lease i ndi c a t e t he exte n t to w hi c h t he foll ow i n g issues a r e c ur r e n t p roblems rel a ted to na t ural gas deve l opm e nt th a t uses hydr a ulic fra c t uri n g. Not a Probl e m Mi n or Probl e m Mod e rate Probl e m Serious Probl e m Severe Probl e m P ub l i c d istr u s t o f t h e o il a n d gas i n du str y I n effect i ve m o n i t o ri n g by state reg u lato r y age n c i es o f hyd r a u l i c fractu r i n g Sca r e t a ctics and d e m o n i z i n g o f t h e o il and gas i n du st r y by o p p o n ents o f h y d ra u l i c fractu r i n g I n fl u ence o f t h e o il a n d gas i n du stry o v er st a te a d mi n istr a ti v e a n d le g is l ati v e b ra n ches. B o om a nd bu st e c o n o mic cyc l es from nat u ral gas de v el o p m ent. B u r d ens o n l o cal g o ver n m ent ser v i c es f r o m t e m p o ra r y e m p l o y e es for w ell si t e o p erat i o n s. Risks o f i ndu ced sei s mic a cti v i t y ca u sed by h y d ra u l i c fra c tu r i n g I n a d eq u ate o r i n c o m p l ete c o mm un ic a ti o n b y t h e o il a n d gas i n du stry abo u t t h e risks, b e n efits a n d effects o f hydra u l i c fr a ctur i n g to t h e g eneral pub l i c. Distri b u t i o n o f b i ased i n f o rmat i o n a g ai n st h y d ra u l i c fra c tur ing De s truct i o n o f p u b l i c la n d s by well site o p erat i o n s, p r o c essing faci l ities, a n d pi p eli n es.

PAGE 35

35 Q2. P lease i ndi c a te w h a t c omes c lose s t t o y o ur c u rr e nt p ositi o n i n re l a t i o n to na t ural gas devel o pment th a t uses h ydra u lic fract u ri n g. It sh o uld be... S t o p ped Limi t ed Conti n ue at C urr e nt R a te Expa n d ed M o der a tely Expa n d ed Exte n siv e ly Q3. P lease i ndi c a te y o ur ge n eral op i ni o n o f the c u rr e nt r eg ul a tions in Co l o ra d o, a nd t h e ir e n f o rceme n t, i n r elati o n to na t ural gas deve l op m e n t t hat uses hydr a ulic f r acturi n g. Very Le n ie n t Le n ie n t A d e q ua t e S t ri n g e nt Very S t ri n g e nt M o n i t o ri n g o f water q u al i ty M o n i t o ri n g air e miss i o n s Disc l o su r e o f ch e mica l s in hydra u l i c fractu r i n g fl u i d s Setbacks o f wel l s f r o m o c cu p ied bu i ld i n g s o r nat u ral fe a tur e s Desi gn i n g and c o n stru c ti n g wells Dis po si n g o r tre a ti n g pro d u ced wa t er Co n stru c ti n g well pa d s Miti g ati n g ri s ks f r o m in d u ced sei s mic acti v i t y Miti g ati n g ri s ks a n d n u is a n ces t o t h e g eneral pub l i c ca u sed by t r u ck traff i c, n o ise, and li gh t fr o m well s i te o p erat i o n s Ot h e r :

PAGE 36

36 Q4. Si n c e y o u ha v e b ec o me a w are o f is s ues r ela t ed to na t ural gas dev e l o pment th a t uses hydra u lic frac t ur i ng, t o w hat ext e nt have y o u c h a n ge d y o u r pos i t i o n o n t h e n e ed for gover n m e nt regul a ti o n o n t he fol l o w i n g issues? H ave become less s up p o rti v e o f gover n m e nt regula t i on No Change H ave become m o re s up p o rti v e o f gover n m e nt regula t i on M o n i t o ri n g o f water q u al i ty M o n i t o ri n g o f air e miss i o n s Disc l o su r e o f ch e mica l s in hydra u l i c fractu r i n g fl u i d s Setbacks o f wel l s f r o m o c cu p ied bu i ld i n g s o r nat u ral fe a tur e s Desi gn i n g and c o n stru c ti n g wells Dis po si n g o r tre a ti n g pro d u ced water Co n stru c ti n g well pa d s Miti g ati n g ri s ks f r o m in d u ced seis m i c act i vi t y Miti g ati n g ri s ks a n d n u is a n ces t o t h e g eneral pub l i c ca u sed by t r u ck traff i c, n o ise, and li gh t fr o m well s i te o p erat i o n s Ot h e r :

PAGE 37

37 Q5. If you w ere to s e lect only o ne l evel o f gov e r n me n t to re g ula t e t he fol l o w i n g issues rela t ed to na t ural gas deve l op m e n t t hat uses hydr a ulic f r acturi n g, w hi c h wo uld y o u p r e f e r, if a n y? No Regulati o n Local Governm e nt S t a t e Governm e nt Federal Governm e nt M o n i t o ri n g o f water q u al i ty M o n i t o ri n g o f air e miss i o n s Disc l o su r e o f ch e mica l s in h y d ra u l i c fractu r i n g fl u i d s Setbacks o f wel l s f r o m o c cu p ied bu i ld i n g s o r nat u ral fe a tur e s Desi gn i n g and c o n stru c ti n g wells Dis po si n g o r tre a ti n g pro d u ced water Co n stru c ti n g well pa d s Miti g ati n g ri s ks f r o m in d u ced seis m i c act i vi t y Miti g ati n g ri s ks a n d n u is a n ces t o the g eneral p u b l i c ca u sed b y tr u c k traff i c, n o ise, a n d li gh t fr o m well site o p erat i o n s Ot h e r :

PAGE 38

38 Q6. D ur i ng the Color a do Oil and Gas Cons e rva t i o n Commission ( C O G C C) d i s c los u re r ule ma k i ng pro c ess o f 2 0 1 1 t he foll ow i n g issues w ere menti o ne d To w h a t e x te n t do y ou ag r ee th a t these issues have b een resolv e d by t h e d isc l os u re r u le of 2 0 1 1 ? S t rongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree S t rongly Agree What c h e m i cal i n fo r m a ti o n m u st b e d isc l o sed Where c h e mical in f o r mat i o n should be ma d e a vai l a b le Accessi b i l i t y o f ch e mi c al i n form a ti o n to t h e pub l i c P r o te c ti o n o f tra d e s ec r e t s Disc l o su r e o f ch e mical i n form a ti o n in a health o r o ther e m erge n cy When disc l o su r e o f ch e m i cal i n form a ti o n m u st be ma d e P ub l i c d istr u s t o f t h e hyd r a u l i c fractu r i n g pro c ess

PAGE 39

39 Q7. Dur i ng the Color a do Oil and Gas Cons e rva t i o n Commission ( C O G C C) s e tbac k s r u le ma k i n g pro c ess o f 2 0 1 2 13 t he f ollo w i n g issues w ere m e nti o ne d To wh at ext e nt do y o u agr e e t h a t these issues have be e n r esolved by t he setb a cks rule of 2 0 1 3 ? S t rongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree S t rongly Agree P ub l i c nu isa n ce im p a c ts ( i .e. traff i c, n o ise, li gh t s o d o rs, etc.) A p atch w o rk o f l o cal re gu l atio n s o n s e tbacks Pr i o rities o f surf a ce o wn e rs Pr i o rities o f m i ne ral ri gh ts o w n ers H ealth i m p acts up o n t h e p o pu lation l i vi n g in p r o xi m i ty t o well pa d s Im p acts fr o m o p en pits o f wast e wa t er P ub l i c d istr u s t o f t h e hyd r a u l i c fractu r i n g pro c ess C om m un icatio n s be t we e n o il and g as o p er a t o rs and near b y c o mm un it i es

PAGE 40

40 Q8. P lease i d e nt i fy t he e x te n t t hat your org a ni z a t ion has e ngaged in t he f o llo w i n g activit i es f or achievi n g i ts o bje c tives i n n a tu r al gas devel o pm e nt th a t uses hydra u lic fr a c turi n g. Daily We e k ly Mo n thly Quar t erly A n n ually Never P o sting in f o r m a ti o n o r a d v o c ati n g o n l in e C om m un icati n g with t h e n ews med i a Fo r mi n g and m ai nt ai n i n g a c o al i ti o n with all i es Fo r mal c o m p la in i n g to r e gu latory c o mm i ssio n s L o b b yi n g ele c ted o ff i cia l s Partici p a ti n g in pub l i c me eti n g s Generati n g and dis s e mi n ati n g research a n d re p o r ts Taking legal a ct i o n (e. g l a wsuits) Or g a n i z i n g o r pa r tici p a ti n g in pub l i c p rote s ts Testi f yi n g at p u b l i c h eari n g s Ot h e r :

PAGE 41

41 Q9A. P h o to by D av i d Za l u b o w s k i, Associa t ed Press 2 0 0 8 Q9 B Above is a pi c ture o f a w ell p a d u til i zi n g hyd r a u lic fra c tur i ng. Pl e ase i d e n t i fy t he resp o nse th a t b est c o rr e s p onds to your i n te r pr e ta t i on of t h i s pi c t u re. Provides st r o n g e vid e n c e of t he n ega t i ve e ff e cts th a t hydr a ulic f r actur i ng has o n t h e e n viro n ment. Provides w ea k e vid e nce of t he n ega t i ve e ff e cts t hat hydr a ulic f ractu r i n g has o n t he e n viro n ment. This pi c tu r e is v a g ue a nd does n ot d em o n str a te a ny evid e n c e o f t h e e ffe c t s th a t hydr a ulic fract u ri n g has o n the e nviro n m e nt. Provides w ea k e vid e nce of t he h a r m o n y b e t w e e n hy d ra u lic frac t uri n g a n d t he e n viro n ment. Provides st r o n g e vid e n c e of t he h a r m o n y b e t w een hydra u l ic fra c tur i ng a nd t h e e n viro n ment.

PAGE 42

42 Q10. To w h a t exte n t do e s your orga n i za t i on have the c a p ac i ty to use or m obili z e t he fol l o w i n g reso u rces to achieve i t s obje c tives? No Capacity Limi t ed Capacity Mod e ra t e Capacity S u bst a nt i al Capacity F in a n cial re s o u rces Genera t e a n d dis s e m i n a t e scie n tific reports and ana l ysis S u pp o rt f r o m t h e g eneral pub l i c Access t o e l ec t ed pol i ti c al o ff i cia l s Access t o g o ver n ment o ff i cia l s Access t o p e o p le with a d i fferent p o sit i o n o n h y d ra u l i c fra c t u ri n g Access t o p e o p le with a s i mi l ar p o sit i o n o n h y d ra u l i c fra c t u ri n g Access t o med i a Tech n ical su p p o rt to g en e rate a n d d isse m i n a t e i n f o rm a ti o n o n l in e Effect i ve leaders h ip in o r g a n i z ation Ot h e r :

PAGE 43

43 Q11. Over t he past t hree years, h ow effe c tive has your orga n i za t i on be e n i n i n c r e asing i ts c a p acity t o achie v e i t s g o als in r elat i on to n a tural gas devel o pm e nt t h at u s es hydr a ulic fract u ri n g? Very In e ffe c tive Ine f f ective Neither Effe c tive nor In e ffecti v e E f fe c tive Very Effe c tive Q12. P lease i n di c a t e w h e ther you regul a rly colla b ora t e w i t h a n y o f t h e f o l l o w i n g orga n i z a tio n s to ach i eve y o ur goals re l a t ed to n a tu r al gas deve l opm e nt th a t uses hydr a u lic frac t uri n g. Che c k all t hat a p ply Fe d eral G o v er n ment incl u d i n g elected o ff i cia l s Regional G o ver n ment State G o ver n ment inc lud i n g elec t ed o ff i cia l s L o cal G o v ern m ent incl u d i n g elec t ed o ff i cia l s Oil a n d gas s er v i c e p r o vi d ers a n d o p era t o rs I n du stry and pro f ess i o n al associ a ti o n s Envi r o n m ental a n d c o n s e rvat i o n o r g a n i z at i o n s Real esta t e d e ve l o p ers and ho m e bu i ld ers A g ric u lt u re o r g a n i z atio n s Or g a n i z ed citi z en g r o up s Aca d e m i cs a n d c o n su l tan t s N ews med i a Ot h er

PAGE 44

44 Q13. In g e neral, w hat fa c tors a r e i m po r ta n t in c h o osing w h a t org a ni z a ti o n ( s) you c olla b orate w i t h o n iss u es rel a t e d t o na t ural gas deve l opm e nt th a t uses hydr a ulic fra c t uri n g? Not Impor t a nt Somewhat Impor t a nt Mod e ra t ely Impor t a nt Very Impor t a nt Extremely Impor t a nt They share m y p o sit i o n abo u t m a jor iss u es I trust th e m t o k eep their p r o mi s es They are p rofess i o n al l y c o m p e t ent I h ave w o rked with them in the pa s t They have ac c ess to fi n a n cial res o u r ces They have pol i t i cal i n fl u ence

PAGE 45

45 Q14. The f ollo w i n g s ta t e me n ts ref l ect g e neral a t t i t u d es. Pl e a s e i n di c a t e w he t her y o u ag r ee or disagree w i t h ea c h s ta t e me n t. S t rongly Disagree Mod e rately Disagree Mod e ra t ely Agree S t rongly Agree G o ver n ment should p u t l i mits o n the choices in d ivid u als can m a ke s o t h ey d o n o t g e t in t h e w a y o f w h a t i s g o o d f o r s o ci e ty. The g o v ern m ent s h o u ld do m o r e t o a d va n ce s o c i e t g o als, e v en if that means l i miti n g the f r ee d o m and c h o ic e s o f i nd ivid u als. S o met i mes g o ver n ment nee d s t o ma k e laws t h at k e ep p e o p le f r o m h u rti n g the m s el v es. It is n o t t h e g o ver n me n b u si n ess t o try t o p r o t ect p e o p le f r o m the m s el v es. The g o v ern m ent s h o u ld s t o p tell in g p e o p le h o w t o li v e their li v es. The g o v ern m ent inter f er e s far t o o m u ch in o u r e ve r y d ay l i v e s. We n eed t o dr a mat i cal l y r ed u ce i n eq u al i ties b e t w e en the r i ch a n d t h e p oo r, as well as b e t ween m en and wome n Our soc i e t y w o u ld be bet t er o ff if t h e d istri b u ti o n o f w ealth was m o r e eq u al.

PAGE 46

46 Q15. P lease i n di c a t e t he type of orga n i za t ion you repres e nt. Federal Gover n ment Regio n al Gov e r n m e nt S t a t e Gove r nment Local Govern m e n t Oil a n d gas servi c e prov i ders a nd op e ra t o rs Indu s try a n d pr o fession a l associa t i o ns E n viro n m e n tal a nd c on s erva t i o n gr o ups Real es t a te devel o pers a nd home b uil d e rs Agricul t u ral or g a n i za t i on s Organi z e d c i t i z e n gr o ups Academi c s a n d c o nsu l t a nts News me d ia Other Q16. P lease i n di c a t e yo u r ge n der. Male Female Q17. P lease i n di c a t e yo u r age. 18 29 30 39 40 49 50 59 60 or o l der Q18. P lease i n di c a t e t he highe s t level of e du c a t i o n you have a t tai n e d : Not a H igh School Gra d u a t e H igh School Gra d u a t e Some College B achel o r's De g ree Master's or Pr o fessional Degr e e P h .D. o r M D.

PAGE 47

47 Q19. How many years h a ve you be e n i nvolved in na t ural gas deve l opm e nt th a t uses hydr a ulic fract u ri n g? 0 1 ye a rs 2 4 ye a rs 5 9 ye a rs 10 2 0 years 21 or mo r e years Q20. On ave r age, how m a n y h o urs per w eek do you s p e n d o n iss u es rel a t ed to na t ural gas devel o pment th a t uses h ydra u lic fract u ri n g? Less th a n 9 h ours 10 2 0 h ours 21 3 0 h ours 31 4 0 h ours More t h an 40 h o urs Q21. P lease i n di c a t e yo u r pr o fessi o nal e x per t i s e. No k no w le d ge Li t tle k no w le d ge Some k no w le d ge Mod e ra t e k no w le d ge Expert k no w le d ge Law P o l i c y, Pla n n i n g and Ma n a g e ment P ub l i c Rel a ti o n s Ec o l o g y o r B i o l o g y Ge o l o g y C h e m i s try En g i n eeri n g Mi n i n g B u si n ess A d mi n istrat i o n Ot h er

PAGE 48

48 Q22. If y o u h ave a ny ad d i t io n al t h o ughts, c ons i d e ra t io n s, or op i ni o ns you w ould li k e to share w i t h us a b o ut n a tu r al g a s devel o pm e nt t h at uses hydra u lic frac t ur i ng, p l e a se prov i de t h em bel o w Q23. D o you w a nt a c opy of t h e fi n al re p or t ? Yes No