As activists mobilize against drilling, oil and gas operators sour on Colorado
An oil pump jack is pictured in the middle of a traffic circle at a new residential development in Weld County on June 24, 2020. (Andy Bosselman for Colorado Newsline)
This story originally appeared at Capital & Main.
A decision by Colorado state regulators to put two multiwell oil and gas proposals on hold showcased the growing influence of Denver-area antidrilling groups that have organized over the last decade in the face of large fossil fuel developments proposed on the outskirts of their suburban neighborhoods.
Colorado's Energy and Carbon Management Commission in November rejected a controversial request by Extraction Oil & Gas Inc. to build a 26-well oil operation, known as the Draco pad, in fossil fuel friendly Weld County and use it as a platform to drill under the town of Erie, which has fought to keep its land free from gas and oil extraction.
In early January, the five-member body also denied for now an application by a smaller operator to construct a 20-well pad about 45 minutes to the southeast. The so-called Secret Stash project would have been drilled on a former bombing range that's also slated for scores of additional wells.
If constructed, both developments would have been less than a mile from the fast-growing suburbs that ring the state's capital. The decisions to block the drilling for now marked a milestone for community organizations that have lobbied the state's oil and gas agency for years to move drilling operations farther away from their homes.
'I would suggest that before any of these are permitted that the commission and other agencies do a bit more homework and do some simple math,' Randy Willard, a 36-year resident of nearby Aurora, testified at the Jan. 8 hearing on the Secret Stash pad.
'They will see that the impact of Secret Stash does not stand alone and in fact adds to the impacts of the area considerably,' added Willard, who is among scores of members of Save the Aurora Reservoir, a neighborhood nonprofit group created to fight multiwell pads proposed within several miles of homes.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Both developments put on hold by state regulators underscored the challenges energy companies face in tapping lucrative shale deposits miles below the sprawling neighborhoods along the Front Range. As drilling moved ever closer to communities, state legislators enacted a unique law in 2019 that required the energy commission to prioritize health, safety and the environment over industry profits.
Capital & Main reached out to Civitas Resources Inc., the parent company of Extraction Oil & Gas, for a response. The company did not respond.
Extensive new rules outlined in a state Senate bill also required energy companies to provide officials with more information about how hydrocarbon extraction projects affect traffic, air emissions and water use. This additional data gives regulators more sway over how and when pads are constructed.
As written, Senate Bill 19-181 also gave greater authority to municipalities over oil and gas operations within their boundaries and required that community groups be allowed additional opportunities to influence the process.
The dramatic shift in Colorado's fossil fuel regulatory environment, and the subsequent power it's given residents, is affecting the market value of oil and gas companies and causing operators to question the economics of doing business in the state, industry analysts said.
Civitas Resources Inc., the parent company of Extraction, whose Draco pad the commission placed on hold in November, is exploring the sale of extensive assets it holds in the region's Denver-Julesburg basin, according to a Jan. 15 report in Bloomberg News. The holdings reportedly include the Lowry Ranch Comprehensive Area Project, a 166-well project that led to the creation of Save the Aurora Reservoir.
'A potential sale would remove the market/investor stigma associated with Colorado, which is weighing on the valuation,' Gabriele Sorbara, an analyst at Siebert Williams Shank & Co. LLC, told Reuters. 'Investors do not want to touch Colorado-focused E&Ps,' or exploration and production companies.
The reasons Colorado's energy commission gave for placing the Secret Stash and Draco multiwell projects on hold varied. On the Secret Stash pad application, state regulators asked the operator to clarify how many times it planned to drill on the pad and how many truck trips and air emissions would result from drilling on the site.
'It's not clear what is being proposed,' Commissioner John Messner said. Multiple trips to drill on the site 'also means additional truck trips, which means additional emissions, which means additional impacts.'
The company proposing the Secret Stash development, GMT Exploration Co. LLC, told the commission it wanted to start with several wells to determine the hydrocarbon production potential in the area.
Colorado regulators approve oil and gas drilling plan on state land east of Aurora
'Initially it will likely be two to six wells,' Maxwell Blair, the privately held company's regulatory manager, told the commission before it denied the project. 'It's not totally clear whether all 20 will be developed at this point.'
The commission asked that GMT rework its application to better specify air, water and other effects it expected to result from operations it planned at the site.
GMT did not respond to Capital & Main's request for comment.
In Erie, the state's energy commission ordered Extraction Oil & Gas Inc. to consider constructing the Draco pad on an alternate site within the picturesque town. That parcel, already home to 29 wells, two landfills and a Superfund site, would give the town authority to regulate operations that affect its residents, commissioners said.
'To me this application is very challenging,' Commissioner Brett Ackerman said at a Nov. 15 online hearing about the original site in Weld County, next door to the town of Erie. 'On one hand, it includes many best-in-class practices we often encourage, and on the other hand, there are multijurisdictional issues.'
Commissioners voted unanimously to put the plan on hold after an eight-hour hearing on the proposal spread over two days. The hearing included testimony from Erie residents who already have oil and gas wells in their backyards or feet from their homes or children's schools.
The commissioners required Extraction to conduct a 'full alternative location analysis' of a site known as Redtail Ranch, a highly contaminated area that was once envisioned as a master-planned community.
Residents' reactions to the commission's ruling were mixed. There was little celebration, as the decision would merely move the effects of the industrial operation to the doorstep of other neighborhoods. And the well bores would still be drilled under communities that already have scores of existing wells — including some that need to be plugged and abandoned.
'We will prepare to vigorously oppose [the alternative site] should they make an actual effort to pursue that,' said Christiaan van Woudenberg, a resident who can see the Redtail Ranch site from his back deck. 'Until then we are in the shock phase wondering, 'Do we have to do this again, to fight for our health and safety and the ability to spend time outdoors?''
When the existing wells were drilled and fracked — a process in which sand and water are injected down a well to release oil and gas trapped in shale miles beneath the surface — on the ranch in 2017, the noise from diesel generators kept van Woudenberg awake for months. The disruption dysregulated his nervous system and forced his neighbors to put 2-inch plastic foam pads in their windows, he said.
Extraction said in its drilling application to regulators that the Redtail Ranch location was among several alternatives for the pad that were deemed unfeasible 'due to local regulations.'
The company said it chose the 20-acre site in Weld County in part because electricity is available to power drilling and fracking equipment, allowing it to forgo diesel generators. Commissioners applauded the plan, citing the fact it would cut down on toxic emissions and noise.
Even so, the five-member body expressed concerns about the pad's location on the outskirts of a planned 3,100-home community, with homes priced between $500,000 and $1.5 million.
The drilling site would be within 2,000 feet of at least 70 residences, a park, walking trails and a school. To reach minerals under the town of Erie, Extraction asked to drill some of the longest horizontal bores ever proposed in Colorado that would run contiguous to existing wells. Residents and town officials expressed fear about the potential for interaction between older wells and the newer bores.
The Draco pad is proving to be a test case for what happens when local oil and gas rules are misaligned. Extraction proposed drilling in Weld County, which requires only a 500-foot setback — less than a length of two football fields — between wells and homes. The town of Erie meanwhile mandates 2,000 feet between the two. The issue is further complicated because Erie is bifurcated by Weld and Boulder counties. The latter enacted a moratorium on drilling in the 2010s. Yet the wells would extend underground from the Draco pad into Boulder County.
But the county, like the town of Erie, has no jurisdiction over the application because the pad on which the wells would be drilled is located next door in Weld, the state's largest oil and gas county. The jurisdictional confusion triggered by the geographic location of the Draco pad was evident throughout the two-day online hearing on Extraction's proposal.
'From a land-use perspective, this is a good location,' Jason Maxey, then-director of Weld County's energy department, said during the November hearing. He said the county determined the application complied with its code requirements and approved it in February 2024. Four alternate locations were considered, he said, and the proposed site chosen was the one that best mitigated effects on residents.
Extraction echoed Maxey's comments that none of the alternative parcels were viable. This is particularly true of the Redtail Ranch alternative, company representatives said, even though it's farther from homes and industrial activities that already exist on the site.
'We thought it would be highly unlikely the town of Erie would approve an oil and gas location zoned heavy industrial 2,005 feet away from a residential development to the south,' Jeff Annable, Extraction's manager of well and location permitting, said at the November hearing
Indeed, the Redtail Ranch location is beset by challenges. Existing oil and gas operations there racked up the highest number of complaints in the state, most from nearby communities. The acreage would need to be rezoned from agricultural/residential to industrial. And questions remain about the presence of water and whether toxic contaminants already on the site were adequately cleaned up.
David Frank, Erie's environmental services department director, told Capital & Main he met with Extraction in early January to discuss the process for submitting an application to drill on the Redtail Ranch site. The firm would also need to meet with the planning department to begin the rezoning process, Frank said.
It is unclear if rezoning must be completed before the company could request that the Erie Town Council approve an oil and gas permit for the site, he said. Additional analysis is also necessary to determine if the location is more protective of residents, he said.
'The purpose of the alternative location analysis is not to find the most convenient, or easily permitted location,' Frank said. 'The fact that the mineral estate they are pursuing is largely in Boulder County, and portions of it under the town of Erie, perhaps those are the local governments that should be granted siting authority.'
The Erie Town Council rejected an application from Stratus Companies to build homes on the Redtail Ranch site in June, citing existing industrial activities that include a landfill shuttered in 2020, a 1960s-era waste disposal site so toxic that it required a cleanup overseen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, an operating landfill and two active oil and gas pads. One council member called the property 'spectacularly contaminated.'
Oil and gas operations on the site over the last seven years also drew hundreds of complaints from nearby communities. Van Woudenberg, the Erie resident who lives across the street from the site, created a website to educate people how to file reports about health effects, noise, light and traffic they observed at fossil fuel sites. He then mobilized residents by putting door hangers on homes.
The action resulted in about 905 noise, odor, light and air quality complaints to be filed against Crestone Peak Resources LLC, which operates two pads on the Redtail Ranch site, documents show. The company is a subsidiary of Civitas Resources Inc., as is Extraction Oil & Gas Inc., the firm that submitted the Draco pad proposal.
Residents of 26 neighborhoods that would be affected by Extraction's proposal to drill under their homes held a community picnic a few days after the commission's Nov. 15 decision and recommitted to opposing the project, no matter its location.
'There's a growing engagement, an excitement, passion and breadth of experiences and backgrounds behind this movement,' Erie resident Sami Carroll, who created the Flatiron Meadows Oil & Gas Monitoring Group in early 2024 to oppose the Draco pad, told Capital & Main.
'I had a woman tell me we've changed the face of activism in Erie — this has become bigger and more impactful in so many ways,' Carroll added.
Copyright 2025 Capital & Main
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
This AI Company Wants Washington To Keep Its Competitors Off the Market
Dario Amodei, CEO of the artificial intelligence company Anthropic, published a guest essay in The New York Times Thursday arguing against a proposed 10-year moratorium on state AI regulation. Amodei argues that a patchwork of regulations would be better than no regulation whatsoever. Skepticism is warranted whenever the head of an incumbent firm calls for more regulation, and this case is no different. If Amodei gets his way, Anthropic would face less competition—to the detriment of AI innovation, AI security, and the consumer. Amodei's op-ed came in a response to a provision of the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which would prevent any states, cities, and counties from enforcing any regulation that specifically targets AI models, AI systems, or automated decision systems for 10 years. Senate Republicans have amended the clause from a simple requirement to a condition for receiving federal broadband funds, in order to comply with the Byrd Rule, which in Politico's words "blocks anything but budgetary issues from inclusion in reconciliation." Amodei begins by describing how, in a recent stress test conducted at his company, a chatbot threatened an experimenter to forward evidence of his adultery to his wife unless he withdrew plans to shut the AI down. The CEO also raises more tangible concerns, such as reports that a version of Google's Gemini model is "approaching a point where it could help people carry out cyberattacks." Matthew Mittelsteadt, a technology fellow at the Cato Institute, tells Reason that the stress test was "very contrived" and that "there are no AI systems where you must prompt it to turn it off." You can just turn it off. He also acknowledges that, while there is "a real cybersecurity danger [of] AI being used to spot and exploit cyber-vulnerabilities, it can also be used to spot and patch" them. Outside of cyberspace and in, well, actual space, Amodei sounds the alarm that AI could acquire the ability "to produce biological and other weapons." But there's nothing new about that: Knowledge and reasoning, organic or artificial—ultimately wielded by people in either case—can be used to cause problems as well as to solve them. An AI that can model three-dimensional protein structures to create cures for previously untreatable diseases can also create virulent, lethal pathogens. Amodei recognizes the double-edged nature of AI and says voluntary model evaluation and publication are insufficient to ensure that benefits outweigh costs. Instead of a 10-year moratorium, Amodei calls on the White House and Congress to work together on a transparency standard for AI companies. In lieu of federal testing standards, Amodei says state laws should pick up the slack without being "overly prescriptive or burdensome." But that caveat is exactly the kind of wishful thinking Amodei indicts proponents of the moratorium for: Not only would 50 state transparency laws be burdensome, says Mittelsteadt, but they could "actually make models less legible." Neil Chilson of the Abundance Institute also inveighed against Amodei's call for state-level regulation, which is much more onerous than Amodei suggests. "The leading state proposals…include audit requirements, algorithmic assessments, consumer disclosures, and some even have criminal penalties," Chilson tweeted, so "the real debate isn't 'transparency vs. nothing,' but 'transparency-only federal floor vs. intrusive state regimes with audits, liability, and even criminal sanctions.'" Mittelsteadt thinks national transparency regulation is "absolutely the way to go." But how the U.S. chooses to regulate AI might not have much bearing on Skynet-doomsday scenarios, because, while America leads the way in AI, it's not the only player in the game. "If bad actors abroad create Amodei's theoretical 'kill everyone bot,' no [American] law will matter," says Mittelsteadt. But such a law can "stand in the way of good actors using these tools for defense." Amodei is not the only CEO of a leading AI company to call for regulation. In 2023, Sam Altman, co-founder and then-CEO of Open AI, called on lawmakers to consider "intergovernmental oversight mechanisms and standard-setting" of AI. In both cases and in any others that come along, the public should beware of calls for AI regulation that will foreclose market entry, protect incumbent firms' profits from being bid away by competitors, and reduce the incentives to maintain market share the benign way: through innovation and product differentiation. The post This AI Company Wants Washington To Keep Its Competitors Off the Market appeared first on
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Democrats have a dirty secret - they actually like some of the tax cuts in Trump's ‘big beautiful bill'
Some of the sweeping tax cuts proposed in President Donald Trump's massive spending package have found support among Democrats — even as they are expected to oppose the legislation over proposed cuts to Medicaid and other government services when it comes up for debate in the Senate later this month, according to a new report. The gargantuan budget package, which House Republicans and the White House have dubbed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, passed the House by a single vote last month and is now drawing heat from fiscal hawks in both chambers as well as Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who was fresh off his months-long stint as a special government employee when he began threatening to back challengers to any legislator who votes for the bill. Still, there are facets of the proposal that have appeal for some Democrats, the New York Times reports. Virginia Rep. Don Beyer, a Democrat who is also a wealthy car dealership owner, told the Times his party is 'in general very much in favor of reducing taxes on working people and the working poor' when asked about Trump's plan to end taxes on service workers' tips. 'Those people are living on tips,' he added. Trump's tip tax cut plan has also attracted attention from Sen. Jacky Rosen of Nevada, a state where service workers make up a large and powerful voting bloc that has traditionally supported Democrats but shifted to Trump in large numbers during the 2024 presidential election, handing him the Silver State's electoral votes. Rosen, a Democrat, took to the Senate floor last month to advance a bill approving Trump's 'no tax on tips' plan. It passed unanimously even though the measure was largely symbolic because the U.S. constitution requires tax laws to originate in the House 'I am not afraid to embrace a good idea, wherever it comes from,'. she said at the time in remarks on the Senate floor. Yet despite the support for some of the individual tax provisions in the plan, it's highly unlikely that it will be able to muster enough if any Democrats to ease the way to Trump's desk, even under a Senate procedure known as budget reconciliation, which fast-tracks some types of spending legislation without subjecting it to the upper chamber's de facto 60-vote threshold for passage. Democrats are expected to unanimously vote against the legislation in the upper chamber, where it has also attracted opposition from some Republicans who've complained that the cuts to spending in the package don't go far enough to offset the reduced revenue caused by provisions meant to enact Trump campaign promises to end taxes on tips for service workers, as well as taxes on overtime pay for hourly workers and on social security benefits for seniors. Nonpartisan experts such as those at the Congressional Budget Office have warned that the reduced tax receipts would blow a massive hole in the federal budget and jeopardize America's long-term fiscal outlook, but that hasn't stopped some prominent Democrats from getting behind the individuals tax cuts. Trump and his allies hope the prominent tax cut proposals will blunt Democrats' efforts to paint the One Big Beautiful Bill Act as a giveaway to wealthy GOP donors that will gut government services while only providing limited relief for working-class voters. To that end, the president and others in his camp have routinely taken to social media to argue that anyone who votes against the bill is effectively voting for tax increases because the legislation makes permanent a number of temporary tax cuts enacted in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which Trump signed into law during his first term. Democrats, meanwhile, remain opposed to the bill's massive cuts to Medicare and other measures that make it harder for people to claim tax credits meant to boost lower-income Americans' bottom lines. Rep. Brad Schneider, an Illnois Democrat, told the Times that the whole bill had to be considered rather than any individual provision or provisiosn. 'Any one thing — a tax credit or a tax cut — might make sense, but you've got to take a look at the whole picture,' he said.


The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Democrats are drawing closer to the crypto industry despite Trump divisions
WASHINGTON (AP) — As President Donald Trump builds a crypto empire — including hosting a private dinner with top investors at his golf club — Democrats have united in condemning what they call blatant corruption from the White House. But the Democratic Party's own relationship with the emerging crypto industry is far less cut and dried. Work in the Republican-led Senate to legitimize cryptocurrency by adding guardrails has drawn backing from some Democrats, underscoring growing support for the industry in the party. But divisions have opened over the bill, with many demanding it prevent the Republican president and his family from directly profiting from cryptocurrency. 'I'm all on board with the idea of regulating crypto,' said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn. 'But at this moment, when cryptocurrency is being so clearly used by Donald Trump to facilitate his corruption, I don't think you can close your eyes to that when you're legislating.' The legislation is moving ahead more rapidly than Congress usually acts when an industry is new. But the big money and campaign donations flowing from cryptocurrency firms have made them a new powerhouse on the political scene, one that's increasingly gaining allies and capturing the attention of lawmakers. A look at what to know about the industry's clout and the political fight over what's known as the GENIUS Act: To understand the growing clout of the crypto industry, look no further than the 2024 election. Fairshake, a crypto super political action committee, and its affiliated PACs spent more than $130 million in congressional races. Fairshake spent roughly $40 million supporting Republican Bernie Moreno in Ohio in an effort to defeat Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown. Brown, who lost to Moreno by more than 3 percentage points, was seen as a chief critic of the industry as the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. 'DC received a clear message that being anti-crypto is a good way to end your career, as it doesn't represent the will of the voters,' Brian Armstrong, the CEO of Coinbase, wrote in a social media post the day after the 2024 election. Coinbase — the largest crypto exchange in the U.S. and biggest contributor to Fairshake — does not view support for its industry as partisan, according to Kara Calvert, the company's vice president of U.S. policy. The industry also spent heavily to support Democrats Ruben Gallego and Elissa Slotkin in their races for open Senate seats in battleground states. Fairshake spent $10 million in support of Slotkin during her successful Senate run against Republican Mike Rodgers, and Slotkin, who won the Michigan race by fewer than 20,000 votes, spoke in favor of crypto on the campaign trail. Slotkin declined to be interviewed. Similar dynamics are setting up ahead of 2026 in contested House and Senate races. Fairshake said in January that it already had $116 million in cash on hand aimed at the 2026 midterm elections. 'We're not slowing down, and everything remains on the table,' Josh Vlasto, a spokesperson for Fairshake, told The Associated Press. Hours before a May 19 vote to move forward on cryptocurrency legislation in the Senate, an advocacy group tied to Coinbase sent an email to the offices of U.S. senators warning that the vote would count toward their crypto-friendliness scores. 'What the spending does is put crypto on the map. It lets members know that this is not a phase, this is real industry, with real dollars, that is developing its hold in Washington,' said Calvert. A significant number of Democrats, 16, joined Republicans in advancing the crypto legislation. The GENIUS Act would create a new regulatory structure for stablecoins, a type of cryptocurrency typically pegged to the U.S. dollar. It is viewed as a step toward consumer protections and greater legitimacy for the industry. The sticking point for many Democrats is that while the bill prohibits members of Congress and their families from profiting off stablecoins, it excludes the president from those restrictions. Trump, once a skeptic of the industry, has vowed in his second term to make the U.S. the global capital of crypto. Meanwhile, he and his family have moved aggressively into nearly every corner of the industry: mining operations, billion-dollar bitcoin purchases, a newly minted stablecoin and a Trump-branded meme coin. Days after Trump's interests in the industry became public in early May, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York urged the Democratic caucus to unite and vote against the package to have a stronger hand in negotiations, according to a person familiar with the matter who insisted on anonymity to discuss private discussions. On May 8, a bloc of Senate Democrats who had previously backed the GENIUS Act reversed course — ultimately voting to block the bill from advancing. Negotiations between Senate Democrats and Republicans followed. The White House was also involved, and in contact with senators' offices on both sides of the aisle, according to a senior official granted anonymity to discuss private conversations. The new version of the bill is now expected to pass the 100-member Senate this month. Amendments are still possible. Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore. has filed an amendment — cosponsored by Schumer — that would bar the president and his family from profiting off stablecoins, though it's unlikely to pass. 'There is room for improvements as there often is with a lot of legislation. But with this in particular, we've got issues with the president,' said Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona 'Having said that, this was negotiated with Democrats and Republicans. We got to a place. We voted on it. I expect this is the version we're going to pass.' Still, the legislation is stirring unease. Schumer, asked if he's urging members to vote against the bill, noted that he has opposed the legislation and said 'there's division in our caucus on that issue.' 'There's a gaping hole in this bill that everybody sees,' Murphy said. 'After it's passed, it will be illegal for me to issue a cryptocurrency, but it's legal for the president of the United States.' 'If this bill passes, we kind of go from a dirt road to a paved road,' he said. If the Senate approves the stablecoin legislation, the bill will still need to clear the House before reaching the president's desk. Crypto advocates say the next priority is pushing Congress for market structure legislation, a far more sweeping effort than simply regulating stablecoins. 'Stablecoin is one step of the path. Then you need market structure. We're hopeful that the Senate works together to pass something quickly,' Calvert said. Some Democrats view the legislation as a chance to impose basic guardrails on a rapidly growing industry that's particularly popular among men and younger voters, two groups that drifted from the party in 2024. ___ Associated Press writers Alan Suderman, Lisa Mascaro, Matt Brown and Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.