State Regulator Is at the Center of the Fracking Boom

Mike King
National Journal
Amy Harder
Add to Briefcase
Amy Harder
Nov. 19, 2013, 4:08 p.m.

DEN­VER — Mike King is Demo­crat­ic Gov. John Hick­en­loop­er’s right-hand man when it comes to one of his state’s most con­ten­tious is­sues: frack­ing. As ex­ec­ut­ive dir­ect­or of the Col­or­ado De­part­ment of Nat­ur­al Re­sources, King over­sees the state’s oil and gas reg­u­lat­ory re­gime, which is fa­cing push­back from en­vir­on­ment­al­ists and res­id­ents alike as its oil and gas in­dustry booms. The state, which has al­ways been among the coun­try’s top 10 oil-and-gas-pro­du­cing states, has more than doubled its oil pro­duc­tion and ex­per­i­enced a 30 per­cent in­crease in nat­ur­al-gas pro­duc­tion since 2005.

Na­tion­al Journ­al Daily vis­ited King’s of­fice, next door to the Cap­it­ol build­ing, a day after the Nov. 5 elec­tion to get his take on the anti-frack­ing res­ults, the broad­er fight over en­ergy pro­duc­tion, and why it mat­ters bey­ond Col­or­ado’s bor­ders. Ed­ited ex­cerpts of the in­ter­view with King fol­low.

What’s your re­ac­tion to the elec­tion’s out­come re­gard­ing the anti-frack­ing meas­ures, where four cit­ies — Fort Collins, Boulder, La­fay­ette, and Broom­field — voted on anti-frack­ing meas­ures?

I think ob­vi­ously we have some work to do. It con­tin­ues to be an in­dustry that is strug­gling to get in­teg­rated in­to some com­munit­ies along the Front Range. We ob­vi­ously have to un­der­stand that it’s an in­dus­tri­al activ­ity and these are people’s homes and com­munit­ies.

What’s your take on the po­ten­tial ef­forts to get a statewide ban on frack­ing?

A statewide ban would be dev­ast­at­ing for the state’s eco­nomy. If we were to lose the oil and gas jobs that we have, it would be just cata­stroph­ic for our eco­nomy…. The idea of a statewide ban on frack­ing — that is such a dra­coni­an re­sponse, be­cause there are a lot of areas, the vast ma­jor­ity of areas, where oil and gas de­vel­op­ment is tak­ing place across the state that people are pretty happy with it.

What do you think these vari­ous fights over frack­ing bans mean about the de­bate over oil and nat­ur­al-gas de­vel­op­ment?

Where in­dustry has had an op­por­tun­ity to par­ti­cip­ate as cor­por­ate cit­izens, in­ev­it­ably and without ex­cep­tion those com­munit­ies have come to ac­cept be­ne­fits of those activ­it­ies along with the im­pacts, and de­term­ined that they’re com­fort­able with that trade-off. But what we’re ex­per­i­en­cing now … is that we have mul­tiple com­munit­ies all wrest­ling with this is­sue at the same time … which makes it very, very dif­fi­cult for us as reg­u­lat­ors to en­gage the way we would like to with all of those com­munit­ies at the same time.

Anti-frack­ing act­iv­ists come armed with data that re­portedly shows that sick­nesses in­crease dir­ectly be­cause of nearby oil and gas de­vel­op­ment.

The way Col­or­ado is go­ing to re­spond is with what is the best air-qual­ity rule in the coun­try, and we’ll have that in place by Feb­ru­ary. The air we breathe and the wa­ter we drink is fun­da­ment­al to our qual­ity of our lives and our health. And we take that very ser­i­ously. I think we have the best ground­wa­ter rule in the coun­try, and we’re go­ing to have the best air-qual­ity rule.

How do you think the de­bate over frack­ing has evolved in your state?

I do think this is one area where we’ve turned a corner and [are] hav­ing a more ra­tion­al dis­cus­sion about the real im­pacts of oil and gas. We’ve moved away in Col­or­ado from the flam­ing faucet and un­der­stand that when you sink a wa­ter well in­to a coal-bed seam you’re prob­ably go­ing to have some meth­ane in your wa­ter and the fact that it lights on fire it may or may not — in fact 99 per­cent of the cir­cum­stances has noth­ing to do with oil and gas de­vel­op­ment. But the im­pacts that are real — the truck traffic, the noise, the smells — those are real im­pacts that a com­munity has to deal with, and we have to be able to have our own set of stand­ards. We’ve moved the dis­cus­sion from the boo­gey­man from [anti-frack­ing film] Gasland to a more ra­tion­al dis­cus­sion about real im­pacts of oil and gas.

I un­der­stand you have three chil­dren. Would you want your chil­dren play­ing in a play­ground next door to an oil and gas op­er­a­tion?


So how can you al­low that to hap­pen to oth­er people’s fam­il­ies?

It is not my choice. And I can’t tell someone that I don’t want them to ex­er­cise their prop­erty right just be­cause I don’t want them there. And the fact that I don’t want them there means I would not pre­clude them from do­ing it.

We have a cab­in up in the moun­tains. We went up there one nice Fri­day af­ter­noon and I looked out in­to the basin [in] front of us and we have a drilling rig in front of us. It was one of those mo­ments: “So this is how it feels.” I didn’t buy the cab­in to look at a pro­du­cing oil and gas fa­cil­ity, but on the oth­er hand, I didn’t own the min­er­als, and they have the right to do that.

How does cli­mate change factor in­to this de­bate?

It’s a double-edged sword. Be­cause nat­ur­al gas is clearly a far-clean­er product than coal when it comes to cre­at­ing en­ergy, but with some in the en­vir­on­ment­al com­munity, the idea of us­ing a fossil fuel to ad­dress cli­mate change is something that is just un­ac­cept­able. It’s this real­ity-based en­vir­on­ment­al­ism. Yeah, we have to move to­ward re­new­ables, but we’re not there, and we’re not go­ing to get there for a peri­od of 10, 15, 30 years be­fore those re­new­ables can be a part of the base­load.

How do you re­spond to the ac­cus­a­tions from en­vir­on­ment­al­ists that your ad­min­is­tra­tion is in the pock­et of in­dustry?

With the three rule-mak­ings that we’ve done, with the air-qual­ity rule-mak­ing we have com­ing up in Feb­ru­ary, I think that severely un­der­cuts that al­leg­a­tion. I don’t think in­dustry feels like we have been easy on them at all.

What We're Following See More »
Republican Polling Shows Close Race
Roundup: National Polling Remains Inconsistent
6 hours ago

The national polls, once again, tell very different stories: Clinton leads by just one point in the IBD, Rasmussen, and LA Times tracking polls, while she shows a commanding 12 point lead in the ABC news poll and a smaller but sizable five point lead in the CNN poll. The Republican Remington Research Group released a slew of polls showing Trump up in Ohio, Nevada, and North Carolina, a tie in Florida, and Clinton leads in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Virginia. However, an independent Siena poll shows Clinton up 7 in North Carolina, while a Monmouth poll shows Trump up one in Arizona

Colin Powell to Vote for Clinton
9 hours ago
Cook Report: Dems to Pick up 5-7 Seats, Retake Senate
10 hours ago

Since the release of the Access Hollywood tape, on which Donald Trump boasted of sexually assaulting women, "Senate Republicans have seen their fortunes dip, particularly in states like Florida, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada and Pennsylvania," where Hillary Clinton now leads. Jennifer Duffy writes that she now expects Democrats to gain five to seven seats—enough to regain control of the chamber.

"Of the Senate seats in the Toss Up column, Trump only leads in Indiana and Missouri where both Republicans are running a few points behind him. ... History shows that races in the Toss Up column never split down the middle; one party tends to win the lion’s share of them."

Clinton Reaching Out to GOP Senators
14 hours ago

If you need a marker for how confident Hillary Clinton is at this point of the race, here's one: CNN's Jeff Zeleny reports "she's been talking to Republican senators, old allies and new, saying that she is willing to work with them and govern."

Trump Admits He’s Behind
14 hours ago

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.