Commentary: Loveland Election Confirms, Fact Trumps Fiction in Fracking Debate

July 9, 2014

Jon Haubert

Jon Haubert

As a part of the primary election held on June 24, residents in Loveland were asked whether or not a two-year moratorium on fracking should be enacted in order to further study the potential impacts.

Those unfamiliar that we’ve been fracking since 1947, with over 1.2 million frack jobs under our belt, may be inclined to think, “sure, let’s wait until we know more – what’s the harm?” It’s a very reasonable approach.

But unlike the five communities of Boulder, Broomfield, Fort Collins, Lafayette and Longmont who voted for a ban or moratorium in past elections, Loveland changed course and immediately became a national case study and microcosm in the debate on fracking.

Why? It’s clear that those previous decisions to halt fracking in Colorado communities were based on unfounded and hyperemotional claims meant to mask anti-fracking organizations’ true agenda of eliminating the production of oil and natural gas altogether.

Fortunately, Loveland voters saw through the delay tactics behind the call for further studies, and hopefully other Colorado communities will follow their lead and learn more about fracking’s 60-year history.

In Colorado especially, we already have high standards and best in nation, model environmental regulations in place to ensure that the health and safety of our communities come first.

With the facts on fracking in hand, voters chose the opportunity and benefit that oil and natural gas development can bring to a local community.

Recently, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics said that neighboring Weld County, Colorado –- home to 85 percent of Colorado’s oil production and the heart of responsible energy development –- is thriving and had the largest percentage increase in employment in the U.S. in 2013.

Duke University separately drew attention to the tax revenue Weld County received from oil and natural gas development, increasing from roughly $50 million per year in early 2000 to over $200 million in 2012. Statewide, Colorado’s oil and natural gas industry supported more than 110,000 jobs, generated $29.6 billion in economic activity in Colorado and $1.6 billion in tax revenues that go to schools, roads, infrastructure, and other critical services.

Conversely, a study released by researchers at the Business Research Division of the Leeds School of Business at CU Boulder quantified the ill effects of a potential statewide ban on fracking in Colorado.

The study, titled “Hydraulic Fracturing Ban: The Economic Impact of a Statewide Fracking Ban in Colorado,” showed that a statewide fracking ban would “result in 93,000 fewer jobs, $12 billion in lost gross domestic product and an annual reduction of $985 million in tax revenue for local and state governments between 2015 and 2040.”

Additionally, the National Association of Royalty Owners released a report quantifying the effect of a county-level ban on fracking in nearby Boulder County, concluding that such a ban would cost the county over $1 billion in compensation to mineral owners and those who receive royalties from energy development on their property.

Clearly voters in Loveland saw two paths before them, and supported the path of responsible energy development and the tremendous benefits that come with it, while rejecting the path of a future marred by lawsuits at the expense of taxpayers.

When voters have the facts on fracking, they are more than capable of making an informed decision about this critical economic driver and shown the courage to rebuff attempts by extremists to outlaw fracking and oil and gas development.

Jon Haubert is director of communications for Coloradans for Responsible Energy Development.

Comments made by visitors are not representative of The Colorado Observer staff.

3 Responses to Commentary: Loveland Election Confirms, Fact Trumps Fiction in Fracking Debate

  1. John
    July 17, 2014 at 12:09 pm

    Let’s put a fracking pad next to your home since you are such a big cheerleader of this highly polluting method of extraction.

    • John Dreiling
      July 17, 2014 at 4:12 pm

      I would love to have a fracked well next to my house because of the royalty income (plus compensation for any surface damages). A one acre home would make $20.00/day, $600.00 a month for as long as the well produced. Fracking has been found to be NON POLLUTING by the EPA. And with downhole pumping the wells are quiet.

    • Dan in Loveland
      July 31, 2014 at 10:08 am

      Please cite references for your “highly polluting” statement. The EPA says it does not create pollution. Triple layer casing separates ground water from the well. Ground water is near the surface, oil/gas is at 5,000 to 10,000 feet deep. Oil & gas companies DO NOT WANT to pump water!

Leave a Reply to John Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Complete Colorado
Colorado Peak Politics - Sometimes Unruly. Always Conservative.

Visitor Poll

Should illegal immigrant kids flooding the border be housed in Colorado?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

The Colorado Observer