At a public workshop last week, Montezuma County gave a tutorial on oil and gas development in the area and heard from residents on the matter.
The meeting centered on a Bureau of Land Management proposal to create a master lease plan for drilling federal minerals in Montezuma and La Plata counties. If it goes forward, an MLP would be drafted to add to current BLM regulations.
“Tell us areas you are concerned about and where the current BLM regulations in are lacking,” said commissioner Keenan Ertel to an audience of 25 citizens.
An overview of the industry and the MLP was presented by James Dietrich, natural resources and public lands coordinator for the county.
“Montezuma County residents have coexisted with oil and gas development since 1921,” Dietrich said. “From the late 1980s until present, drilling activity has been modest.”
From 1921 to 2015, there have been a total of 895 wells drilled in Montezuma County. Drilling activity peaked in the 1960s and 1970s.
In 2015, 2,511 drilling permits were approved in 26 of Colorado’s 64 counties.
Montezuma County had three permits to drill for 2015, and La Plata County had 86 permits.
“Compared to the Front Range, southwest Colorado is not a big player in the industry,” Dietrich said.
The most wells drilled for 2015 were in Weld County at 1,555 wells, and Garfield County, 479 wells.
Currently, Montezuma County has 121 active wells, but not all active wells actually produce. The last well drilled on federal land in the proposed MLP area within Montezuma County was in 2001.
By comparison, Weld County has 22,569 active wells. Eighty-seven percent of Colorado’s 53,690 active wells are in Weld, Garfield, Yuma, La Plata, Las Animas and Rio Blanco counties.
Most of Montezuma county production is in CO2. Of its 121 active wells, 60 percent are for CO2. The county produces 83 percent of the total CO2 produced in the state.
The CO2 gas is pulled from the McElmo Dome, discovered in 1948, and one of the world’s largest deposits of nearly pure CO2.
“Oil and gas activities have a relatively small footprint, but production combined provides over 60 percent of the Montezuma County tax base,” said Dietrich. “Ninety percent of the oil and gas revenue comes from CO2 production.”
Officials estimate the McElmo Dome CO2 field will be played out in about 50 years. It was reported that oil-and-gas production on Canyons of the Ancients National Monument has almost played out, with just three percent of fluid minerals remaining.
Geology of drilling
Montezuma County is in the Paradox Basin geologic zone.
Oil deposits are found in the Gallup formation, 1,245 feet to 1,978 feet down. Natural gas deposits are found in the Ismay and Desert Creek formations 5,700 feet to 8,755 feet down. And CO2 deposits are in the Leadville formation 8,100 feet to 10,100 feet down.
Water wells are typically between 200 to 300 feet down.
Of the 121 active wells in Montezuma County, 17 are on Ute Mountain land, 56 tap federal minerals located under federal land, nine wells tap federal minerals under private land (split estate), and 39 wells are on private land with private minerals (fee).
Fracking status
Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” is a controversial practice that injects sand, water, and chemicals deep underground at high pressure to break free oil and gas from tight rock formations.
Fracking is not a common practice in Montezuma County, Dietrich said. Records from the Colorado Oil and Gas commission show no wells were fracked from 2013 to 2015, and one was fracked in 2012. Total water used to frack the well was reportedly more than 1 million gallons.
It was noted that CO2 wells are not fracked, and horizontal drilling is not the same as fracking.
There are 10 producing wells within the MLP boundary that are mostly CO2. However, they are all on private land with private minerals so they would not be impacted by the BLM regulations or a proposed MLP. Wells on private land with private minerals are regulated by the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission.
MLP needed?
The proposed MLP area in Montezuma County could affect 40,188 acres. Within the proposed boundary there are 23,134 acres of BLM administered lands, and 17,054 acres of split estate (private surface/federal minerals).
Within the proposed boundary, there are 180,318 acres of fee mineral lands (private surface/private mineral) The proposed MLP will not apply to these lands.
Every February, the BLM auctions off leases for oil and gas development of federal minerals. The leasable areas within Montezuma and La Plata counties may or may not get a bidder, so development is not guaranteed.
An MLP in addition to current rules outlined in the BLM’s Resource Management Plan, passed in 2015. MLPs are created to further mitigate drilling impacts in sensitive landscapes such as recreation areas, water sources, wildlife habitats or areas with Native American ruins.
Stipulations in the BLM’s RMP already control oil and gas development. They include no surface occupancy, controlled surface use, and timing limitations, plus more. For example, on BLM land along the escarpment of Mesa Verde there is a no surface occupancy stipulation due to cultural resources.
There is public concern that future oil-and-gas development could negatively impact recreation areas.
Areas of where there could be conflicts are the Phil’s World mountain biking area, the Chutes and Ladders trail network north of the community college, Mud Springs in McElmo Canyon, public lands northwest of Mancos, and BLM areas on the edge of the Weber and Menefee Wilderness Study areas. Drilling is banned in WSAs.
Public debates oil and gas
Oil-and-gas development and a proposal for a Bureau of Land Management master lease plan special continue to be a subject of debate in Montezuma County.
Residents of the Cedar Mesa subdivision, which borders BLM lands potentially available for development, worried about impacts to neighborhood roads, light pollution and noise.
“Our roads are not constructed for heavy truck traffic,” said resident Bruce Short. “Access to BLM lands could be through our neighborhood.”
Resident Stan Mattingly said development could impact areas that are critical winter-range habitat for deer. He added that drilling on a rim above Dolores would need added scrutiny to insure it would not threaten the Dolores River with pollution.
Dexter Gill commented that local resources need to be developed, and that additional regulations of an MLP could drive away companies.
“We need to develop our resources today to create businesses and build our economy into the future,” he said. “The BLM’s Resource Management Plan was just completed and covers everything for regulating the industry, so an MLP would be a waste of taxpayer money and time.”
Tim Miller agreed oil-and-gas development is needed to fuel the local economy.
“We need to be as prosperous as we can by developing resources in a responsible way,” he said. “I want my grandchildren to be able to continue living here. If (development) is not done right, we have our county commissioners and sheriff to stand up for us.”
Ellen Foster urged the MLP boundary to be expanded to provide additional protection from drilling around McPhee Reservoir and the dam.
“An MLP will help us be prepared for the next wave of development,” she said. “Just because there has not been fracking, does not mean there won’t be fracking in the future.”
Commissioner Keenan Ertel reminded the audience that in addition to current BLM regulations, there are also county regulations oil-and-gas companies must follow.
“We mitigate and work out problems through our high-impact permit process, and we have a land-use planning staff that analyzes development,” he said.
Chris Easton urged those against an MLP to keep an open mind and let the process unfold. Several public meetings on the proposed MLP will be held with representatives from both counties to determine one is warranted. The final decision will be up to the BLM.
“This forum has opened my eyes on the need to take a harder look at the stipulations in the RMP, to see if there are holes in it and what might be brought out in an MLP,” Easton said.
jmimiaga@the-journal.com
