Following is my ES-CA “Watchdog” summary of the 7/12/18 joint P&Z Commission and County Commission meeting based on the video of that meeting posted on the County website (and linked to below) and of the meeting agenda and related documents also published by the County:
On 7-12-18, the County Commission and it P&Z Commission met in a joint session to hear from New Mexico Tech (who have released their report funded by the County (CLICK HERE)), from the Citizens Working Group (CWG) that was tasked to draft an oil & gas ordinance, and representatives from the oil and gas industry. The result was a presentation from New Mexico Tech (NMT), two presentations from the CWG (the first a discussion of a draft ordinance done by the CWG “Science Committee” and the second by the “Ordinance Committee” who were not yet able to provide an ordinance draft and instead presented the activities related to preparing to do so), and a presentation by Thrust Energy (representing themselves, not their industry) who desire to explore for oil and gas in the Albuquerque basin area.
The presentation materials all can be viewed (CLICK HERE) and scroll down the page and click on the highlighted links included in item 9 of the 7-12-2018 Agenda. Full video available of the study session: http://sandovalcountynm.swagit.com/play/07122018-789
The subject matter is complex and difficult to summarize objectively—so if one has serious interest, a full review of the above material especially the video of the session is recommended. That said, I will provide some personal observations:
1) A lot of time by the Commissioners and Thrust Energy participants seemed to focus on trying to equate the conclusions of Thrust with those of NMT and rationalize the differences as a lack of data available to NMT that was acquired and used by the Thrust participants (not available due to its proprietary nature and legal restrictions placed on Thrust by the data providers).
2) To me, the most significant differences were in the NMT risk assessment regarding drilling in the fractured geology of the Albuquerque Basin that they had listed as moderate to high risk, while the Thrust PhD’s argued that our drinking water was sealed off from the much lower drilling area by intervening shale formations and therefore not vulnerable. While consistent with most researchers with whom I’ve dealt, the NMT team said that more data would provide more certain results, I never heard them agree to change their risk assessment from that currently in their report.
3) In the Q&A session between the Commissions and the presenters at the end, I found the comments from Bill Brown of the CWG Science Committee most compelling, even though both Commissioner Chapman and Block for some reason tried to question the credibility of both Brown and Peter Adang (in my estimation, Peter has a great background for this task and represents a valuable resource doing an excellent job in drafting legislative language as necessary for this important ordinance to minimize ambiguity and maximize enforceability).
4) In the discussions related to their challenge of the risk, Thrust repeatedly pointed to the reduced surface footprint (all agreed that more surface drill holes equal greater risk to surface water contamination—and horizontal drilling practices significantly reduce such holes per section). However, Mr. Brown, reminded all that a single drill hole connects to multiple horizonal drilling that Thrust had stated could extend for a mile or two in every direction like “spokes on a wheel” [my paraphrase-DU]. Further, each of these spokes would be forcing fracking fluids under extreme pressure through the highly fractured geology of the Albuquerque basin—a type of geology not found elsewhere in the US. And at the same time, due to the dropping water levels in this area due to the use by our population, our wells will have to drill deeper coming even closer to the potential contamination area of the horizontal drilling.
5) Finally, as P&Z Director Springfield summarized the steps forward, there were exchanges between Chapman and Springfield concerning the limitations (“pre-emptive issues”) to what the County could address without conflicting with the NM Oil Conservation Division (OCD) authority—which led Chapman to remark that all the work being done by the CWG might come to naught and that they might not be able to enact anything different than the “Stoddard” ordinance that was rejected end of last year. I couldn’t help but think about the Commission’s willingness to go against the state in enacting “right to work” legislation at the County level even though they were being told by none less that the State’s Attorney General that was the State’s responsibility. Given that it is unlikely that the Commission will deal with an issue of higher priority than protecting the water that sustains the citizens and economy of the Rio Grande valley, we can only hope that the Commission is equally ready to fight for our rights in this case.
Dick Ulmer, Chairman, ES-CA Land Use Protection Trust Board
LPT.ES-CA@comcast.net
