2008 Divide Creek Seep
|Contents - this page
In October, 2011 I collected a sample and sent it into the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Those positive results are below. These preliminary results point to the need to sample for radium. I've contacted the CDPHE to ask for guidance on possible sources of the radioactivity and whether the state has a public health interest in this issue. I am currently waiting to hear back on which department - if any - might be concerned about this development.
Below are the Gross Alpha Beta radioactivity results of our water well. This was collected October 2011 - before drilling began, and may be the result of 2004 or 2008 seeps.
to COGCC, EnCana (cc EPA)
Environmental Lead, Piceance Basin
Environmental Protection Specialist, Northwest Region
January 31, 2012
Re: COGCC Conditions of Approval for Twin Creeks F12E / Location 421390 / Operator: ENCANA OIL & GAS (USA) INC # 100185
05-045-20385 Twin Creek# 12-5A2 (F12E)
“Visual observation” access, more specifically:
ACCESS AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT: “Whereas EnCana or [contracted parties] will perform a visual survey and possible stream sampling along Divide Creek (the “Survey”) on owner’s property…” and “The survey is conducted pursuant to a request by the staff of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (“Commission”)”…
Since EnCana began drilling the F12E, I’ve been busy coordinating with state agencies, federal agencies and others regarding what I believe will be significant impacts resulting from drilling/hydraulic fracturing into the 2004 / 2008 hydro-geologic seep structure.
As EnCana and the COGCC are aware, I’ve long contested EnCana’s drilling and hydraulic fracturing from the F12E location. Working to diligently protect what remains of our property and health interests in light of what I recognize as conflicted and failed state regulatory oversight has contributed to my delay in corresponding.
EnCana’s request to access our property for purposes of “visual observation” relative to conditions of approval associated with F12E operations and noted more specifically above, appears less than sincere given that my reporting of the sudden appearance of bubbles, biofilm and other fluid/gaseous expressions into West Divide Creek in 2008… and, EnCana’s own quantification of that thermogenic expression in 2010, have failed to produce any further testing; a ground water monitor in order to help determine groundwater impacts or the scope of impacts; or, even acknowledgement of gas seepage.
Despite numerous requests and potential risks to our domestic potable water sources, I have yet to receive any disclosure of hydraulic fracturing chemicals used while fracturing any of EnCana’s natural gas wells from 2004 forward. In fact, my efforts have only produced a persistent effort by both EnCana and the COGCC to publicly discredit my account of impacts.
The third-party engineering review and investigation conducted by the COGCC in 2010 and 2011 found recent critical flaws in drilling, casing and fracturing operations which have led to the COGCC’s issuance of yet another round of ‘corrective’ operational stipulations for operators in the Mamm Field. Despite our good faith efforts to aid EnCana and COGCC’s joint effort to better ascertain failures which may have led to or contributed to the 2008 seep, I submit this investigation was incomplete and prematurely concluded, based on the following:
1) The COGCC has failed to pressure test the Schwartz, Price, Brown or Twin Creek wells, which were likely implicated in, or, were the outright combined cause of the 2008 seep;
2) The COGCC has failed to conduct and even resisted a hydrologic review of the F12E targeted production area. This occurred despite clear warnings of hydrologic risks from Garfield County’s hydrogeologic consultant Dr. Thyne in 2009. It occurred despite an invitation from Garfield County’s then oil and gas liaison, Judy Jordan, to collaborate with the COGCC or at least review shared data on this topic; and, it occurred despite my request that the COGCC and Garfield County collaborate. This also occurred despite assurances to me from the COGCC that a hydrologic review would indeed accompany the COGCC’s 2010-11 area investigation.
3) The COGCC improperly relied upon EnCana’s proprietarily edited data of the 2004 / 2008 seep geology to predetermine the safety of F12E operations. This documentation has yet to be publicly disclosed. I believe such proprietary editing was unnecessary given that 1) the risks to human health, safety and water quality should have prompted a thorough third-party review; and 2) EnCana is the leaseholder of such mineral interests, and faces no threat of competition in the target area. Further, any such geologic review should have been implemented to explain the still-active 2004 seep, long before it should have been considered to justify renewed drilling and hydraulic fracturing in the same area.
4) The 2004 seep continues unabated and unexplained, expressing very high levels of benzene and other toxic compounds into the shallow groundwater and possibly much deeper aquifer of West Divide Creek. As a major tributary of the Colorado River, West Divide Creek and its associated aquifer supplies domestic and agricultural water to thousands of residents nearby and downstream.
Despite these obvious and grievous shortcomings, the COGCC determined to allow EnCana to proceed with the F12E pad.
For these reasons, I must question the validity of requesting access for purposes of “visual observation” along West Divide Creek during F12E drilling/hydraulic fracturing operations. Based on EnCana and the COGCC’s foreseeable ability yet utter failure to safeguard the West Divide Creek area in 2004 or prevent recurrence of devastating impacts which surfaced again in 2008, the request for “visual observation” access certainly does not appear to have anything to do with either responsible development or preventive oversight.
Given the observed, documented and later quantified impacts from the 2008 seep, I must conclude there is great question even as to the qualification of those who would be conducting such visual observations or, later, analyzing relevant findings.
Further, EnCana has elected, once again, to drill and fracture mid-winter, during which time most if not all of the otherwise visible area is covered by snow and ice.
EnCana conduced a soil gas survey in 2010 which has mapped points of methane expression. Unfortunately these remain unacknowledged by either EnCana or the COGCC. Despite EnCana and the COGCC’s apparent and habitual efforts to ignore, marginalize or mischaracterize continued impacts to West Divide Creek, the long overdue 2010 soil gas survey should provide a sufficient baseline in quantifying new impacts going forward. Given EnCana and the COGCC’s record of failing to fully investigate or even acknowledge known impacts, and further attempts to discredit what I report, I must decline EnCana’s request to access our property for purported purposes of “visual observation”.
It appears my refusal of access for purposes of “visual observation” will not be problematic, given that drilling commenced on the F12E on or about January 09, 2012, and it would appear that little to nothing could dissuade continued development.
Certainly, there may arise a request for access in the future for purposes of scientifically quantifying new impacts which are likely to arise in association with EnCana and the COGCC’s astonishingly poor decision to pursue development within the seep structure. When that day arrives, I will once again consider any request for access based on conditions at that time. Any access, if granted, will be – as always – strictly provided for within a written instrument.
This decision does not affect EnCana’s continued access for purposes of scheduled quarterly water sampling as per COGCC’s on-going remediation plan and/or any private contract we have with EnCana for such purposes. At this time, any access outside the scope of the quarterly access agreement is not advised and will be considered trespass. Hard copies of this letter will be forthcoming.
c.c. EPA - Region 8
Director (Neslin) resigns from the COGCC
Published: February 01, 2012
From the article: "Dave Neslin, the director of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission—the state agency in charge of regulating oil and gas operators who’ve created much uproar and controversy in Boulder County through their use of hydraulic fracturing—announced he will step down from his industry oversight position to join Davis Graham & Stubbs, a Denver law firm that represents (you guessed it) oil and gas companies.
Davis Graham & Stubbs counts Encana Oil & Gas among its clients, the well operator that sparked a fracking controversy in Erie with plans to open an eight-well drilling pad just a few hundred yards from both of its elementary schools. Just weeks ago, Neslin attended an Erie Board of Trustees meeting to discuss fracking in his role as industry watchdog. Encana representatives were also present at the meeting and, as of March 1, he’ll be part of Encana’s outside legal team.
“This says a lot about where he’s been coming from when he’s been at public hearings for God knows how long,” said Erie resident Wendy Leonard, a member of an anti-fracking grassroots group called Erie Rising."
It was under Neslin's watch that the F12E pad (above) was approved. It was also under his watch that the COGCC posted a statement attempting to discredit my observations of impacts to West Divide Creek in 2008.
In the least, I would think that any official act Neslin engaged in while acting as Director of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and in simultaneous talks with the law firm over employment opportunities should be closely scrutinized.
Of course, one could argue that the COGCC has a legislative obligation to promote oil and gas in the state of Colorado. The COGCC has definitely done that... too bad it's been at the expense of the other mandate: to safeguard public health, safety and welfare. How come the agency always seems to forget about that mandate?
I've seen a parade of politicians and their appointed ilk come and go over the years as genuine, measurable impacts to the air, water and land grow more prolific... and the threats to human health, safety and the environment grow more pronounced.
Just as wayward rats on a sinking ship will jump to the nearest raft, God only knows what will rise to seize the wheel of that sad, wayward ship, now.
Oh... incidentally, the head of the COGCC environmental division is also leaving.
Excuse me... I have a party to attend.
Meanwhile, EnCana and other operators ramp up efforts and investments to ship American gas bounty to overseas markets.
LNG export proponents may seek gas assets in 2012
By Rebecca Penty, Calgary Herald
From the article: "With a forecast for a slew of new LNG project announcements this year, CIBC predicts in a report that national oil companies and other backers will be signing deals to scoop up gas assets. Among the beneficiaries are strategic resource holders including Calgary’s Encana Corp., Canada’s No. 1 gas producer."
What ever happened to the natural gas industry's slogan "American Energy Independence"? Seems like the new slogan is "F--- you, we got a bigger buyer over here!"
Seems like if less expensive energy were truly desired in order to warm the houses of cash-strapped American families and build American enterprise, home heating costs wouldn't double during the winter months and the US would develop a common-sense long-range energy plan to control the development of natural gas - that is... "c..o..n..s..e..r..v..e.." it in order to make the best use of this polluting fuel, especially in order to use it as a bridge fuel to more sustainable sources. I stress the word 'conserve' for the folks at the Colorado Oil and Gas C..o..n..s..e..r..v..a..t...i..o..n Commission, in case any have forgotten what the word means.
I mean, isn't' that the message the industry has been trying to sell us on? So, why exploit all of it as fast as possible, destroying other natural resources like water and air in the process... only to ship it overseas to the highest bidder?
But as I said long ago... the natural gas bridge is a bridge to nowhere.
C'mon folks... it doesn't take an economics major to see what's really going on. This isn't about patriotism, national security or domestic reserves of affordable energy. It's about fast, furious exploitation damning the consequences. This means even more exploitation - the likes of which has already destroyed West Divide Creek is now bound for backyards across our nation.
Think any presidential candidate will stand up and advocate for anyone besides campaign donors? Think again. I used to like Ron Paul, but he is way off base on this issue. The rest of the Republican horde is solid gone skipping happily down the yellow brick road paved with PAC gold. Is the current administration any more attuned to risks? In support of hydraulic fracturing as well as off-shore and Arctic drilling... apparently not so much.
Gasland Filmaker Joshua Fox Arrested at Fracking Hearing, by Order of House Republicans
by Keyana Stevens
February 02, 2012
Excerpt: "The House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment was meeting to discuss the controversial topic of hydraulic fracturing, colloquially known as "fracking." When Joshua Fox, whose Oscar-nominated documentary Gasland deals with the controversial natural gas extraction process, showed up with a camera wanting to record the hearing, he was arrested and charged with unlawful entry."
My comments posted to Village Voice
This appears as nothing more than one more round of subjected truth by abusers of power cloaked as guardians of democracy. Is it not enough that Pavillion and West Divide Creek (WDC), CO (http://journeyoftheforsaken.com/dividecreekseep2008thirteen.htm) were excluded from EPA's fracking study... even though the West Divide Creek case, a massive and still-active blow out is directly related to fracking? ...Even though both cases involve EnCana as operator? Isn't it enough that the natural gas industry is even in the pockets of some grassroots organizations who just happen... "no strings attached" to be afraid of the word "moratorium or ban"? Isn't it enough that EPA is no where to be seen on the WDC case, and Neslin, the former head of Colorado's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, just stepped down from his post to serve in a law firm that happens to serve EnCana - after helping to pave the way for EnCana to drill into and frack the hell out of the 2004 blowout site? Isn't it enough that now the president can simply assign the label of "terrorist" to any US citizen and get them interned in military prisons without charge, representation or any kind of Constitutionally guaranteed due process? I was in the film Gasland and everything I said was truthful. Didn't matter. Neslin tried to discredit me and others including Josh Fox on the state's website. Investigations were delayed and constricted (but evidence of contamination was later found anyway), and EPA cut WDC from their study. Guys like Josh are needed to help reveal the truth. Since when are government decisions best run in shadowy backrooms? I and others have lived the fallout of that failed method. I want a camera in there and anywhere decisions are made "on my behalf" by anyone supported in any way by the natural gas industry.
...in which I inform them of EnCana's commencement of he F12E pad, ask for an answer as to why the County has failed to do anything in the way of protecting the citizens of Garfield County from adverse health and environmental impacts of natural gas development and request unadulterated data from the Twin Creeks deep water monitoring well.
In 2006 the COGCC lifted the moratorium imposed after the 2004 fracking blow out on West Divide Creek.
That seep was conservatively estimated to have released 115 million cubic feet of natural gas and it’s associated toxic compounds into the environment of an area comprising an approximate 3 miles radius.
As you may recall that seep continues to this day and continue to express benzene and other toxic compounds into the groundwater there.
The Garfield County Board of Commissioners agreed to lifting the moratorium under the assurance that the COGCC would exercise appropriate oversight.
The COGCC has failed in every way to do so.
In June 2008 a seep emerged in West Divide Creek – on top on the one from 2004
Since 2009 and not even counting my physical appearances before the County in 2008 – the year of the second seep, I have appeared before the county eight different times to ask 1) that the moratorium be reinstated 2) that a groundwater monitor be installed at the site of the main 2008 and that 3) the county follow through on Dr, Thyne’s recommendations made from his 2009 analysis of West Divide Creek.
On several of those eight occasions, I was assured that the county would follow up on those recommendations. That has yet to occur, and there were a number of additional instances where then oil and gas liaison Judy Jordan attempted to follow through with the recommendations as a matter of budgetary concern.
During that time the COGCC embarked on a 2010 investigation – a third party engineering review of wells in the Mamm Creek area – including the Arbaney well that blew up on March 09 2004. that report detailed critical failures in drilling, cementing and yes – even fracking operational procedures.
Unfortunately – and probably because the investigation failed to consider the hydrology of the seep areas and over relied upon edited Encana data to assure geologic safety… the activity of the seep remains un-sourced, unexplained and unmitigated.
Unfortunately like the Phase I, II and III Hydrogeologic Study commissioned by the County with funds from the 2004 seep fine against EnCana, the COGC Investigation also excluded West Divide Creek from study.
So, West Divide Creek has been excluded from study by the county, the state and the EPA, even though it is the only case I know of in the US where fracking has been officially and directly implicated in the seep from state hearing documents.
During that investigation EnCana conducted a soil gas survey and confirmed that thermogenic gas was indeed expressing into the surface waters of West Divide Creek in the area of the 2008 main seep.
While the COGCC has long argued that that 2008 seep area is well-monitored from the 2004 seep event, it in fact resides far outside the delineated scope of the 2004 monitoring area – to the North, actually.
Despite this validation of my earlier reports, the COGCC continues to attempt to discredit me in it’s “Gasland Correction Document” posted on the state’s website. Further the COGCC approved EnCana’s request to drill directly into the 2004 and 2008 seep hydrogeology.
On January 9th, EnCana began drilling. That area will soon be fracked, and EnCana themselves will soon reveal the risks of fracking better than any compromised study ever could.
This area is still without groundwater monitoring or any type of remedial action by the COGCC. I will remind you that my family receives its drinking water directly from West Divide Creek in a location now in the middle of the 2004 and 2008 main seep areas – one of which remains unacknowledged and unmitigated.
Whether it is air quality or water quality, the County has utterly failed to assume a proactive role in representing its human constituents.
It has overly-relied on industry and COGCC assurances.
It has, therefore, a legacy of under preparation for dealing with impacts.
And it has demonstrated a total failure in recognizing, acknowledging and mitigating those impacts when they occur.
Additionally, to date – some three and half years since originally reporting this contamination incident (now confirmed by EnCana and the COGCC) I have yet to receive any assistance from Garfield County in its promises to follow up with Dr. Thynes recommendations, and I want to know why. And I want the truth.
Discussion which followed...
In the subsequent discussion with the panel of Republican Commissioners, Mike Samson was the first to speak, and I commended his courage for doing so. He contested that the county had done nothing in this instance, noting 1) the county had commissioned Dr. Thyne to assess impacts to West Divide Creek and 2) noting that then oil and gas liaison Judy Jordan had run up against opposition by landowners when she approached them to install county deep ground water monitors.
I acknowledged the county's responsiveness in working with Dr. Thyne, and clarified that it was the county's failure to follow up with his recommendations which I am questioning. Further, I pointed out that I and many other landowners found the county's terms relative to the installation of deep ground water monitors to be onerous, requiring deeded access in perpetuity and approximately five acres of land. (The terms also failed to account for an emergency mitigation plan in the event of a blowout, or appropriate disposal of toxic drilling waste). I informed Commissioner Samson that I had submitted a detailed explanation of my objection to those terms and did not receive a reply. He said he didn't know the terms had been found objectionable by anyone, and in fact had not seen the contract proposal at all. It appeared that none of the Commissioners were familiar with the county's proposal. Despite many landowner's objections, one landowner did agree to those terms and one deep groundwater monitor was installed. I again asked to see those results. The Commissioners seemed surprised the results had been made available on the county's website. I assured the Commissioners I had looked for the result, and they were not - at least in a manner I could discern.
Commissioner Samson suggested that the county revisit the terms of the water monitor agreement, and I agreed that would be an excellent step forward.
I noted the cost of a shallow monitor would be around 5-7 thousand dollars, not counting the costs of sampling. I asked if the county's oil and gas mitigation fund could be used for that purpose, but Commissioner Martin said the funds were not for such purposes.
Commissioner Jankovsky acknowledged he had only heard my side of the West Divide Creek story and would make an effort to discus the matter with both the COGCC and EnCana. I encouraged him to do so. He said he had spoken to someone who had told him back in the old days, they could light West Divide Creek on fire. I assured him emphatically, that I have never been able to light the creek on fire until EnCana began drilling in the region.
It was suggested that I conduct a conversation with the new liaison to see about next steps going forward. He and I scheduled a time for him to visit the area so that the county can 'discover gaps in their understanding of the situation'.
Video or MP3 of those minutes (February 06, 2012) can be found here:
After almost five years of virtual 'radio silence' from our local press on events unfolding on West Divide Creek, KDNK public access radio out of Carbondale, Colorado launched a probing series into natural gas development in Garfield County.
No doubt, this was in part prompted by the threat of drilling advancing into more populated regions of the county, including Glenwood Springs near the area of Four Mile and Thompson Divide www.savethompsondivide.org. As the crow flies, West Divide Creek is just on the backside of Carbondale which enabled industry's rear flank sneak attack on the Thompson Divide area.
In actuality, Carbondale and Redstone are also likely targets of eventual drilling, given the areas' wealth of coal deposits. It's where the "Carbon" came from in "Carbon"dale, and I imagine Redstone still has its coke ovens right off the highway from the old Mid-Continent operation. Coal off-gasses underground into a (hydro-) geologic formation. In a process not well-known and certainly not disclosed, here, and in other areas of the country, like Texas, Virginia and Pennsylvania, the gas is targeted and produced via a single deep natural gas well (usually one on a pad supporting multiple wells) that fracture into multiple formations (layers) of tight sands, shale and coal in order to maximize recovery of the resource.
Ed Williams has embarked on a challenging and difficult project, and handled it with graceful journalistic integrity armed with a honed resistance to hyperbole and a tenacious devotion to fact. For anyone who has read this website or read New York Time's columnist, Ian Urbina's lament in navigating regulatory complexity and accessing industry's secrets, that is assuredly no easy feat.
As a part of that series, Ed interviewed T. Boone Pickens, who ended up inviting me down to Texas to see how safe fracking is.
In an add-on interview with me, I took T. Boone up on his offer.
If he'll buy my plane ticket down to Texas, I'll buy him dinner at the Salt Lick. We'll have an honest conversation with several media folk nearby to share in and document the chit chat.
I'll invite Texas Sharon to go on tour with us, and the two of them can show me and the media all the progress made around Flower Mound.
Then ol T. Boone can come on down to West Divide Creek and slake his thirst straight out of monitor well 23 -- if he's brave enough to believe, as industry claims, that it's perfectly safe.
Radio clips from KDNK: http://www.kdnk.org/story.cfm?id=1328322463841
Here's another perspective on T.
Boone's appreciation of natural gas:
My reply offers another pretty comprehensive rundown of issues to date... and they just keep coming.
In 2008, when the new seep in West Divide Creek emerged following the lifting of the moratorium, I notified the EPA, the COGCC and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. I also informed the Department of Wildlife and BLM.
Following, is the reply I received from the EPA:
For a long while this went nowhere, then in 2010 when the COGCC began looking into the thermogenic contamination of the Moon water well, I asked the EPA to join with the COGCC and county liaison, Judy Jordan, on a field tour whereby I offered to share (again) additional insight into the situation.
The EPA agreed, and had even joined me on a different occasion to observe the creek itself. But, those early efforts soon waned. Subsequent follow up phone calls led nowhere and despite assurances that the EPA was coordinating with the COGCC toward better oversight, I never saw evidence of such an effort actually materialize, let alone lead to any meaningful disclosure or investigation which might reveal the full truth behind the mounting and persisting impacts to West Divide Creek.
A groundwater monitor and sampling in the vicinity of the 2008 main seep area continued to be denied. At the suggestion of the EPA representative assigned my case, I even wrote a letter directly to Lisa Jackson asking for help.
Nothing. No reply... and really... no surprise.
Meanwhile, I worked to have West Divide Creek included in the 2012 EPA Hydraulic Fracturing study. Still... as previous pages of this chronology will show... no dice.
Ian Urbina's March 03, 2011 New York Times article may help point to why.
Pressure Limits Efforts to Police Drilling for Gas
An excerpt from that article: "More than a quarter-century of efforts by some lawmakers and regulators to force the federal government to police the industry better have been thwarted, as E.P.A. studies have been repeatedly narrowed in scope and important findings have been removed."
In 2011 I began hearing from folks on the east slope of Colorado about projected drilling operations. These people were extremely concerned for the health and safety of their families - especially knowing the legacy of regulatory failure behind West Divide Creek. They were now facing the same situation and risks now that urban areas and school properties had been targeted for drilling and, of course, hydraulic fracturing.
These folks were also concerned about the recent news of contamination in Pavillion Wyoming http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/fracking-fear-spreads-139058479.html and were perplexed as to why the EPA had failed to look into the West Divide Creek situation. After all, they reasoned, it's the same operator (EnCana)... it's another geologic anticline... but, this was Colorado, and they wanted to hear that the EPA was being responsive to Colorado contamination - especially in light of state regulatory failures. Unfortunately, I couldn't offer much reassurance.
During the course of subsequent conversations and meetings I learned from one woman looking into the matter that the West Divide Creek file at the EPA was purportedly virtually empty. Nothing to share from my reports of contamination dating back to 2008.
I don't know whether the file is empty or not, but an empty file certainly supports an absence of EPA concern for the groundwater and surface water of West Divide Creek.
As anyone reading this website might guess - no one person in a single lifetime can effectively ramrod the industry as well as all local, state and federal agencies with any level of authority fractured across a broken landscape of law and regulation... especially when it seems apparent there is a significant reluctance to uphold even those few regulation which might apply.
Nonetheless, on February 09, 2012, I sent all fifteen pages of my documented chronology of the 2008 seep to the EPA. Do I think it will result in any meaningful action to protect what is left of West Divide Creek.
In a word: No.
In two words: Hell no.
But I sent it anyway.
Other Relevant Links
Compare the 2004 Seep with the 2008 Seep with video (scroll down to Video section)
Divide Creek Then - 2004 [Seep photos and information]
Divide Creek 'Now' - 2007 [Prior to the seep event of June 28, 2008]
Timeline of events [From January 2004 to present]
COGCC 2004 Divide Creek Seep Order (judgment) and Vital
Exhibit showing faulting. (in
particular, you may find paragraphs 10, 20, 30 and 73 of interest).
Dr. Geoffrey Thyne's (of Science Based
Solutions) presentation to Garfield County
Re: "Sumary of PI and PII Hydrogeologic Characterization Studies - Mamm Creek
Area, Garfield County, CO" This key
PowerPoint presentation and its companion conclusive report provide an outstanding perspective of the dynamics
at play between the hydrology and the geology of this area in particular as
it specifically relates to drilling operations and risks to water supplies.
Please look for these links at the following addresses:
Conclusions - http://garfield-county.com/Index.aspx?page=1149
Incomplete List of Hydraulic Fracturing Constituents (with MSDS sheets)
Garfield County Gas Wells and Pipelines
COGCC Quarterly Complaint Reports
Analysis of the West Divide
All contents of this site, unless
otherwise noted are copyrighted by Lisa Bracken, 2007-2012