State Regulator Is at the Center of the Fracking Boom

Mike King
National Journal
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?

No.

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 »
ACCEPT OR RESIST?
Wall Street Journal, Kristol Reflect Schism on the Right
8 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

In an editorial, the Wall Street Journal sets out to relieve conservatives of the temptation to back a third-party candidate over Donald Trump. "The thought is more tempting this year than most, but it’s still hard to see how this would accomplish more than electing Hillary Clinton and muddling the message from a Trump defeat. ... The usual presidential result is that the party that splinters hands the election to the other, more united party." But in the Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol is having none of it: "Serious people, including serious conservatives, cannot acquiesce in Donald Trump as their candidate. ... Donald Trump should not be president of the United States. The Wall Street Journal cannot bring itself to say that. We can say it, we do say it, and we are proud to act accordingly."

NOT WELL FOR THE GOP
The Trump Triumph: How’s It Playing?
54 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE
  • Nate Cohn, New York Times: "There have been 10-point shifts over the general election season before, even if it’s uncommon. But there isn’t much of a precedent for huge swings in races with candidates as well known as Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton. A majority of Americans may not like her, but they say they’re scared of him."
  • Roger Simon, PJ Media: "He is particularly fortunate that his opposition, Hillary Clinton, besides still being under threat of indictment and still not having defeated Bernie Sanders (go figure), is a truly uninspiring, almost soporific, figure. ... She's not a star. Trump is. All attention will be on him in the general election. The primaries have shown us what an advantage that is. What that means for American politics may not all be good, but it's true."
  • The editors, The Washington Examiner: "At the very least, Trump owes it to the country he boasts he will 'make great again' to try to demonstrate some seriousness about the office he seeks. He owes this even to those who will never consider voting for him. He can start by swearing off grand displays of aggressive and apparently deliberate ignorance. This is not too much to ask."
FOLLOWS UNITEDHEALTH
Humana Will Also Exit Obamacare Exchanges
1 hours ago
THE LATEST

Humana announced it plans to "exit certain statewide individual markets and products 'both on and off [Obamacare] exchange,' the insurer said in its financial results released Monday." The company also said price hikes may be forthcoming, "commensurate with anticipated levels of risk by state." Its individual-market enrollment was down 21% in the first quarter from a year ago.

Source:
‘PRESUMPTIVE NOMINEE’
Priebus Asks Party to Unite Behind Trump
13 hours ago
THE LATEST
FEELING THE MIDWESTERN BERN
Sanders Upsets Clinton in Indiana
14 hours ago
THE LATEST

Despite trailing Hillary Clinton by a significant margin, Bernie Sanders wasn't going the way of Ted Cruz tonight. The Vermont senator upset Clinton in Indiana, with MSNBC calling the race at 9pm. Sanders appears poised to win by a five- or six-point spread.

Source:
×