colorado rising

ff ceo tlab mention 1/2 mi buffer prop?

aug 2018 prop 97

The oil-and-gas ballot initiative that many elected officials won’t touch with a 2,500-foot pole just made Colorado’s November 2018 ballot.

Initiative 97 would mandate 2,500-foot setbacks from homes and other “vulnerable” areas for new oil and gas development, and Colorado Secretary of State Wayne Williams announced that it qualified easily.

One study released in July suggested that if Initiative 97 passed, 85 percent of Colorado’s non-federal land would be off-limits for oil and gas development.

Colorado Rising, the group pushing the initiative, said in a press release that the proposed setback distance is based in science, and is close to the standard evacuation radius for leaks and spills.

Both major-party candidates for governor, Rep. Jared Polis and State Treasurer Walker Stapleton, oppose the measure, as does current Gov. John Hickenlooper. There’s been no shortage of drama around the process of getting it on the ballot, including that time somebody took a bunch of the petitions out of the state and the people who followed petition-gatherers around with giant protest signs.

“We are excited that the democratic process has prevailed despite the oil and gas industry’s blatant attempts at stopping this important issue from reaching voters in November,” Anne Lee Foster said in the Colorado Rising press release.

https://www.desmog.com/2022/09/14/house-committee-pr-climate-disinformation/

On September 14, a congressional committee probed the history that PR firms have played in creating and spreading climate disinformation in order to block climate policy and promote fossil fuel interests.

The hearing, held by the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee Oversight & Investigations, invited several firms, including Singer Associates, Story Partners, and Pac/West Communications. None of them showed up.

Instead, the hearing heard from several witnesses, including experts in the PR industry. One of them was Christine Arena, a former VP at Edelman who now researches and exposes greenwashing and industry obfuscation. Arena laid out three overarching campaign strategies that PR firms use on behalf of their fossil fuel clients, citing a study from Brown University researchers Robert Brulle and Carter Werthman. Those strategies are corporate image promotion, third-party mobilization (astroturf groups), and delegitimization of the opposition.

“The U.S. oil and gas sector has always pushed for policies that allow for new fossil fuel expansion, and against policies that would reduce demand,” Arena said in a prepared testimony. “But what has changed recently is the intensity of the industry’s pursuits, and the vast resources it deploys through public relations and lobbying efforts meant to crush potential regulatory obstacles in its path.”

The oil industry and its hired PR hands continue to deploy these strategies. A recent example Arena cited was the oil industry’s effort to opportunistically seize on Russia’s war in Ukraine to promote long-standing policy wishes, while misleading the public by blaming climate policy for causing higher energy prices.

These tactics are especially aggressive at the state and local level, where “brute financial force” is used to kill off climate initiatives, Arena added.

That power imbalance was on vivid display in Colorado in 2018 when grassroots activists succeeded in getting a ballot initiative put to voters that would have imposed greater setback distances on fracking operations, limiting how close to homes and schools new oil and gas wells could be drilled. A year earlier, two deadly oil and gas infrastructure explosions had rocked Firestone, Colorado.

The industry poured money into that election, outspending community and environmental groups by a factor of more than thirty to one. Noble Energy,a large fracking company (now owned by Chevron), hired DC-based PR firm Story Partners, to help defeat the measure. Story Partners created two astroturf campaigns, based on the firm’s research that showed that support for setback distances declined when voters heard about the “devastating consequences” that it would have on the state’s economy. The campaign ran ads to promote “clean” natural gas, warn of damage to Colorado’s economy, and positioned Noble Energy as a responsible partner. Story Partners still displays its campaign to defeat the ballot initiative on its website as a successful “case study” of how it protected its client’s assets.

The House committee also heard from Anne Lee Foster, who held an unpaid position in 2018 for Colorado Rising, a grassroots group supporting the ballot measure to establish drilling setback distances. She spoke about the multiple instances in which people would harass her and her colleagues as they tried to gather signatures.

Around that time, Colorado Public Radio reported that an internal Anadarko Petroleum document, leaked to Colorado Rising, asked employees to report the locations of signature gatherers via a phone texting system. Once the location was identified, counter-protesters appeared at a moment’s notice, shouting and harassing the signature gatherers and passersby who considered signing on to the ballot initiative effort.

According to a report produced by the House committee, oil companies including Anadarko Petroleum, Noble Energy, and Chevron, had set up two front groups, “Protecting Colorado’s Environment, Economy and Energy Independence” (Protect Colorado), and “Coloradans for Responsible Energy Development” (CRED). Those two groups then funneled most of their proceeds to an Oregon-based PR firm called PAC/West. The two front groups offered a “buffer” between the oil drillers and the PR campaign, the committee report said.

Although it was later deleted from its website, PAC/West described how it was paid by Anadarko Petroleum and Noble Energy to “lead a statewide education campaign” to defeat the ballot measure. Ultimately, the ballot measure was narrowly defeated at the polls in 2018.

“I personally suffered from what I feel is stalking or harassment in a number of other circumstances throughout this campaign,” Anne Lee Foster told the committee on Wednesday in her prepared testimony.

That was one small example of a web of influence between a handful of PR firms and the oil and gas industry. “Let me be clear: There is nothing standard or ethical about these practices. They are deceptive communications practices that mislead our citizenry and undermine our democracy,” Arena said.

The work that PR firms do goes far beyond simply promoting the image of their clients, according to Melissa Aronczyk, an associate professor at Rutgers University’s School of Communications & Information, another witness at the congressional hearing.

“Public relations firms often present themselves and their work in terms of facilitating or amplifying ideas or information. In fact, public relations is not only communicating ideas and information but coming up with those ideas and creating that information,” Aronczyk said in her testimony. PR firms provide long-term strategic planning, set up front groups, manufacture the illusion of support, and monitor and target opponents. She said the work goes back many decades.

PR firms also operate a broad network of influence out of public view, sharing information among multiple clients and trade groups, which allows companies to “minimize the reputational and financial risk of speaking out against climate action,” Aronczyk said.

“Because this coordinated infrastructure of anti-environmental action is operating behind the scenes, members of the public and lawmakers have no way of knowing if the campaigns operating on behalf of fossil fuels are real or manufactured,” she added.

But the growing pressure on the PR industry is having an effect. Clean Creatives, a climate campaign targeting the advertising industry, says that nearly 400 PR firms have signed a pledge to not work with coal, oil, and gas companies.

“We’re seeing the beginning of a transformation of the PR and Advertising industry when it comes to climate,” Duncan Meisel, executive director of the Clean Creatives campaign, said in a statement. “Oil and gas companies used to be seen as prestige clients, now agencies are embarrassed to admit that they work for them. But this dirty work is still going on in the shadows, making the spotlight of this House hearing and investigation all the more important. The future of creativity is clean and it’s time for agencies to step into the light.”

One PR firm was not at Wednesday’s hearing: FTI Consulting. The House committee is investigating FTI, which has refused to turn over documents requested by the congressional investigators.

“We initiated the subpoena process for FTI Consulting, which has one of the worst reputations in the business. The negotiations are ongoing. The trajectory is sadly not good,” Rep. Katie Porter said in her closing comments on Wednesday. “What are they trying to hide? Is it their creation of fake grassroots groups for their clients to hide behind? Was it the creation of fake social media profiles to track plans of activist groups? Or is there something worse? The harder FTI Consulting fights, the more it appears that they have a lot to lose by having their tactics exposed through oversight.”

She added: “We are just getting started.”

ref

2018 npr no pix DENVER

Published 7.26.2018 | Updated 7.27.2018

Here’s how heated the battle over oil and gas development has become in Colorado: Protesters follow people collecting signatures for a potential ballot measure to limit drilling. They carry banners with counter-messages and urge people not to sign petitions

Some people call it harassment. Others say it’s fair game under the First Amendment.

Anti-fracking coalition Colorado Rising for Health and Safety began gathering signatures for Initiative 97 in April. If it reaches the ballot and wins approval with voters, the buffer between homes and new drilling would increase to 2,500 feet — five times the current limit.

There’s little wonder why the oil and gas industry opposes the measure. A recent study from state regulators found it would make 85 percent of non-federal land in Colorado off-limits to drilling.

Oil And Gas Advocates: Taxpayers Could Pay Up Later For Voting Against Drilling

The group first raised complaints about protesters dogging its circulators over a month ago. Just recently, Colorado Rising believes it learned how the protesters might be finding them.

Colorado Rising volunteer Anne Lee Foster said an anonymous employee at Anadarko Petroleum shared an internal document. It appears to ask employees to report when they see Initiative 97 canvassers. The letter includes an email address and a text message hotline.

Brian Loma, who helps run the signature campaign for Colorado Rising, showed CPR News what can happen when someone — in this case him — reports the location of a signature gatherer. As he stood nearby Denver’s Civic Center Park, he gave away the gatherer's location.

“So, now we are going to say ‘food trucks by the Capitol,’” he said as he punched away at a text on his phone.

Kimmy Fry, a petite 19-year-old with pixie haircut and a fanny pack with a built-in speaker system, was one of the paid signature gatherers working that day. She said the chosen location was good territory. It had no shortage of people she could approach as they got lunch from food trucks during the annual Civic Center Eats showcase.

Sam Brasch/CPR NewsThe protestors that arrived to trail signature gatherers in Civic Center Park were not bashful about keeping a close proximity to interactions with the public.

With a goal of 10 signatures in a half hour, Fry was soon approached by a group of young men. They opened their bags and pulled out signs.

“This Petitioner Wants To Ban Fracking In Colorado. So does Vladimir Putin,” read one. Another sign proclaimed “Save CO Jobs.” The four protesters surrounded Fry on all sides. Two others eventually arrived before splitting off to follow other petitioners.

One of the newly arrived protestors gave his name as Cole Rose. He said his interest in oil and gas issues started during debates in high school. Another protester initially gave his name as Tyson but later recanted and said his actual name is Tyler James.

“If fracking is banned from Colorado, the amount of jobs we would lose is so detrimental to our economy,” Rose said. He added that he was not being paid to stop Fry from collecting signatures and was just expressing an opinion.

“We’re not physically not allowing them to do it. We’re just saying our mind. If people really want to do it, they can still sign if they want to.”

Fry pointed out that she had already met some of the same protestors while canvassing. In a more lighthearted moment, the entire group paused together for a break in the shade. Fry asked what they thought of her new sunglasses, which she worried were too large for her face. They approved of the new look.

Still, the protestors stuck close behind Fry for hours. Whenever she approached someone, they shouted “Don’t sign! Don’t sign!”

Many people enjoying the food trucks ignored the shouting and signed the petition anyway. But the protesters did appear to have deterred Ben Hammond. He declined to sign the drilling setback petition, saying he needed more information.

“I’m curious if I would have signed the fracking thing if they hadn’t been here,” he mused. “In the past, I’ve been quicker to put my signature on ballot initiatives and stuff. So maybe they were effective. I don’t know.”

CPR News reached out to Anadarko to inquire about their connection to the protestors. Instead, Protect Colorado responded. The industry-backed group opposes the setback initiative as a “bad business measure.” Anadarko Petroleum is the largest funder of Protect Colorado — to the tune of almost $2.5 million as of June. http://www.cpr.org/news/story/protect-colorado-has-a-84m-piggy-bank-ready-to-do-battle-this-november

A spokesperson relayed a statement that did not confirm nor deny any relation to the protesters, but said:

“We are exercising our First Amendment rights, which includes asking people to think about and read what they are signing. We have also asked the public and oil and gas employees to let us know when they see individuals gathering signatures on the 2,500-foot setback measure. This is standard practice in modern campaigns. We get asked about the activities in the field and want to understand what is going on. Monitoring opposition is important. The proponents of these bad measures monitor us as well.”

Protect Colorado’s statement said they felt that proponents were not presenting the impacts of anti-oil and gas measures accurately to the public. Their statement concluded that “ensuring people know the facts about the petition they are signing and what it would do to Colorado’s economy is responsible advocacy.”

Rick Reiter, a Democratic political consultant who works on ballot issues, said he’s heard of paid petition protests on statewide issues going back to 2014. He doesn’t think much of the tactic.

“You have to literally hire people to go find people who are hired to collect signatures to create noise around them that scares away potential signers,” he said. “It rarely, if ever, works.”

Yet, even small setbacks could be a big problem for Colorado Rising at this point. They have less than two weeks to collect the rest of their signatures. The group said it hopes the dispute it had with the company it hired to collect signatures, Direct Action Partners, doesn't impact their ability to get on the ballot.

On Thursday, they accused company owner Mike Selvaggio of holding seven boxes of completed petitions hostage in a payment dispute. By midday Friday, the missing petitions were recovered.

Colorado Rising has until Aug. 6 to gather 98,000 valid signatures to qualify for the statewide ballot.

ref

Corporate Tax PolicyOrganized LaborLabor/ManagementHealth CareEnergy & Natural ResourcesBrochureVideo

ENERGY & NATURAL RESOURCES

Pac/West recognizes the importance of science-based resource management, including domestic energy production, and we are proud to work on behalf of leading corporations and associations in the energy and natural resource industries.

From solar power to fracking, and spotted owls to predator control, Pac/West has the expertise to help you achieve success. Whether you are seeking to pass new legislation, defeat a ballot measure, execute a large-scale public relations campaign or promote your position to a targeted audience, our team has the experience to deliver a favorable outcome.

One example of our success in the energy and natural resources arena is our award-winning work for Anadarko Petroleum Corporation and Noble Energy Inc.

COLORADANS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT

In recent years, Colorado has become ground zero for the debate over domestic energy production—in particular, hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. To push back against misinformation and shift public opinion in favor of energy development, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation and Noble Energy Inc. hired Pac/West to lead a statewide education campaign in concert with a political advocacy campaign.

Coloradans for Responsible Energy Development (CRED) was formed in September 2013 to directly engage the public and respond to industry challenges in an aggressive yet strategic manner. CRED is driven by research, including public opinion analysis, message testing and analytics.

2013

CRED is an educational effort that informs Coloradans about the economic, social and environmental benefits of safe and responsible energy development.

CRED.org / StudyFracking.com

We launched English and Spanish websites—CRED.org and StudyFracking.com—to spread information, advance our policy positions and engage our audiences. The two sites received more than 1 million page views within 13 months. WAYBACK (NOW ROLLSTO CRED] https://web.archive.org/web/20140321095242/http://studyfracking.com/

We created ads tailored to Denver Broncos football fans and used geo-fencing technology to ensure that every cell phone at the game received the ad.

We led a robust earned media campaign to secure coverage in outlets such as the Coloradoan and the National Journal.

Pac/West won a 2014 Gold Pollie Award from the American Association of Political Consultants for our work on CRED.

Aggressively leveraging digital platforms, we attained more than 21,987 Facebook likes and 3,205 Twitter followers in 13 months.

Pac/West sent 600,000 pieces of direct mail with messages tailored to our target audiences.

View the Brochure

study frack

Research

Hydraulic Fracturing Ban: The Economic Impact of a Statewide Fracking Ban in Colorado. Colorado Leeds School of Business, March 2014.

This study uses Regional Economic Models Inc.’s calibrated dynamic economic modeling system to demonstrate that a statewide fracking ban would harm Colorado’s economy.

Safety, Health & The Environment

Natural Gas Drilling: Public Health and Environmental Impacts. Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, April 12, 2011.

This testimony, given by David Neslin, former head of the COGCC, provides a strong overview of the numerous rules and regulations that the agency has adopted in recent years in order to ensure that hydraulic fracturing in the state occurs in a safe, responsible manner.

Who Regulates Oil and Natural Gas Operations? An Education Message from Colorado’s Oil and Natural Gas Producers. Texas Oil and Gas Association, 2010.

A report that provides fact-based answers to frequently asked questions about oil and natural gas production and regulation in Colorado.

COGCC Gasland Correction Document. Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, October 29, 2010.

This document from the COGCC, Colorado’s oil and gas regulatory agency, corrects some of the errors in the film “Gasland,” including scenes where the filmmaker claimed that oil and gas development had caused several homeowners’ water to catch fire as it came out of the tap.

Review of the Potential Public Health Impacts of Exposure to Chemical and Radioactive as a Result of Shale Gas Extraction. Public Health England, October 2013.

In this report the Public Health of England, and executive agency of the Department of Health, uses data from fracking in the United States to better understand the public health impact of shale gas extraction in the UK. The report finds that potential risks to public health from exposure to emissions are low if properly regulated and run.

Evaluation of impact of shale gas operations in the Barnett Shale region on volatile organic compounds in air and potential human health risks. Tox Strategies, Austin, September 2013.

This study provides an analysis of health risks from community-wide exposures to volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the Barnett Shale region in Texas.

Hydraulic Fracturing Study: PXP Inglewood Oil Field. Cardno ENTRIX, October 2012.

This report provides an overview of hydraulic fracturing in the Inglewood Oil Field in California. Included is analysis of health, land, water, noise, and pollution impacts.

Data Show Public Health Impacts from Natural Gas Production Overstated. Sue Mickley, M.P.H., and Uni Blake, M.S., Toxicology, October 2011.

This report provides counter evidence to numerous assertions that natural gas production and hydraulic fracturing cause risks to public health.

Evaluating the Environmental Implications of Hydraulic Fracturing in Shale Gas Reservoirs. ALL Consulting, 2008.

This report provides an overview of the fracking process, and assesses potential impacts that it has in relation to seismicity, water, air, and other areas of interest, as well as the impact that fracking technologies can have for developing shale reserves.

Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A Primer. Groundwater Protection Council, April 2009.

This report provides an overview of shale gas development, including fracking, and assesses impacts on issues like safety, air, water, and regulations. The report concludes that fracking is a safe process and provides protections for health and the environment, while allowing for greater production of shale gas resources.

Shale Gas Production Subcommittee Interim Ninety Day Report. U.S. Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, August 2011.

This report provides recommendations for implementation of measures provided in its previous report that can be taken to “reduce the environmental impact and to help assure the safety of shale gas production.”

Shale Gas Production Subcommittee Second Ninety Day Report. U.S. Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, November 2011.

This report provides recommendations for implementation of measures provided in its previous report that can be taken to “reduce the environmental impact and to help assure the safety of shale gas production.”

Water

Water Sources and Demand for the Hydraulic Fracturing of Oil and Gas Wells in Colorado from 2010 through 2015. Colorado Division of Water Resources, the Colorado Water Conservation Board, and the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, January 2012.

Fracking in Colorado uses only 0.1 percent of total water used in the state. This report compares the quantity of water used by Colorado hydraulic fracturing to other Colorado water demands and outlines regulations for water use.

MythBusters: Industry Water Use. Colorado Oil and Gas Association, November 2012.

This brief fact sheet debunks popular myths that hydraulic fracturing uses too much of Colorado’s water supply.

State Oil and Natural Gas Regulations Designed to Protect Water Resources. U.S. Department of Energy, May 2009.

This report analyzes state oil and gas regulations to show individual states effectively regulate production to protect drinking water. States have been successfully regulating fracking for over 60 years.

Response of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to Petition for Promulgation of Rule Withdrawing Approval of Alabama’s Underground Injection Control Program. EPA, June 2005.

This is a letter in which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) confirms the lack of evidence connecting hydraulic fracturing to contamination of underground sources of drinking water.

Constraints on Upward Migration of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid and Brine. National Groundwater Association, July 2013.

This report analyzes the inability of fracking fluid to migrate through thousands of feet of impermeable rock upward to shallow water aquifers.

Shallow Groundwater Quality and Geochemistry in Fayetteville Shale Gas-Production Area, North-Central Arkansas: Full Report. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report, January 2011.

This report analyzes shallow groundwater quality in the Fayetteville shale-gas production area in north-central Arkansas. It’s yet another case that concludes water samples show no signs of pollution from increased production of natural gas wells.

Evaluation of Impacts to Underground Sources of Drinking Water by Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs Study. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, June 2004.

This study by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concludes that fracking injections in coal bed methane wells pose little to no threat to drinking water.

Life Cycle Analysis of Water Use and Intensity of Oil and Gas Recovery in Wattenberg Field, Colorado. Colorado State University, May 2012.

This study analyzes data across all well types and concludes that shale gas extraction uses the lowest amount of water in comparison to other energy sources.

National Human Health Risk Evaluation for Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid Additives. Gradient, May 2013

This report assesses the potential impact of fracking fluids on drinking water and provides an overview of the fracking process in general.

COGCC Approves Sweeping New Measures to Limit Drilling Impacts. State of Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission, January 2013.

This article outlines Colorado’s stringent measures and rules that limit the impact of drilling near residences and other occupied buildings.

Mismeasuring Methane: Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Upstream Natural Gas Development. IHS, August 2011.

This report critiques the estimation process and methodology for measuring methane emissions during well drilling.

Air

Why Every Serious Environmentalist Should Favour Fracking. Centre for Policy Studies, December 2013.

This report challenges environmentalists’ misconceptions about fracking and highlights the important environmental benefits of shale gas, including the reduction of greenhouse gases and PM2.5, a deadly pollutant.

Energy Facts: Air Emissions 101. Colorado Oil and Gas Association, October 2013.

This fact sheet provides an infographic that briefly explains what greenhouse gas emissions are, where they come from and who regulates them in Colorado.

HB 1365-Colorado Clean Air Clean Jobs Act. Colorado Oil and Gas Association, October 2012.

This brief fact sheet describes Colorado’s 2010 Clean Jobs Act and its pollution reducing benefits.

Study of Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water: Resources Progress Report. Environmental Protection Agency, December 2012.

This progress report outlines the EPA’s ongoing study of the effects of hydraulic fracking on drinking water. Information from this work cannot yet be used to draw conclusions, but it does provide insight into research methods, status updates, and QA activities.

Commitment to Air Quality in the Barnett Shale. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Fall 2010.

A study commissioned by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to test the air quality of Barnett Shale area in North Texas. Results show properly managed oil and gas production to be safe.

Northeastern Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale Short-Term Ambient Air Sampling Report. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Agency, January 2011.

This study conducted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Agency tests short-term air quality sampling in northeast region of Marcellus Shale. Results show no concentrations of any compound capable of triggering air-related health issues.

Southwestern Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale Short-Term Ambient Air Sampling Report. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Agency, November, 2010.

This study conducted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection samples short-term air quality in southwestern region of Marcellus Shale. Results show no concentrations of any compound capable of triggering air-related health issues.

Shale Gas Production: Potential Versus Actual Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, November 2012.

This study challenges current estimates of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from fracking by analyzing venting, gas flaring and reduce emission “green” completions, all of which are used by the industry to cut GHG emissions.

Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Marcellus Shale Gas. Carnegie Mellon University, August 2011.

This study compares greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) before and after the development of Marcellus shale natural gas and finds these emissions to be similar to current domestic gas and lower relative to coal.

Characterizing Pivotal Sources of Methane Emissions from Natural Gas Production. URS Corp., LEVON Group, American Petroleum Institute, America’s Natural Gas Alliance, September 2012.

This expands upon the EPA’s previous study to include more wells and companies, which confirms less wells venting for liquids unloading and lower re-fracture rates, contributing to a lower GHG emission estimate.

Comment on “Hydrocarbon emission characterization in the Colorado Front Range–A Pilot Study.” Council on Foreign Relations, October 2012.

This study challenges reports of unexpectedly high methane leakage from natural gas operations by showing these results to be calculated by unsupported assumptions about molecular composition of vented natural gas.

Land

Seismologist: Fracking doesn’t cause earthquakes. Denver Post, September 2013.

This article highlights a recent study conducted by a University of Texas seismologist that found that fracking does not cause earthquakes.

The Economy

Colorado Business Economic Outlook 2014. University of Colorado Leeds School of Business, December 2013.

This report provides an outlook for Colorado’s economy in 2014. Included is analysis on projected employment in the oil and natural gas industry, and a discussion on the potential effect of fracking bans.

Assessment of Oil and Gas Industry. 2012 Industry Economic and Fiscal Contributions in Colorado. University of Colorado Leeds School of Business, July 2013.

This study quantifies the economic benefits of Colorado’s oil and natural gas industry in 2012. Highlights include: $29.6 billion in economic output, $1.6 billion in public revenue, high-paying wages, and $600.7 million in property taxes.

EIA’s Drilling Productivity Report. Energy Information Administration, December 9, 2013.

This report analyzes oil and gas productivity in the six regions, including the Niobrara Formation in Colorado, that account for nearly 90% of onshore US domestic oil production.

America’s New Energy Future: The Unconventional Oil & Gas Revolution and the US Economy. IHS SERA, September 2013.

This report discusses the economic and employment contributions that the US receives from unconventional oil and gas development. Included are discussions on household income, boosting trade and global competitiveness.

Game changers: Five opportunities for US growth and renewal. McKinsey & Company, July 2013.

This report discusses five opportunities that exist in the United States that can aid in economic growth and renewal. Included is a discussion on the impact that fracking could have on the US economy, including adding 1.7 million domestic jobs and $690 billion a year to GDP by 2020.

The Economic and Employment Contributions of Shale Gas in the United States. IHS for America’s Natural Gas Alliance, December 2011.

This report looks at nationwide employment and economic contributions provided by shale gas. This includes the facts that shale gas alone provided 600,000 jobs in the US in 2010, along with $76 billion to US GDP and %18.6 billion in tax revenues.

The Future of Natural Gas. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Energy Initiative, June 2011.

This report examines the role that natural gas will play in the United States in the coming years, including a discussion on how our vast natural gas reserves, with their low carbon footprint, “have intensified the discussion about natural gas as a ‘bridge’ to a low-carbon future.”

Natural Gas Works for Cities. America’s Natural Gas Alliance

This report looks at multiple cities across the US that have implemented natural gas into their fleet operations in order to save money and improve air quality.

The Blueprint For Western Energy Prosperity. Western Energy Alliance, July 2011.

This study outlines the economic and environmental benefits of energy development in the West, addresses government regulations that stifle this development and suggests potential policy solutions to increase energy output.

Hydraulic Fracturing Ban: The Economic Impact of a Statewide Fracking Ban in Colorado. Colorado Leeds School of Business, March 2014.

This study uses Regional Economic Models Inc.’s calibrated dynamic economic modeling system to demonstrate that a statewide fracking ban would harm Colorado’s economy.

Misc

Natural Gas and the Transformation of the U.S. Energy Sector: Electricity. U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, November 2012.

This report analyzes the effect that natural gas production and development will have on transforming electricity generation in the United States.

Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Inventory of Natural Gas Extraction, Delivery and Electricity Production. U.S. National Energy Technology Laboratory, October 2011.

This report analyzes greenhouse gas emissions, regulatory trends, water management, and electric power futures related to natural gas production in the United States.

Hydraulic Fracturing: Effects on Energy Supply, the Economy, and the Environment. Independent Petroleum Association of America, April 2008.

A fact sheet that shows how hydraulic fracturing affects energy, the water supply and the economy.

http://www.cpr.org/news/story/protect-colorado-has-a-84m-piggy-bank-ready-to-do-battle-this-november

june 2018

They have more campaign money than any political group in Colorado right now. Protect Colorado, created by the state’s largest oil and gas companies, has raised $8.4 million in contributions to fight for, they say, the very future of drilling in the state.

The political issue group raised the staggering sum quickly, drawing on three of the state’s largest drillers: Anadarko Petroleum, Extraction Oil & Gas, and Noble Energy. Each gave about $2 million, according to disclosures to the Colorado Secretary of State’s office through May 16, 2018.

The industry is mobilizing to fight a potential ballot measure that, if passed, would increase the buffer between oil and gas wells and homes, schools and parks to 2,500 feet.

The current setback in Colorado is 500 feet from occupied buildings.

Given the proximity of homes to oil reserves in Colorado, the industry sees it as a de-facto ban, something “aimed at eliminating oil and gas development,” says Protect Colorado spokeswoman Karen Crummy. “There’s a real concern that that’s exactly what it will do.”

Protect Colorado Supports A Controversial Compensation Measure

Protect Colorado has, so far, spent most of its money to promote its own potential ballot measure. The group spent $1.2 million on signature gathering for a state constitutional measure that would compensate companies and individuals if new regulations devalue property.

“You have to get signatures from every county, and that definitely increases the price, but we think it’s an important enough issue to spend the money on it,” Crummy says.

The group can attribute those increased out of pocket expenses to their successful support of Amendment 71, which substantially increased the cost of constitutional measures by requiring wide geographic diversity in signature gathering.

Still, most oil and gas political money is sitting in the bank. Protect Colorado has $6.6 million on hand, and much of that will be probably focused on buying advertising for the measure it supports and against the one it doesn’t.

“They will have sufficient money to be on TV probably from mid-July until the end of the campaign,” said Rick Ridder, a longtime political consultant in Denver. He says that doesn’t even count nonprofit groups that don’t have to report contributions and expenditures that will likely be actively advocating in favor of drilling generally.

Ridder said he’s informally advising a group — one he wouldn’t name yet — that plans to oppose the oil and gas-supported constitutional measure if it makes the ballot.

Officials Are Worried About Costly Litigations

Governments are certainly nervous. The measure would require compensation to any company or individual if any government regulation, state or local, diminishes the value of their property. It wouldn't just apply to oil and gas.

Sam Mamet, the executive director of the Colorado Municipal League, says it’s “a very dangerous proposal.”

“To the folks behind this, I frankly say, ‘shame on them,’ because they’re pulling the wool over the eyes of a lot of people who should be aware of some of the serious negative consequences of this thing.”

If passed, it would touch off an costly cycle of litigation reminiscent of the legal chaos in the wake of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, Mamet says. As a constitutional measure it can’t be changed by the legislature, and, since it’s written vaguely, it would prompt legal action to define what exactly it means.

Crummy disputed that the measure, which is also supported by the Colorado Farm Bureau, was vague or would cause chaos, noting that it passed the title board, and “it seems to be a responsible measure that more people in Colorado would support because no one would want their property seized.”

Oppositional Groups Don't Have The Same Kind Of Cash

The oil and gas industry’s massive war chest makes oppositional fundraising look miniscule. The political committee Colorado Rising for Health and Safety backs the ballot measure that would push oil and gas drilling far from occupied buildings. It has raised only $174,299.90.

Tricia Olson runs the group, and has contributed $35,075 of her own money. “We never thought that we would be competing directly against their money,” Olson says. Food and Water Watch, an organization long opposed to drilling and hydraulic fracturing, is their largest donor, with $40,000 in contributions so far.

“What we have is the messaging really,” Olson says. “And the notion that you need to keep setbacks from oil and gas so that there aren’t explosions, fires, water contamination, or damage to people’s health.”

Oil and gas groups have disputed studies that claim there are significant health or environmental risks.

Olson says that her signature gathers are being harassed by paid people, which she assumes are backed by the oil and gas industry. She contends they try to stop people from approaching signature gathers. Olson did admit she wasn't exactly sure who was behind that.

Protect Colorado’s Karen Crummy says it’s not them.

“No, I mean that’s the first I’ve heard of that, and obviously that isn’t something we would support in anyway.”

One thing is clear, the state’s long simmering fight over oil and gas and fracking might finally come to a boil by November.

no lnx

Coloradans have less than two months to submit enough signatures to the Secretary of State's Office to make the November ballot, and allegations of election interference are already being pursued.

But the Russians aren't the antagonists in this story. It's pro-oil and gas groups that are being accused of organizing "paid actors" to intimidate and bully petition circulators and potential voters over a controversial ballot initiative that could effectively hamstring new oil and gas development in the state.

Environmental advocacy group Colorado Rising for Health and Safety began circulating Initiative 97 in April; the initiative would require 2,500-foot-minimum setbacks between new oil and gas developments and a slew of occupied structures and "vulnerable areas." Pro-industry groups have staunchly opposed the initiative with the usual talking points that the setback would kill jobs and hurt the economy. The Colorado Alliance of Mineral and Royalty Owners (CAMRO) even threatened that if the initiative were approved by voters in November, the state would be on the hook to compensate mineral owners in the Wattenberg Field — one of the top ten producing oil and gas fields in the country, located in Weld and Adams counties — to the tune of $26 billion for untapped minerals from which owners would no longer collect royalties.

Fracking opponents have continued to support Initiative 97 despite industry claims and threats, and now petition circulators say they have been met with opposition in the streets. Colorado Rising volunteers are alleging that they have been harassed, intimidated and bullied by paid actors posing as counter-protesters. The group alleges that their petition circulators have frequently been stalked for several blocks and that these agitators hold banners, block voters from confronting circulators, and yell at approaching voters not to trust the circulator with their personal information, which they would have to divulge to sign the petition. Colorado Rising says it has recorded many counter-protesters at multiple locations in the past few weeks who were stalking volunteers and were said to have taken photos of voters who signed the petition.

lnx

environmental advocacy group Colorado Rising for Health and Safety began circulating Initiative 97 in April; the initiative would require 2,500-foot-minimum setbacks between new oil and gas developments and a slew of occupied structures and "vulnerable areas." Pro-industry groups have staunchly opposed the initiative with the usual talking points that the setback would kill jobs and hurt the economy. The Colorado Alliance of Mineral and Royalty Owners (CAMRO) even threatened that if the initiative were approved by voters in November, the state would be on the hook to compensate mineral owners in the Wattenberg Field —one of the top ten producing oil and gas fields in the country, located in Weld and Adams counties — to the tune of $26 billion for untapped minerals from which owners would no longer collect royalties.

The intimidation of democracy

People gathering signatures for setback initiative claim harassment

Rico Moore

July 26, 2018

People gathering signatures for Ballot Initiative 97, which would increase the minimum distance between oil and gas development and homes, schools and other vulnerable areas to 2,500 feet, are claiming protesters are being organized to stifle their efforts and deter citizens from signing.

Colorado Rising, a group promoting Initiative 97, has alleged that signature-gatherers are facing targeted protests verging on harassment in Boulder, Denver, Fort Collins and Greeley. They’ve documented on audio and video recordings protesters interrupting conversations, and have engaged police in several situations to determine whether protesters are committing criminal acts of harassment.

Colorado Rising informed the Colorado Secretary of State about volunteer signature-gatherers feeling intimidated, but since the office has no investigative authority, according to Ben Schler, internal operations and legal manager, it refused to look further because it felt the claims would be criminal matters, thus referring Colorado Rising to District Attorney’s offices.

The Boulder County District Attorney’s Office is currently reviewing one such case to determine whether or not charges should be filed. Public Information Officer Catherine Olguin declined to provide further information because the investigation is still active, but said a meeting on the matter was held on July 23.

It’s not definitive who is funding and organizing the protesters, but Boulder Weekly talked with signature-gatherers, protesters, and oil and gas representatives, and reviewed several documents that begin to uncover how and why the signature-gathering effort for Initiative 97 is being disrupted. [pix]

micah Parkin, executive director of 350 Colorado, claims there have been more than 100 incidents of people being harassed and intimidated while gathering signatures.

“We’ve had young women frightened and crying after being followed by these men for hours and all the way back to the office,” Parkin says.

Parkin says petitioners have been advised to cite state law that prohibits people from interfering with elections or “willfully suppress(ing) any initiative or referendum,” when confronted with protesters.

The protests appear to unfold the same way, according to those who’ve come in contact with protesters: First, signature-gatherers set up somewhere and begin to collect signatures. Eventually, protesters in groups of two or three approach the location where signature-gatherers are working, often with poster board rolled up. The protesters unroll their protest signs and stand near the signature-gatherers, attempting to discourage potential signers by saying things like, “Don’t sign,” “Bad for business,” or, “Protect Colorado jobs.” Other protest signs have read, “Would you give this guy your information?” and “Protect Colorado Families.”

The protests appear to be effective in deterring both potential signers and those collecting signatures.

Parkin relayed the story of Gina Hardin, a 62-year-old Denver woman, who, Parkin says, in the act of gathering signatures for Initiative 97 at a Denver farmers’ market, was followed and harassed for hours by two men. In an affidavit, Hardin says that shortly after she arrived at the market, two men in their early 20s approached her, each carrying a poster board, one saying “Keep CO Economy Strong,” and the other saying, “Bad for Business…” According to the affidavit, Hardin says the two were initially polite, “saying they were being paid by the Denver Economic Development [mumble].” But, she said, their physical position became intimidating and subsequently impeded her ability to gather signatures.

The two then allegedly followed Hardin as she crossed streets trying to get away from them. She called 9-1-1 and asked for an officer to come. “The men were humored by this,” Hardin stated in the affidavit. An officer then came and said it was unclear whether the men were violating any law with the exception that they had admitted to him that they were following her. The officer then left, and the two men redoubled their harassment and became more aggressive, according to Hardin’s affidavit.

“They stood between me and whoever I was trying to talk with, speaking loudly over me and putting their posters in front of me and between the person I was attempting to speak with and me,” Hardin said in the affidavit. She said she then fled to her home, calling police again on her way. An officer was waiting for her at her house.

Another similar incident hints at what might be motivating protesters.

Two protesters in front of Boulder Public Library told a Boulder Police Department Officer that they were employed by an organization that supports fracking,according to an incident report filed by Boulder Police Officer K. Williams. The two protesters informed Williams that they were engaged in counter-protest to express their First Amendment rights, according to the report. Williams further reported that the individuals indicated they were tasked with going to various locations in the city, where contact with the public was likely.

Regarding the incident, signature-gatherer Ken Bonetti stated in an affidavit that soon after he began taking signatures for Initiative 97, “Two young males arrived with two large hand-lettered signs, one sign saying something to the effect [of] people should not trust me and another about the need to protect Colorado jobs.” Bonetti said that they stood between one and two feet of him, sometimes directly in front of him, and told a passerby not to trust him or sign the petition.

In the affidavit, Bonetti said that the two men told passersby that if they signed the petition Bonetti was circulating, their information would be made public. “I felt this was a blatant attempt to intimidate voters during a legally sanctioned electoral activity,” he said, according to the affidavit. Bonetti then relocated to the area outside the Boulder Public Library, and 30 minutes later, the same two men arrived and resumed disrupting his petitioning efforts, according to the affidavit. Bonetti, “fed up and quite annoyed by the men,” then reportedly called the police and requested an officer be sent to the scene.

According to Williams’ report, the officer advised Bonetti and the two protesters that given the context of the disagreement, no criminal charges would be pursued at the time. “I explained due to First Amendment considerations the incident would be documented, researched and forwarded to the appropriate legal resources for additional review if and as necessary,” Williams wrote. [pix]

according to internal documents reviewed by Boulder Weekly, the political committee Protect Colorado appears to have requested that individuals, known as “ambassadors,” report the specific location of individuals gathering signatures for Ballot Initiatives 94 (concerning a severance tax increase) and 97, as recently as June 20. There could be as many as 1,800 ambassadors, according to a 2015 presentation given by former Anadarko lobbyist Chris Castilian.

Protect Colorado was co-created by Anadarko and Noble Energy to defeat oil and gas ballot measures in Colorado. Protect Colorado has received nearly $11 million in contributions since the beginning of 2018, with the majority coming from Anadarko, Extraction Oil and Gas, Noble Energy and PDC Energy.

The internal documents reviewed by BW, which are in the form of e-mails, request that ambassadors report signature-gathering activity to Protect Colorado by directing people to send information to an e-mail address or via a text line, using the code word “CANVASS.” (We tested the text line, and got an immediate response: “Where did you see a canvasser in your area?”)

In response to our request to confirm the documents and answer what Protect Colorado does with locations of signature gathering, the group offered this statement via Karen Crummy:

“We are exercising our First Amendment rights,which includes asking people to think about and read what they are signing. We have also asked the public and oil and gas employees to let us know when they see individuals gathering signatures on the 2,500-foot setback measure. This is standard practice in modern campaigns. We get asked about the activities in the field and want to understand what is going on. Monitoring opposition is important. The proponents of these bad measures monitor us as well.”

Advocacy groups funded by and sympathetic to oil and gas interests, such as the Colorado Economic Leadership Fund, have also been running ads on TV urging people not to sign the petitions.

Indeed, the stakes are high for those with financial interests in the oil and gas industry.

Initiative 94 proposes an increase in severance taxes paid by the oil and gas industry for minerals extracted from Colorado, stating, “In Colorado, the oil and gas industry pays an effective severance tax of only 1.5 percent; but, in the neighboring states of Wyoming and New Mexico, the oil and gas industry pays an effective severance tax of 6.5 percent,” according to the initiative. It continues, “It is the intent of the people of this state to require the oil and gas industry to pay its fair share in severance taxes and stop exploiting Colorado’s natural resources and people.”

According to the Colorado Legislative Council Staff’s fiscal impact statement, if passed, Initiative 94 will increase oil and gas severance tax revenue by $148.3 million in FY 2018-19 and $307 million in FY 2019-20, with ongoing increases in future years. The increased revenue would be used to establish all-day kindergarten in Colorado public elementary and secondary schools; and medical care and treatment for people suffering negative health impacts caused by oil and gas production in communities impacted by oil and gas production.

According to the same state research, Initiative 97 constrains well location and “thus potentially reduces future oil and gas development in the state, particularly in heavily populated counties,” adding production in the Julesberg Basin in northern Colorado will be the most affected. Thus, according to the statement, if passed the measure will reduce development and therefore the income of the oil and gas industry and services associated with it, along with any severance-tax-funded programs at the state level. But the statement concludes that since the economic conditions and geographic limitations affecting oil and gas production in Colorado are uncertain, the specific reductions in state revenue cannot be estimated.

Further, according to the statement, increasing the setback distance may preserve property values for homeowners most affected by oil and gas operations and, to the extent less development improves health outcomes for affected residents, may increase productivity and reduce medical costs.

[pix]

the effort to promote oil and gas activity at the ballot box isn’t only about protesting initiatives 94 and 97.Industry supporters have also begun circulating their own petitions.

On June 20, the Committee for Colorado’s Shared Heritage was registered by Shawn Martini, formerly of HBW Resources, an energy and natural resources consulting firm. This political committee’s purpose is to pass initiative 108, which apparently seeks to economically insulate the oil and gas industry via takings claims, from any impacts from Initiative 97, and potentially Initiative 94.

Proponents of 108 include Michelle Smith of Quiat Companies, whom BW readers might remember as the “Front Range organic farmer” who appeared in a 2014 pro-fracking ad produced by Coloradans for Responsible Energy Development (CRED), pointing out the importance of mineral royalties from oil and gas to her “organic-based” farm. As of 2014, Smith and her husband also personally owned minerals — not beneath her farm, but in Garfield County. Chad Vorthmann, executive vice president of the Colorado Farm Bureau and proponent of 108, also serves on the advisory committee of CRED.

The oil and gas industry is also backing initiatives to insulate itself from potential impacts relative to local government regulations, including initiatives 178, 179, 180 and 181. [pix]

the lingering question isn’t who, but what: What impact will protests have on signature-gathering efforts as the deadline of August 6 approaches?

BW asked a citizen, who engaged one of the protesters and then signed the petition, about his experience. Robert Walton of Fort Collins said of the protesters, “Their sign said, ‘Don’t sign,’ and so I asked them, ‘Why not?’ And he said, ‘It’s bad for business.’” Walton says the protester was reading off the back of his sign, adding that he didn’t seem to know what he was talking about.

Walton says he asked the protester, “What businesses?” to which the protester replied, “Business.” Walton says he was never able to get another answer.

Walton asked the protester if he was being paid, and he said he was not, but Walton didn’t find him convincing regardless. “I was hoping to hear the other side of the argument, and I heard nothing of value from them at all,” Walton says, adding the protester seemed to have no knowledge of the topic at all.

If the oil and gas industry or its proponents are indeed going to such lengths in order to prevent Initiatives 94 and 97 from making the ballot in November, then they probably believe there is a strong chance that Coloradans will approve them. But in the meantime, signature-gatherers like Bonetti and Hardin will have to wade through the ruckus to get their petitions signed.

9 22

https://naturalresources.house.gov/imo/media/doc/2022.09.14%20Hearing%20Report_PR%20Firms%20Preventing%20Action%20on%20Climate%20Change.pdf

2. Third-Party Mobilization

The general public is less likely to be convinced by a narrative that appears only to serve a special

interest, especially one with significant reputational liabilities, such as the oil and gas industry. PR

firms consequently work to make the industry’s positions seem widely supported by a range of

ostensibly unrelated groups, manufacturing the appearance of representing the broader public

interest.32 This tactic can take the form of third-party spokespersons, “generating favorable media

coverage, attributing advertisements to [a] third-party group instead of to the organization, creating

supportive social media, and mobilizing “astroturf” groupsof public supporters.”33 Oil and gas

companies have also created and funded nonprofit entities, which they used to organize opposition

to climate policies.

34 Through these front groups, the industry has funneled tens of millions of

dollars to public relations firms to manage media campaigns.35

A prominent example of such an approach is the successful defeat of a 2016 effort to put on the

Colorado ballot two initiatives that would have altered Colorado’s constitution to (1) give local

municipalities the ability to ban fracking, and (2) prevent oil and gas development within a 2,500-

foot buffer zone from occupied buildings and parks, waterways, playgrounds, and other “areas of

special concern.”36 Seeing an existential threat to its “license to operate,” Noble Energy, a major

natural gas company operating in Colorado (later bought by Chevron), hired PR firm Story

Partners to help it prevent these safeguards from becoming law.

The Committee has obtained documents that reveal, in the PR firm’s own words, howStory

Partners successfully designed and executed its multipronged plan to defeat the initiatives at the

signature-gathering stage (Appendix 5). Story Partnersachieved this through tactics including

astroturfing and careful analysis of which kind of message was most likely to persuade people that

the ballot measure would economically harm not only Noble Energy and “the industry at large,”

but the general public as well.37 This campaign and its techniques are discussed in greater detail in

the final section of this memorandum.

Third-party mobilization can also directly reach policymakers and their staff. Following the

Russian invasion of Ukraine, House Natural Resources Committee staff received a series of seven

...p 11

Staff from “HBW Resources” sent the emails and identified themselves as representatives of CEA,

describing it as “a nationwide grassroots organization that supports energy policies ensuring

abundant, affordable, reliable, and sustainable domestic energy supplies.”CEA claims to have

more than 550,000 individual members and to represent “a broad list of organizations that include

farmers, academia, conservation groups, truck drivers, laborers, trades-people, energy producers,

manufacturers, business owners to so much more.”51

Watchdog organization Energy and Policy Institute calls CEA an industry front group, and its

positions align closely with fossil fuel interests. CEA has been accused of engaging in astroturfing

on behalf of the major extractive energy industries.52 The organization received a score of “E-”

from LobbyMap (on an “A+” to “F” scale) on their climate policy’s alignment with the goals of

the Paris Agreement, reflecting CEA’s work to obstruct climate policy and energy transition at the

state and national level.53

HBW Resources, a self-described “government affairs, advocacy, public relations, and

communications firm,”54 appears to run CEA. The organization is run out of HBW’s Houston-based office.

55 IRS forms indicate that CEA has no paid staff and its chief officers include HBW

employees, such as CEA President and Director—David Holt—and Vice President—Michael

Whatley.

56 Since 2010, HBW Resources has been CEA’s highest paid contract by far. Over this

time, 53% of all of CEA’s expenses were paid to HBW, totaling nearly $17 million.57

Large sums

were also paid to two PR firms currently under investigation by this Committee, FTI Consulting

and Story Partners.58

p 12

The source of CEA’s funding is unclear. Since 2010, CEA has reported revenues of over $34.7 million made up almost entirely of contributions and grants.59 As a registered 501(c)(4) organization, CEA is not required to disclose its donors. 60 However, CEA’s members include major oil corporations such as Chevron, ExxonMobil, and Shell USA.61

3. Delegitimization of OppositionDelegitimizing competing narratives is the final major strategy PR firms use to shore up the fossil fuel industry’s messages.62 PR firms use a range of tactics to undermine other narratives and their messengers, from disputing the facts to attacking individuals and organizations’ “reliability and reputations.”63 The following case study illustrates the extreme and unethical methods some PR firms use. Industry Defeat of Colorado Anti-Fracking Ballot Measures

...

P 14

...reaffirmed Noble Energy as a strong partner in the community.”74 Meanwhile, print and digital

advertisements “creatively told the story of the unintended consequences of the proposed ballot

measures,” and “informed voters of the products and services dependent on oil and natural gas,

both from a funding point of view and from a resources perspective.”75 These narratives position

Noble as a socially responsible member of the community, while eliding the full environmental

and public health burden the fossil fuel industry creates in Colorado.

These advertisements against proposed fracking restrictions ran “under the brand of the South

Metro Denver Chamber of Commerce (SMDC),” and “concurrently under the banner of the

Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA),” creating the illusion of third-party mobilization.

76 Notably,

“guerilla marketing teams attended dozens of Colorado events and engaged hundreds of thousands

of citizens.”77Story Partners’ budget for this campaign is not public information, but CEA’s tax

filings show that the organization paid the PR firm $535,442 in 2016 for “communications,”

presumably for this effort.

Story Partners called the campaign a “huge success,” and “an enormous, measurable achievement

for Noble Energy.”79 The PR firm noted that a survey, “after just two months of campaign activity,

indicated that support for the specific ballot measures dropped to its lowest point in our research,

and opposition to the measures had increased. For the first time, support for the measures was

under 51 percent, and it was clear the campaign messages were working and recalled.”80The PR

campaign had successfully stopped climate legislation.

Two years later, there was an effort to revive the buffer zone ballot measure. Proposition 112(aka

initiative 97) was a 2018 Colorado ballot initiative designed to mandate that new oil and gas

development, including fracking, be sited a minimum distance of 2,500 feet from occupied

buildings such as homes, schools, hospitals, and other areas designated as vulnerable. The measure

was brought by grassroots environmental groupColorado Rising.81

Industry pushback was coordinated, sophisticated, and heavily funded. Oil and gas firms funneled

millions of dollars into coordinated PR campaigns to defeat Proposition 112.82 Oil and gas industry

[CRED protect colo]

P18

attempted to end their contract while demanding additional payments.96,97 When Colorado Rising

contracted with another signature-gathering firm, the firm broke the contract several days later. In

a recorded conversation shared with the Committee, a subcontractor admitted to taking a bribe of

“a lot” of money to stop working with Colorado Rising. He also stated the people who paid him

off had asked him to give them the signatures he had gathered for Proposition 112, but he did not

confirm or deny that the request came from Protect Colorado, the Pac/West front group. (Appendix

7(a))

Volunteers for Colorado Rising also experienced harassment in their volunteer and personal

capacities. Members of the opposition attempted to infiltrate their campaign trainings, showed up

repeatedly at their press conferences and outside their campaign office to monitor them, and

monitored the campaign’s delivery of signatures to the Secretary of State’s office. In her personal

life, the witness was followed around town by unidentified men – who also showed up to record

Colorado Rising press conferences – and received unsolicited texts from one of the people who

attempted to infiltrate their campaign (Appendix 7(b)).

99 Another lead volunteer received

harassing mail at her home address (Appendix 7(c)).[gun in waistband?]

100

CONCLUSION

For decades, the oil and gas industry denied or downplayed climate change and its role in causing

it. Now that fossil fuel companies and trade groups can no longer get away with outright denial,

they pay millions to PR firms to wage sophisticated and varied campaigns that go far beyond mere

marketing. These efforts include falsely depicting industry as joining the fight against climate

change, engineering astroturf “citizen” groups to advocate for industry interests and defeat

legislative proposals, and using unscrupulous tactics to sabotage genuine policy solutions and

attack community advocates. These modern techniques are arguably far more insidious than the

denialism of the past, thanks to the pivotal involvement of PR firms.[long appendix rich st'd CEA, threat ltr]

worst is props?!

https://theintercept.com/2018/11/07/midterm-elections-green-ballot-measures-fossil-fuel/

intercept

no lnx

tHE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY SPENT $100 MILLION TO KILL GREEN BALLOT MEASURES IN THREE STATES — AND WON

One clear takeaway from the ballot initiatives in Arizona, Colorado, and Washington state is that fossil fuel money can buy elections.

Kate Aronoff

November 7 2018,

PATRICIA NELSON WAS eager for a fresh start when she moved her family from Louisiana back home to Weld County, Colorado, in 2016. Soon after, Nelson’s friend encouraged her to come out to a meeting where Lisa McKenzie, an environmental chemist and epidemiologist at the Colorado School of Public Health, was presenting her research on the health impacts of oil and natural gas drilling.

Weld County has one of the highest concentrations of oil and gas wells in the country — 23,000 within county limits. Its air quality carries an “F” rating from the American Lung Association, with infant mortality rates twice as high as those in surrounding counties. With around 50,000 active wells overall, Colorado just surpassed California to become America’s third-largest oil and gas producer after Texas and North Dakota.

“It was a crash course in fracking,” Nelson told me by phone. Colorado law, she learned, states that drilling operations have to be 1,000 feet away from school buildings, but that ordinance — known as a setback — doesn’t include surrounding school properties, like playgrounds or soccer fields. There, as McKenzie would explain, kids playing and running around breathe harder and heavier, increasing the amount of poisoned air that enters their lungs and bloodstream.

All of this hit too close to home: As she also learned, oil companies had just been approved to open 24 new drill sites near her then-4-year-old son Diego’s school, the kindergarten through third grade campus of Bella Romero Academy; the drilling would take place just behind the fourth through eighth grade campus, where her niece and nephew were students. The decision to drill near Bella Romero at all — where 87 percent of attendees are students of color, and 90 percent fall below the poverty line — was made after parents at an overwhelmingly white school refused to have the same rigs in their kids’ backyards.

Shocked by what she discovered, Nelson joined a coalition that would later become known as Colorado Rising and traveled around the state, telling people about the stakes at her son’s school. Colorado Rising’s work included a push for Proposition 112, a ballot measure to mandate a 2,500-foot setback zone between drill sites and homes, schools, and other vulnerable areas. That measure was defeated 57 to 43 on Tuesday night, in large part thanks to a full-fledged freakout by the fossil fuel industry, which, with $40 million, outspent Prop 112 proponents by at least 40 to 1.

“I guess the oil and gas industry is just another example of money buying elections.”

“This is much farther than we’ve gotten before, and we’re no longer going to accept this industry bullying us,” Nelson told me last night, celebrating the fact that Prop 112 even made it on the ballot. “We had a pretty good shot, but they definitely had way more resources than we did. I guess the oil and gas industry is just another example of money buying elections.”

Environmental initiatives on the ballot elsewhere in the country, vehemently opposed by industry groups, also flopped. A ballot initiative in Washington state to levy a $15 per ton carbon fee on polluters and invest the revenue in job creation, green infrastructure, and more was defeated 56 to 44 thanks to over $30 million from the oil and gas industry.

In Arizona, electric utilities spent $31 million against Prop 127, which would have upped the state’s renewable portfolio standard, requiring the power sector to generate at least half its power from renewables by 2030. The proposition was largely bankrolled by liberal donor Tom Steyer via NextGen America, which poured $24 million in support, but it failed resoundingly, garnering just 30 percent of the vote....[more]

tUESDAY WASN’T AN unambiguous win for the industry, though — even in Colorado. Amendment 74 — polling high before the election and far better than Prop 112 — would have allowed property owners to sue local governments and the state for any infringement on their profits, but fell short of the 55 percent of votes needed to be grafted into Colorado’s constitution. The campaign for Amendment 74 was small compared to the fight against Prop 112 but still sizable, with $11.2 million raised by backers — about $10 million from oil and gas — and $6.3 by opponents under the banner Save Our Neighborhoods.

Still, one clear takeaway from the midterms ballot initiatives is that fossil fuel money can buy elections.Apparently, $100 million can buy four of them. “They’re putting up big numbers,” said Edgar Franks, a Bellingham-based labor organizer who helped draft and campaign for I-1631 with the environmental justice group Front and Centered. “You can tell that where this is actually a threat to the way that they do business, because they know it’s going to work.”

While Washington Gov. Jay Inslee backed I-1631 — having failed to get his own carbon fee through the legislature this spring — his Colorado counterpart was on the opposite side of the fight in his state.Prop 112 failed amid opposition not just from the oil and gas industry, but also from now-outgoing Colorado governor and former oil industry geologist John Hickenlooper, a Democrat, along with governor-elect Jared Polis and his Republican opponent. The Colorado Democratic Party, however, supported it. Polis’s opposition was ironic, given that he himself had spearheaded the push for a 2,000-foot setback rule several years ago before eventually withdrawing it from the ballot.

Despite Polis’s opposition to Prop 112, Colorado Rising is cautiously optimistic about working with his administration, a position bolstered by the fact that Democrats managed to flip the state legislature last night. “Polis clearly understands that fracking is dangerous near communities,” said Micah Parkin, a board member of Colorado Rising and executive director of 350 Colorado. “He may not agree with us on 2,500 feet, but he clearly gets that it doesn’t belong near our children’s schools and homes and water sources.”

The bar for improving Hickenlooper’s record on extraction has been set pretty low. The outgoing governor had threatened to call a special lame duck session of the state legislature in the event of Prop 112’s passage.“ It’s incredibly undemocratic,” said Parkin in advance of the vote. “The very idea that he would think it’s OK to turn around and ignore the will of the people, when thousands of his own constituents have worked so hard.”

The statement wasn’t unprecedented for Hickenlooper. In 2013, he openly threatened to sue any city that banned fracking within its borders and in fact, did sue Longmont and Fort Collins after they implemented restrictions on fracking. The state’s suit also undermined the legal standing of three other bans and moratoria. “Topics like these,” Nelson told me, “are the ones that enable the true colors of our representatives to come out. It just shows that he’s never been on the side of the people, he’s been on the side of industry.”

Predictably, then, the fight over Proposition 112 got ugly. Oil and gas interests painted the measure as an attempt to ban fracking in the state, though it in fact only added on to policies that already exist, which require a 500-foot setback from homes and 1,000-foot setback from schools.In collecting signatures this summer to get Prop 112 on the ballot, canvassers were followed and surrounded by paid protesters. “It would be between two and four of us who would plan out where to collect signatures,” Nelson said. “We would get there and 15 or 20 minutes later, these kids would show up with their signs. Unless they were following us, how would they know where we were?” She suspects at least some of them were University of Colorado students and had awkward encounters with them around town after encountering them while petitioning.

A political consultant hired by Colorado Rising this summer to help collect signatures also walked out of the state with 15,000 signatures, which were only retrieved after the group filed a lawsuit to have them returned.

The industry also publicly — and knowingly — overstated the impact of the measure. As Denver’s 9News found from a leaked report that industry groups had seen a report from the consultancy RS Energy stating that their losses would be far less than what they projected out over airwaves. The industry-friendly state regulator, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, had instead claimed in July that some 80 percent of non-federal land in Colorado — the only land covered by Prop 112 — would be off-limits to drilling. Yet the RS Energy report shows that companies would maintain access to 61 percent of the state’s oil and gas reserves. That’s partially because although companies would be barred from drilling within setback zones, horizontal drilling techniques — where the well mouth is within permitted drilling areas — could still access minerals under off-limits areas from up to a mile away.

“People have tried so many different ways to protect themselves over the years, and this was the last recourse.”

While it would have been the country’s most ambitious regulatory check on the fossil fuel industry, Parkin and Nelson both emphasized that Prop 112 was a kind of method of last resort. Those looking to place more regulations on the oil and gas industry had tried to get bills passed through the legislature and appealed to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission — all to no avail. “People have tried so many different ways to protect themselves over the years,” Parkin said, “and this was the last recourse.”

A supporter of Initiative 1631 holds a sign referencing the Nisqually Indian Tribe, Wednesday, Oct. 17, 2018, during a rally supporting I-1631, a November ballot measure in Washington state that would charge a fee on carbon emissions from fossil fuels. The rally was organized by tribal and environmental leaders, and took place near the offices of the Western States Petroleum Associationin Lacey, Wash. (AP Photo/Ted S. Warren)

IT WAS A similar story in Washington, where the legislature failed earlier this year to get a somewhat similar carbon tax measure through the legislature, falling short by “one or two votes.” A 2016 ballot initiative had failed to — by a margin of 20 percent — after drawing fire from the same groups now pushing for I-1631 over its lack of both investment in green projects and attention to the demands of climate and environmental justice groups. The campaign this time around was comparatively massive, drawing in a huge coalition of labor groups, indigenous communities, climate nonprofits, and more.

The biggest limiting factor to commonsense climate policies like Prop 112 and I-1631 isn’t either old school climate denial or bad design, but the sheer force of the fossil fuel industry’s seemingly endless capacity to pour money into elections. While theoretically supportive of carbon pricing and some vague sense of climate action, fossil fuel interests this cycle showed their cards: If it poses a threat to their profits, it’s going down. Fightbacks like the one posed to Amendment 74 are possible. Yet with Democrats taking the House — with several climate hawks now in their ranks — any push on climate there will have to reckon with the colossal funding might of the industry, and the kind of opposition Prop 112 faced from members of their own party sponsored by them.

On the heels of the latest IPCC report — which makes the need to decarbonize every sector of the economy painfully clear — there isn’t really an alternative to going toe to toe with those companies, no matter how much of a David and Goliath fight it might be.

“This isn’t over for me, personally. We have had a warning,” Nelson said, referencing that report, “that we either end our dependence on fossil fuels or things are going to get extremely rough for mankind. For me, it shows that it’s just about greed and money for this industry.”

https://corising.org/

Colorado Rising is a statewide 501(c)4 non-profit organization that works to protect Colorado’s health, safety, wildlife, environment, and the future of our climate from the impacts of oil & gas development.

The organization was founded in September, 2019, to focus on litigation, state agency rulemaking, administrative processes, and public education concern over a number of explosions, spills, leaks, and other catastrophic oil and gas accidents in Colorado, compounded by years of political inaction and the failure of state agencies to address health and safety issues drew widespread support for the effort.

COMMITMENT TO PEOPLE

We honor diversity. Our board of directors and leadership team is 60% women and BIPOC-led with representation from Latinx, Chicano, Indigenous, African American, LGBTQ and non-binary genders. We are not only committed to increasing diversity, inclusion and representation within our organization at all levels, but within the climate movement as well.

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2021-10/Colorado-Targeted-by-Fossil-Fuel-Industry-Disinformation-Playbook.pdf

40 pp

Colorado Targeted by

Fossil Fuel Industry’s

Disinformation

Playbook

Climate Deception Harms Communities’ Health

and Safety

www.ucsusa.org/resources/colorado-fossil-fuel-industry-disinformation

https://doi.org/10.47923/2021.14291

CONTENTS

Chapter 1 Deceiving the Public: The Disinformation Playbook 4

The Disinformation Playbook and Colorado Oil and Gas Operations 5

Chapter 2 Disinformation Tactic: The Fix 7

Lobbying to Weaken Public Health and Safety Protections and Enhance Fossil Fuel Profits 8

Overwhelming Public Voices to Thwart Ballot Initiatives 9

Table 1. An Example of How Industry Spending Overwhelms Health and Safety 10

Pitting Local Leaders Against the Health and Safety of Their Constituents 11

Influencing Public Policy Positions from Inside and Out 11

Using Proxy Groups to Confuse the Public and Undermine Support for Climate

Accountability Lawsuits 12

Chapter 3 Disinformation Tactic: The Diversion 13

Elevating Industry Interests Above Community Voices 13

Fabricating the Appearance of Local Support 14

Figure 1. Colorado’s Climate Disinformation Complex 15

Greenwashing Your Screens 16

Chapter 4 Disinformation Tactic: The Screen 18

Building Credibility by Hiding Behind Trusted State Institutions 18

Burnishing Industry’s Reputation through Association with Respected Nonprofits 19

Chapter 5 Disinformation Tactic: The Fake 21

Chapter 6 A Litany of Harms: Health and Safety 23

Cancer-Causing and Other Dangerous Chemicals in the Air and Water 24

Poor Air Quality 24

New Research Identifies Even More Dangerous Ozone Problems 25

Figure 2. Fossil Fuel Industry Emissions are Higher in High Racial-Minority Census

Tracts 26

Dangerous Inactive Wells 26

Climate Change Impacts 27

Chapter 7 A Litany of Harms: Economic 28

Bogus Complaints about High Taxes 28

Inflated Jobs Claims 28

Union of Concerned Scientists | 3

Figure 3. Oil and Gas Extraction’s Boom-and-Bust Contribution to the Colorado

Economy 29

Other Harms, Some Difficult To Monetize 29

Chapter 8 Recommendations 31

Acknowledgments 32

...For more than a decade, Colorado oil and gas exploration and development have intensified, often putting dangerous and polluting industrial activities in close proximity to homes, schools, playgrounds, and other public spaces. This report exposes how the fossil fuel industry positions itself as the backbone of the state economy, often framing any community opposition to this industry’s dangerous operations as a fight against local interest in the form of tax revenue, school funding, and jobs. The industry largely glosses over evidence it causes health, economic, or environmental damage, and its clout enables oil and gas extraction and expansion to continue with little regard for those facing the adverse health and economic impacts. In Colorado, the oil and gas industry is comprised of powerful transnational corporations, including ExxonMobil and Chevron, along with companies such as Noble Energy (now owned by Chevron), Anadarko (now owned by Occidental Petroleum), and Suncor (a large Canadian tar-sands operation with close ties to ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell).

The industry’s interests are represented by heavyweight national lobbying outfits like the American Petroleum Institute (API), as well as local trade associations, like the Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA). A proliferation of industry-created and backed front groups includes several with ties to the private multinational conglomerate Koch Industries.They often all work together to run the same Disinformation Playbook. Of course, the fossil fuel industry uses similar tactics and wields considerable political clout in other oil- and gas-producing states and at the federal level. Consider its success in stalling any meaningful climate action for more than two decades and its ability to despoil public and Native lands and waters with drilling and pipelines. Or consider the API’s nationwide TV and digital ad campaign, launched ahead of the 2020 elections and targeting not only Colorado, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and other key oil- and gas-producing states but also Wisconsin, Michigan, and other political swing states (API 2020a; API 2020b)....

Lobbying to Weaken Public Health and Safety Protections and Enhance Fossil Fuel Profits

In the early years of fracking in Colorado, API and its local division, the Colorado Petroleum Council (CPC), pushed the state legislature to enact the little-known ad valorem tax credit, which allows oil and gas companies to deduct local property taxes from the severance tax that fossil fuel companies must pay to the state. As local property taxes have increased, particularly for oil and gas operations, the state’s pool of severance taxes, based on production and profits, has shrunk—even though severance-tax revenues are needed to remediate abandoned and orphaned wells. Such wells are often underground pathways through which toxic fluids and gases migrate upward into air, water, and homes. These wells are also a significant source of leaked methane, a heat-trapping pollutant that has 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide during the first 20 years after it reaches the atmosphere (Bushkin-Bedient et al. 2020).

Thanks to the ad valorem tax credit, some oil and gas operations have paid nothing to the state in recent years, leaving old wells unremediated and dangerous to residents (Eason 2020; Legislative Council Staff, n.d.; Silbaugh 2020). In April 2017, a house in Firestone, Colorado blew up, killing two residents and seriously injuring a third. The explosion was traced to gas leaking from an old well that had not been disconnected from the wellhead or properly capped (Markus 2018; Osher 2017; Svaldi and Finley 2017).In direct response to the explosion, the legislature took up a science-based bill to require regulators to map oil and gas pipelines throughout the state; a filibuster in the Republican-controlled state Senate killed the proposal. Lobbying disclosure reports and campaign-finance records showed that Anadarko and Noble Energy, both of which opposed the bill, spent significantly in support of Senate Republican candidates in the 2016 election as well as to directly lobby against the bill (Osher 2017; Sirota 2017).

Also in April 2017, the legislature considered a bill mandating that new oil and gas facilities be set back a certain distance from school property. Such a policy is intended to reduce children’s exposure to toxic releases by keeping them a safer distance from potential explosions. By a one-vote margin along party lines, a Senate committee killed the bill to establish a buffer zone separating oil and gas wells and associated facilities from occupied buildings and property lines. COGA, CPC, and other industry representatives led the opposition, arguing that “energy is the cornerstone of [the state’s] prosperity” (Glick and Ray 2017)—overstating the industry’s economic importance while ignoring the value of keeping children safe. An investigative report put oil and gas industry clout into some perspective: “Most of the people who testified in favor of the school setback bill were residents. . . . Virtually all who opposed it were paid lobbyists, most from industry associations” (Glick and Ray 2017).

With the passage of Senate Bill 181 in 2019, the state got serious about tightening health and safety controls on the oil and gas industry. The industry, which aggressively opposed the bill, lobbied successfully for a late language change that weakened the ability of local governments to protect public health and safety. At the behest of industry lobbyists, the terms “necessary Union of Concerned Scientists | 9 and reasonable” were added as qualifiers to the bill’s text, potentially limiting the ability of cities and counties to require new protective measures (Bloom 2019)....

Overwhelming Public Voices to Thwart Ballot Initiatives

In 2016, aggressive campaigns by Protect Colorado and Coloradans for Responsible Energy Development (CRED)—front groups funded by API, CPC, Noble Energy, and Occidental Petroleum—prevented two grassroots-driven ballot measures from getting in front of voters (Dyer 2016a). One measure would have increased local control over oil and gas expansion, with the aim of putting science at the forefront of decision-making on siting, reporting, and safety requirements designed to protect the communities.

The other measure would have improved community health and safety by requiring fracking operations be set back 2,500 feet from any occupied structure (homes, schools, businesses) or “areas of concern” (drinking water sources, lakes, parks). The current scientific consensus is that a setback of 2,000 to 2,500 feet is needed to protect health and safety, especially that of children (Lewis, Greiner, and Union of Concerned Scientists | 10 Brown 2018; Milton et al. 2014; McKenzie et al. 2012). The setback would have reduced exposure to air and water pollution, lessened noise pollution, and kept children further from potential explosions. Opponents outraised proponents by a ratio of 24–1, with 99.9 percent of the opponents’ nearly $17 million total coming from energy industry companies or front groups; their campaign drowned out the public health and safety arguments at the heart of initiative (Table 1) (Blake 2016; Claypool 2016)....

,,,Protect Colorado repeated the play again two years later, in 2018, spending almost $40 million to oppose Proposition 112 (Sirota and Woodruff 2018b), which would have required new oil and gas development projects to be set back 2,500 feet from occupied buildings and other areas of concern. In addition to donating millions of dollars to Protect Colorado PAC to oppose Proposition 112, Noble Energy directly funded spots on at least 12 TV stations in the month before the election (Sirota and Woodruff 2018b). One ad explicitly told voters: “When you vote, we need your support to stop Proposition 112, so we can continue producing the natural gas and oil that power our daily lives.”

This ad ignored the initiative’s health and safety intent, instead advancing a bogus economic argument that stronger protective measures would put the industry out of business (Sirota and Woodruff 2018a). In 2020, the industry poured money into ad campaigns even with no initiatives on the ballot or legislation in the works. Protect Colorado spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on a statewide online and TV ad campaign aimed at Governor Polis and the COGCC, threatening to challenge any new regulations, particularly on siting setbacks, that the industry deemed unreasonable(Bunch 2020). The industry promoted 500-foot setbacks—about one-fourth the distance that scientists say is best to protect communities, especially vulnerable populations (Lewis, Greiner, and Brown 2018; Milton et al. 2014)....

[rev dr]

Using Proxy Groups to Confuse the Public and Undermine Support for Climate Accountability Lawsuits

In 2018, Boulder and San Miguel counties and the city of Boulder sued ExxonMobil and Suncor, arguing that the companies violated state law by deceiving the public about the dangers of their fossil fuel products. These local governments are demanding that the companies pay their fair share of remediating climate damages accruing in their communities(Boulder County, n.d.; City of Boulder, n.d.; EarthRights International, n.d.; San Miguel County, n.d.).

Almost immediately, ExxonMobil and Suncor launched a counteroffensive, using proxy groups to distort the public’s understanding of the case.The defendants, falsely suggesting that the local governments were seeking a back-door path to achieve legislative goals, attempted to redirect attention away from the on-the-ground reality that communities face budget-busting expenses due to climate change-related fires, flooding, bad air quality, and extreme heat.Industry PR companies, particularly Western Wire (an ExxonMobil executive serves on its board of directors) and Energy In Depth (a project of the Independent Petroleum Association of America), ramped up their substantial media buys to discredit the legal strategy (EarthRights International 2018).

Industry groups also attacked and attempted to discredit a public forum at the University of Colorado Law School on holding fossil fuel companies liable for climate change harms in the state (MAP 2019; University of Colorado Law School 2019). Further, their representatives posed as journalists to try to interview plaintiff’s attorneys outside of appropriate court channels (EarthRights International 2018; EarthRights International 2019). For more than three years, the defendants have used procedural tactics to keep this case—like other recent climate accountability complaints against fossil fuel companies—from being considered on its merits....

Chapter 3 Disinformation Tactic:

The Diversion Manufacture uncertainty about science (including economics) and facts where little or no uncertainty exists

In an infamous 1969 memorandum, a tobacco executive captured the Diversion tactic well: “Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public” (Mulvey and Shulman 2015).

To create doubt, undermine science, influence public opinion, and gain access to policymakers while maintaining the illusion of independence, fossil fuel companies in Colorado have deployed trade associations, front groups with innocuous-sounding names, and “greenwashing” advertising campaigns that paint oil and gas as sources of clean energy and central to climate solutions. Corporate interests even create, fund, and control so-called “astroturf” groups that falsely portray themselves as grassroots.

To rig the system in its favor, Colorado’s fossil fuel industry uses “The Diversion” to exert political power over crucial legislative, regulatory, and grassroots-led initiatives, commonly engaging in a variety of activities, including: • Elevating industry interests above community voices; • Fabricating the appearance of local support; and • Greenwashing your screens. Elevating Industry Interests Above Community Voices

At least three oil and gas industry trade associations operate aggressively in Colorado: the American Petroleum Institute, the Colorado Petroleum Council (the API’s local affiliate), and the Colorado Oil and Gas Association. Also active are the Colorado Petroleum Association, the Western Energy Alliance, the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA), and the CO-WYO Petroleum Marketers Association.

Wielding its wealth and political power, the industry is able to supercharge its advocacy and drown out community voices. Sometimes visibly and sometimes behind the scenes, these trade associations engage in extensive Union of Concerned Scientists | 14 legislative and regulatory lobbying and pour hundreds of thousands of dollars into campaigns to sway public opinion, especially investing in large-scale TV, radio, and social-media advertising. Fossil fuel trade associations use their clout to spread disinformation. For example, their lobbyists routinely exaggerate the industry’s economic benefits while downplaying the health and safety risks to community members. In 2017 testimony to a state Senate committee hearing on the proposed legislation on setbacks from school properties, COGA’s president claimed that protective setback extensions would undermine oil and gas as “the cornerstone of prosperity” in the state (Glick and Ray 2017).

The industry has peddled that exaggeration for years, even though the oil and gas sector is a notoriously unstable, “boom and bust” enterprise that accounts for roughly 1 percent of Colorado jobs. At the same time, it offloads onto the state and its communities innumerable externalities, such as air pollution, fouled waters, and abandoned mines (PwC 2017; API 2017; BEA, n.d.b). The industry also downplays, even denies, the health risks from contaminants released during oil and gas exploration and extraction. During the 2017 setback hearing, CPC’s executive director told the press that the idea of protecting school children “was based on the presumption that being near oil and gas facilities is dangerous,” adding that CPC “absolutely rejects that notion” (Glick and Ray 2017).

Yet current oil and gas production releases a host of dangerous chemicals into the air and water—including those that cause cancer and disrupt the endocrine system—and it creates significant noise and light pollution. Science shows that children are particularly sensitive to those dangerous chemicals (Bushkin-Bedient et al. 2020, 60, 86; Glick and Ray 2017, McKenzie et al. 2017). An API TV ad opposing a 2019 package of oil and gas reforms in the legislature is another example of how industry advertising spreads falsehoods and misrepresentations. The ad claimed that the measures would “shut down energy production in Colorado”—a claim with no economic basis (API 2019). The ad suggested that lawmakers, acting in bad faith, had snuck the bill out of committee “in the middle of the night.”

In reality, the relevant committee voted at 2:00 a.m. only after hearing more than 12 hours of testimony from both supporters and opponents (Woodruff 2019).

Fabricating the Appearance of Local Support

A plethora of oil and gas industry front groups litters the political landscape in Colorado, often with ambiguous or purposely confusing names, sometimes using dirty-trick tactics, and rarely disclosing ties to the industry (Yowell 2018). To conceal its lobbying activities, the industry hides behind astroturf organizations, created to falsely appear as grassroots in their opposition to forward-looking climate and energy policy ( see Figure 1)....

In 2019, the industry ran an aggressive and misleading campaign in opposition to Senate Bill 181. In addition to TV and radio ads, it invested in social-media advertising. Using the Facebook Ad Library, an investigative reporter identified “dozens of sponsored posts from astroturf groups like ‘Energy Citizens’ and ‘Energy Nation’ opposing SB181,” paid for with tens of thousands of dollars from the API. The ads recorded millions of impressions (Woodruff 2019; Davies 2011).

Perhaps the most ubiquitous of the front groups is Coloradoans for Responsible Energy Development. Created and generously funded by Anadarko Petroleum and Noble Energy, CRED describes itself as an educational organization, yet it engages deeply in overt political activities. Mark Truax,in his presentation to the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission in 2015, described these activities. As CRED’s director of operations and coalitions, he also boasted about the vast amount of money the organization invested in those activities (Dyer 2016a; Glick and Ray 2016).

The trade associations and front groups create astroturf groups that are industry-funded and led by industry representatives and political operatives. CRED created its political arm, Protect Colorado, for the purpose of defeating grassroots-led anti-fracking ballot initiatives Union of Concerned Scientists | 16 (Protect Colorado, n.d.). For example, to defeat the 2016 setback and local control initiatives, Protect Colorado initiated a “decline to sign” campaign, discouraging Coloradans from signing a petition to get the initiatives on the ballot; it used various grassroots organizing techniques funded with nearly $17 million by CRED, Anadarko Petroleum,Noble Energy, and several other oil and gas companies (Blake 2016; Claypool 2016).

As tracked byPublic Citizen,“The widest disparity between spending by corporate-backed groups and their mostly noncorporate opposition was found in the race for Colorado’s Mandatory Setback from Oil and Gas Development Amendment” (Claypool 2016). Also as part of 2016 efforts to keep setback and local-control initiatives off the statewide ballot, Protect Colorado hired people to carry signs saying “decline to sign #75 and #78” (Evans 2016; Glick and Ray 2016; KGNU 2016).

Protect Colorado was similarly behind efforts to harass signature gatherers and petition signers. Protesters followed a Denver mom out gathering signatures, screaming in her face, “You’re taking our jobs!” No one answered when she asked her harassers questions about the “jobs” they had in the industry (Glick and Ray 2016). These dirty tricks continued and even expanded in 2018. The industry again hired protesters who followed petition-signature gatherers, sometimes harassing and threatening them, in an effort to keep the setback initiative off the ballot(Yowell, 2018). An undisclosed pro-industry group paid a signature-gathering firm to stop its work on the initiative; the contractor admitted on tape to initiative organizers: “Nobody threatened me. You know what they’re doing. They’re going around and buying people” (Olabi 2018). The industry also created new astroturf organizations with names strikingly similar to those of initiative supporters, apparently attempting to confuse voters about who was behind the campaigns (Yowell 2018).

Colorado Proposition 112, Minimum Distance Requirements ...https://ballotpedia.org › Colorado_Proposition_112,_M...

On December 18, 2018, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission voted unanimously to adopt a rule to measure the current 1,000-foot drilling setback from ...

Colorado's Proposition 112 oil-well setback ballot fight - The ...https://www.bizjournals.com › news › 2018/10/10 › col...

Oct 10, 2018 — The oil and gas industry has continued pumping millions of dollars into defeating a Colorado ballot measure that would establish 2,500-foot ...

Here's what Noble, Anadarko and other companies are saying ...https://www.bizjournals.com › denver › news › 2018/11/01

Nov 1, 2018 — Key oil and gas companies don't expect the Proposition 112 setback vote next week to slow Colorado's near-term oil and gas growth, ...

Oil industry gets aggressive in fight over Colorado ballot ...https://archive.thinkprogress.org › oil-industry-gets-agg...

Oct 19, 2018 — But Proposition 112 is far from radical. It doesn't call for banning fracking in Colorado. The measure would simply keep new wells farther away ...

Colorado Proposition 112: Science behind oil and gas ...https://www.denverpost.com › 2018/10/16 › colorado-...

Oct 16, 2018 — Proposition 112, which would increase setbacks for new oil and gas development, is a science-heavy ballot measure that voters will have to ...

Colorado Activists Submit Petitions for Referendums on Frackinghttps://www.nytimes.com › ... › Energy & Environment

Aug 9, 2016 — Ballot measures would seek local control over oil and gas operations and prohibit hydraulic fracturing near buildings, waterways and public ...

Energy firms pour $20 million into defeating Colorado drilling ...https://www.reuters.com › article › energy-firms-pour-2...

Oct 2, 2018 — Oil and gas companies and their supporters have poured $20.3 million since August into a campaign to defeat a Colorado ballot initiative ...

Missing: buffer ‎| Must include: buffer

Colorado Targeted by Fossil Fuel Industry's Disinformation ...https://www.ucsusa.org › sites › default › files › C...PDF

by N Cole · 2021 — The Disinformation Playbook and Colorado Oil and Gas Operations ... Proposition 112, Noble Energy directly funded spots on at least 12 TV ...

Colorado Measure Would Make Most of State Off Limits to ...https://www.wsj.com › articles › colorado-voters-to-weigh...

Aug 29, 2018 — Colorado voters in November will consider banning oil and gas drilling within 2500 feet of homes, businesses and many green spaces, ...

Protect Colorado Has A $8.4M Piggy Bank Ready To Do ...https://www.cpr.org › 2018/06/01 › protect-colorado-h...

Jun 1, 2018 — The political issue group raised the staggering sum quickly, drawing on three of the state's largest drillers: Anadarko Petroleum, Extraction ...

Missing: initiative ‎| Must include: initiative