<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Sportsmen for Thompson Divide</title>
	<atom:link href="http://sportsmenfortd.org/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://sportsmenfortd.org</link>
	<description>Working to Keep the Thompson Divide Like It Is</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:18:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Pitkin County responds to Thompson Divide drilling request</title>
		<link>http://sportsmenfortd.org/2013/02/24/pitkin-county-responds-to-thompson-divide-drilling-request/</link>
		<comments>http://sportsmenfortd.org/2013/02/24/pitkin-county-responds-to-thompson-divide-drilling-request/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Feb 2013 16:02:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>gmoore</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sportsmenfortd.org/?p=514</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20130223/NEWS/130229942/1077&#38;ParentProfile=1058   ASPEN — Citing concerns about everything from air pollution to road impacts and potential harm to wildlife and water, Pitkin County is urging vigilant monitoring if drilling takes place in the Thompson Divide area within its borders.The county submitted comments Friday to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission in response to SG [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div><a href="http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20130223/NEWS/130229942/1077&amp;ParentProfile=1058">http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20130223/NEWS/130229942/1077&amp;ParentProfile=1058</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>ASPEN — Citing concerns about everything from air pollution to road impacts and potential harm to wildlife and water, Pitkin County is urging vigilant monitoring if drilling takes place in the Thompson Divide area within its borders.The county submitted comments Friday to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission in response to SG Interests&#8217; recent permit application to drill a new gas well in Thompson Divide, in an area west of Carbondale where the prospect of new drilling has triggered a heated local campaign to extinguish gas leases and prohibit future gas and oil development.</p>
<p>The permit application is one of two the Houston-based company filed last month; the other was for a well in Garfield County, near the Pitkin County line. More are anticipated. The county, in its comments, contends that eventual SG development in the 28,824-acre Lake Ridge Unit in Thompson Divide could number roughly 180 well pads and, with four wells per pad, 720 wells. It draws that conclusion based on SG&#8217;s plans for a different unit, containing about 146 proposed wells on 36 pads in a 19,645-acre area.</p>
<p>“Assuming a very conservative estimate of 600 truck trips per well, the traffic impacts alone from this apparent development scenario would have a transformative impact on the Thompson Divide and affected communities,” the county&#8217;s comment letter reads.</p>
<p>The county has asked that the state commission require a visit to the site of the proposed well, between North and Middle Thompson creeks west of Highway 133, once the snow has melted, and accept additional comments after the visit, before making any decision.</p>
<p>The remoteness of the site is of concern on various fronts, the county noted. Emergency response to accidents, for example, might be too late to prevent mishaps from seriously contaminating vulnerable surface waters.</p>
<p>“In remote areas like the Thompson Divide, it can be very difficult to have assurances that permit conditions are in fact being implemented faithfully, and that resources are not damaged,” the letter adds.</p>
<p>The county describes the importance of Thompson Divide to the area watershed and makes a number of recommendations related to analyzing the potential for groundwater contamination. It also lists conditions it wants the state to require related to groundwater protection, including long-term monitoring.</p>
<p>“Thompson Creek, including North, Middle, and South branches, is a pristine watershed with usable groundwater, good stream health, and the most favorable conditions for aquatic life in the broader area,” the letter says.</p>
<p>The county also called for long-term air/ozone monitoring and a plan to curtail development as necessary to protect air quality.</p>
<p>“The importance of maintaining good visibility in Pitkin County cannot be overstated. People do not travel long distances to come here and view mountains shrouded in haze,” the letter states. “They come here for the crisp, breathtaking views for which Colorado is famous.”</p>
<p>The letter also addresses the county&#8217;s concerns about potential impacts on wildlife, noting that Colorado Parks and Wildlife described Thompson Divide as the “elk factory” of the area.</p>
<p>The county said it shares the concerns raised by other jurisdictions, namely Glenwood Springs and Garfield County, regarding the route SG would use to access the wells, including Four Mile Road past Sunlight Mountain Resort.</p>
<p>“Until the access issue is resolved, it will not be possible to accurately understand other impacts flowing from SG&#8217;s proposals on water, wildlife and other values,” the letter states. “This only emphasizes the need to first have a site visit after the snow melts to address access and other resource issues.”</p>
<p>The county comments were due with the state commission on Friday, but county commissioners will host a community meeting regarding Thompson Divide on Wednesday at 6 p.m. in Carbondale Town Hall. The meeting is a chance to bring all sides on the drilling issue together to educate, and hear from, the public, according to the county.</p>
<p><a href="mailto:janet@aspentimes.com">janet@aspentimes.com</a></p>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://sportsmenfortd.org/2013/02/24/pitkin-county-responds-to-thompson-divide-drilling-request/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>SG Interests seeks ‘suspension&#8217; of Thompson Divide leases</title>
		<link>http://sportsmenfortd.org/2013/02/22/sg-interests-seeks-suspension-of-thompson-divide-leases/</link>
		<comments>http://sportsmenfortd.org/2013/02/22/sg-interests-seeks-suspension-of-thompson-divide-leases/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2013 18:20:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>gmoore</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sportsmenfortd.org/?p=507</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22635991/second-energy-company-seeks-suspension-thompson-divide-leases]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22635991/second-energy-company-seeks-suspension-thompson-divide-leases">http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22635991/second-energy-company-seeks-suspension-thompson-divide-leases</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://sportsmenfortd.org/2013/02/22/sg-interests-seeks-suspension-of-thompson-divide-leases/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Residents gather to oppose drilling in Thompson-Divide</title>
		<link>http://sportsmenfortd.org/2013/02/22/residents-gather-to-oppose-drilling-in-thompson-divide/</link>
		<comments>http://sportsmenfortd.org/2013/02/22/residents-gather-to-oppose-drilling-in-thompson-divide/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2013 18:16:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>gmoore</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sportsmenfortd.org/?p=502</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://aspenjournalism.org/2013/02/06/residents-gather-to-oppose-drilling-in-thompson-divide/]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://aspenjournalism.org/2013/02/06/residents-gather-to-oppose-drilling-in-thompson-divide/">http://aspenjournalism.org/2013/02/06/residents-gather-to-oppose-drilling-in-thompson-divide/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://sportsmenfortd.org/2013/02/22/residents-gather-to-oppose-drilling-in-thompson-divide/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>In Colorado, Conservation and Jobs go Hand in Hand, say Voters</title>
		<link>http://sportsmenfortd.org/2012/01/31/in-colorado-conservation-and-jobs-go-hand-in-hand-say-voters/</link>
		<comments>http://sportsmenfortd.org/2012/01/31/in-colorado-conservation-and-jobs-go-hand-in-hand-say-voters/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 20:54:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sportsmenfortd.org/?p=299</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By Scot Kersgaard Monday, January 30, 2012 at 12:20 pm Can a person be both pro-business and pro-environment? In Colorado and surrounding states, the answer is a resounding “yes” according to a poll released today by Colorado College.  A full 67 percent of Colorado voters identify themselves as conservationists, including 62 percent of Republicans and [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div id="content">
<div>By <a title="Posts by Scot Kersgaard" rel="author" href="http://coloradoindependent.com/author/scot-kersgaard">Scot Kersgaard</a><br />
<em>Monday, January 30, 2012 at 12:20 pm</em></div>
<div>Can a person be both pro-business and pro-environment? In Colorado and surrounding states, the answer is a resounding “yes” according to <a href="http://www2.coloradocollege.edu/stateoftherockies/conservationinthewestsurvey_e.html">a poll released today by Colorado College.</a></div>
</div>
<p> A full 67 percent of Colorado voters identify themselves as conservationists, including 62 percent of Republicans and 65 percent of independents. A whopping 93 percent say parks and open space are essential to the state’s economy.</p>
<div><a rel="attachment wp-att-105161" href="http://sportsmenfortd.org/?attachment_id=105161"><img title="mountain biking" src="http://images.coloradoindependent.com/mountain-biking.jpg" alt="" width="307" height="138" /></a> A bill signed into law Monday will make it easier for ski resorts to expand their menu of summer activities.</div>
<div>The results from the 2012 Colorado College State of the Rockies Conservation in the West poll find that Western voters across the political spectrum – from Tea Party supporters to those who identify with the Occupy Wall Street movement and voters in-between – support upholding and strengthening protections for clean air, clean water, natural areas and wildlife.</div>
<p> The survey, completed in Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming by Lori Weigel of Public Opinion Strategies (a Republican firm) and Dave Metz of Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz &amp; Associates (a Democratic firm), found that swing voters across the West – who may be key to deciding the presidential race – nearly unanimously agree that public lands such as national parks, forests, monuments, and wildlife areas are “an essential part” of the economies of these states. Four in five Western voters view having a strong economy and protecting land and water as compatible.</p>
<p> Two-thirds of Western voters say America’s energy policy should prioritize expanding use of clean renewable energy and reducing the need for more coal, oil and gas. Even in states like Wyoming and Montana, which are more often associated with fossil fuels, voters view renewable energy as a local job creator according to the survey.</p>
<p> “Western voters consistently believe that conservation helps create and protect jobs for their states,” said Dave Metz in a press release. “In fact, by a 17 point margin, voters are more likely to say that environmental regulations have a positive impact on jobs in their state rather than a negative one.”</p>
<p> Seven in 10 Western voters support implementation of the Clean Air Act, and updating clean air standards. They see regulations designed to protect land, air, water and wildlife as having a positive impact on public safety (70 percent), the natural beauty of their state (79 percent) and their quality of life (72 percent).</p>
<p> “What we read in the press and what politicians say about an ever-sharpening trade-off between environment and jobs in a deep recession do not square with the views of many Western voters,” said Colorado College economist and State of the Rockies Project faculty director Walt Hecox, PhD. “Instead, those stubborn Westerners continue to defy stereotypes, by arguing that a livable environment and well-managed public lands can be — in fact must be — compatible with a strong economy.”</p>
<p> Western voters voiced support for continued funding of conservation, indicating that even with tight state budgets, they want to maintain investments in parks, water, and wildlife protection. When specific local issues were tested with voters in some states – such as increasing the state’s renewable energy standard in Montana, establishing national monument protections for the Arkansas River canyon in Colorado, and updating energy standards for new homes in Utah – voters said they want to strengthen protections.</p>
<p> “The depth and breadth of the connection between Westerners and the land is truly remarkable — when people are telling us that public lands are essential to their economy, and that they support continued investments in conservation, even in these difficult economic times,” said Lori Weigel. “Westerners are telling us that we’ve got to find a way to protect clean air, clean water, and parks in their states.”</p>
<p> The poll surveyed 2,400 registered voters in six Western states (AZ, CO, NM, UT, WY, MT) January 2 through 5 &amp; 7, 2012, and yields a margin of error of +/- 2.0 percent nationwide and +/- 4.9 statewide.</p>
<p> “We know that visitors come to Durango because of all of the outdoor opportunities they can experience in our backyard. For our business, protecting land and the Colorado River is part of our business model,” said Kirk Komich, owner of the Leeland House and Rochester Hotel in Durango.</p>
<p> Two-thirds of Colorado voters want to reduce America’s need for coal, oil and gas by expanding use of clean, renewable energy — which they see as a local job creator; the same percentage of voters do not want corporate profit and development of public lands to limit public access. Three in four voters want to uphold industry regulations that protect Colorado’s land, air, and water, and see these regulations as having a positive impact on the natural beauty of their state, and their quality of life.</p>
<p> “Coloradans love this state because of the outdoor recreational opportunities, including hunting, fishing, and wildlife-watching,” said Suzanne O’Neill, director of the Colorado Wildlife Federation. “Protecting our land, clean air, and streams requires balancing energy development on public lands with safeguards for important wildlife habitat and open space for all of us to access and enjoy.”</p>
<p> The survey also tested voter attitudes on local issues and elected officials. Sixty-seven percent of Colorado voters voice support for the job being performed by Governor John Hickenlooper. More than 8 in 10 agree, that despite state budget problems, investments in Colorado’s parks, water and wildlife should be maintained.</p>
<p> Seventy-six percent want state Lottery funds to continue to be used to protect parks, wildlife habitat, and natural areas and school construction, instead of being redirected to the general state education budget. Sixty-six percent support protection of some of the lands in the Arkansas River Canyon as a national monument.</p>
<p> “Sportsmen put their money where their mouth is when it comes to funding conservation,” said David Nickum, executive director of Colorado Trout Unlimited. “We were pleased to see that overwhelming majorities of Colorado voters recognize the importance of funding protection of our land, water and wildlife even in the face of state budget problems. In particular, Coloradans remain deeply committed to using lottery funds to support our state’s natural areas.”</p>
<p> In fact, 92 percent of sportsmen – the majority of whom identify as politically conservative or moderate — believe that national parks, forests, monuments and wildlife areas are an “essential part” of the economies of these states. Nearly two-thirds of sportsmen polled also opposed allowing private companies to develop public lands when it would limit the public’s enjoyment of – or access to – these lands, and the same percentage believe in maintaining current conservation measures for land, air and water.</p>
<p> “Investments in conservation of our public lands and water are not only critical to providing quality hunting and fishing opportunities, but also a critical component of the $192 billion sportsmen contribute to our national economy annually,” said Gaspar Perricone, co-director of the Bull Moose Sportsmen’s Alliance. “Sportsmen and women continue to value a stubborn stewardship of our natural places and the recreational opportunities those places provide.”</p>
<p> More than two out of three sportsmen view loss of habitat for fish and wildlife as a serious threat to a quality outdoor experience. Further, 75 percent of sportsmen polled indicated that cuts in funding for parks, habitat and water quality pose a serious threat to their hunting heritage and Western lifestyle.</p>
<p> In Colorado, 66 percent of hunters identified themselves as conservationists, 75 percent of anglers identified that way. Asked whether environmental regulations have a positive or negative impact on jobs in the state, 44 percent said the effect was positive, compared with 29 percent who thought regulations were bad for the job market.</p>
<p><a href="http://coloradoindependent.com/111161/in-colorado-conservation-and-jobs-go-hand-in-hand-say-voters"><span style="color: #ff0000;">http://coloradoindependent.com/111161/in-colorado-conservation-and-jobs-go-hand-in-hand-say-voters</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://sportsmenfortd.org/2012/01/31/in-colorado-conservation-and-jobs-go-hand-in-hand-say-voters/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Gas Company, Opponents Meet to Discuss Thompson Divide Drilling</title>
		<link>http://sportsmenfortd.org/2012/01/23/gas-company-opponents-meet-to-discuss-thompson-divide-drilling/</link>
		<comments>http://sportsmenfortd.org/2012/01/23/gas-company-opponents-meet-to-discuss-thompson-divide-drilling/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:52:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sportsmenfortd.org/?p=273</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/150012 by Andrew Travers, Aspen Daily News Staff Writer Saturday, November 5, 2011 Opponents of natural gas drilling in the Thompson Divide area met last week for the first time with the company seeking to break ground there, as federal authorities continue to review a drilling request despite objections of both of Colorado’s U.S. Senators. [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/150012">http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/150012</a></p>
<p>by <a href="mailto:andrew@aspendailynews.com">Andrew Travers</a>, Aspen Daily News Staff Writer</p>
<div>Saturday, November 5, 2011</div>
<div>
<p>Opponents of natural gas drilling in the Thompson Divide area met last week for the first time with the company seeking to break ground there, as federal authorities continue to review a drilling request despite objections of both of Colorado’s U.S. Senators.<br />
 <br />
Staffers from Sens. Michael Bennet and Mark Udall’s offices also sat in on the meeting in Carbondale last Friday between the Thompson Divide Coalition and natural gas company SG Interests. The meeting was organized by Rep. Scott Tipton.<br />
 <br />
Bennet and Udall last month wrote a letter to the nation’s top two public lands officials, asking to delay a decision that could pave the way for drilling in the area. The senators asked it be put off so that discussions between public officials, SG and concerned locals could move forward and perhaps reach a compromised resolution.<br />
 <br />
Specifically, the senators asked that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) delay reviewing a request from SG to “unitize” 18 of its Divide leases. If approved, it would enable the company to drill wells on a 32,000-acre area, if SG could drill one successful test well there within six months of approval.<br />
 <br />
SG and other gas companies hold more than 70 natural gas drilling leases in the area, which stretches across a rugged forested area from Carbondale to McClure Pass.<br />
 <br />
On Wednesday, BLM director Robert V. Abbey sent a response to Bennet and Udall explaining the unitization process, and stating that it was moving forward. He noted that the already-leased lands are open for development, but that specific drilling sites would require more permits and more extensive review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).<br />
 <br />
“Unitization is an administrative action that is categorically excluded from NEPA analysis,” he added. “However, in accordance with Federal regulations, the BLM will continue to accept comments from the public as it evaluates the unit application.”<br />
 <br />
David Boyd, spokesman for the BLM in Colorado, confirmed the review is proceeding.<br />
 <br />
“We are continuing to carefully review and discuss it,” he said.<br />
 <br />
Meanwhile, last week’s meeting brought together SG vice president Robbie Guinn, who traveled to Carbondale from Houston, and Thompson Divide Coalition members for their first meeting.<br />
 <br />
“It was a very positive meeting, in that we were just listening to each other,” Divide Coalition chair Dorothea Farris said. “They are not negotiations. They are conversations.”<br />
 <br />
The largely informational meeting included a geologist’s presentation from SG that mirrored one the company gave to the BLM for the unitization request. The coalition countered with a specialized geologist of its own, who focused on alleged adverse environmental impact.<br />
 <br />
Farris said they hope to meet again after the new year.<br />
 <br />
Bennet and Udall’s letter last month was hopeful such meetings would be fruitful: “After further discussions between parties, it may well be that a viable, consensus-based development plan for the area may emerge.”<br />
 <br />
The complex bureaucratic cast of characters converging on the Thompson Divide controversy also includes the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, which last month issued a ruling upholding the 2001 “roadless rule” restricting road-building on undeveloped public lands including much of the Thompson Divide area.<br />
 <br />
That rule, enacted by President Bill Clinton as he left office, was later tweaked by President George W. Bush to allow more development. The Divide leases were issued under Bush’s less stringent roadless rule. But it’s still unclear how, if at all, the court decision will affect drilling or the unitization request.</p>
<div><em><br />
andrew@aspendailynews.com</em></div>
<div><em> </em></div>
<div><em> </em></div>
<div><em> </em></div>
<p><em> </p>
<p></em></div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://sportsmenfortd.org/2012/01/23/gas-company-opponents-meet-to-discuss-thompson-divide-drilling/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Coalition Organizing Glenwood, Four Mile to Oppose Gas Drilling</title>
		<link>http://sportsmenfortd.org/2012/01/22/a-view-from-a-pothole/</link>
		<comments>http://sportsmenfortd.org/2012/01/22/a-view-from-a-pothole/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Jan 2012 19:35:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sportsmenfortd.org/?p=258</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thompson Divide Coalition draws a receptive crowd Heather McGregor Post Independent Editor Glenwood Springs, CO Colorado 01/13/2012 The red rectangle shows the 22,500 acres of the proposed Lake Ridge Unit, an aggregation of 18 gas leases proposed by SG Interests of Houston. Most of the land is part of the White River National Forest. Map [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
<h1>Thompson Divide Coalition draws a receptive crowd</h1>
<h2>
<div>Heather McGregor<br />
Post Independent Editor<br />
Glenwood Springs, CO Colorado</div>
<div>01/13/2012</div>
</h2>
</div>
<div>
<h2>
<div>
<div><a href="javascript:NewWindow(600,700,'/apps/pbcs.dll/misc?URL=/global/zoom.pbs&amp;Site=GP&amp;Date=20120113&amp;Category=VALLEYNEWS&amp;ArtNo=120119963&amp;Ref=AR&amp;Profile=1065&amp;s=0&amp;t=0&amp;Z='+encodeURIComponent('The red rectangle shows the 22,500 acres of the proposed Lake Ridge Unit, an aggregation of 18 gas leases proposed by SG Interests of Houston. Most of the land is part of the White River National Forest.')+'&amp;P='+encodeURIComponent('Map courtesy Community for Thompson Divide'));"><img src="http://www.postindependent.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=GP&amp;Date=20120113&amp;Category=VALLEYNEWS&amp;ArtNo=120119963&amp;Ref=AR&amp;Profile=1065&amp;maxw=300&amp;MaxH=300" border="0" alt="The red rectangle shows the 22,500 acres of the proposed Lake Ridge Unit, an aggregation of 18 gas leases proposed by SG Interests of Houston. Most of the land is part of the White River National Forest." /></a></div>
<div><a href="javascript:NewWindow(600,700,'/apps/pbcs.dll/misc?URL=/global/zoom.pbs&amp;Site=GP&amp;Date=20120113&amp;Category=VALLEYNEWS&amp;ArtNo=120119963&amp;Ref=AR&amp;Profile=1065&amp;s=0&amp;t=0&amp;Z='+encodeURIComponent('The red rectangle shows the 22,500 acres of the proposed Lake Ridge Unit, an aggregation of 18 gas leases proposed by SG Interests of Houston. Most of the land is part of the White River National Forest.')+'&amp;P='+encodeURIComponent('Map courtesy Community for Thompson Divide'));"></a>The red rectangle shows the 22,500 acres of the proposed Lake Ridge Unit, an aggregation of 18 gas leases proposed by SG Interests of Houston. Most of the land is part of the White River National Forest.</div>
<h4>Map courtesy Community for Thompson Divide</h4>
</div>
<div>GLENWOOD SPRINGS, Colorado — A meeting meant to begin organizing Glenwood Springs and Four Mile residents about possible gas drilling in Thompson Divide drew more than 30 people Wednesday.</div>
<p>For many, the meeting was an eye-opener about the potential for modern gas drilling along the western edge of the Roaring Fork Valley, along with the use of Grand Avenue, Midland Avenue and Four Mile Road as a possible access route for gas industry trucks.</p>
<p>“When you talk about truck traffic, boy, Glenwood will be at the hub. All of these trucks will originate from I-70 and come across the bridge into Glenwood Springs,” said Judy Fox-Perry, secretary of the Carbondale-based Thompson Divide Coalition.</p>
<p>Coalition board members originally called the meeting with a few Glenwood Springs and Four Mile residents to plan an outreach campaign. But after news of the meeting hit the local media, a much larger crowd of residents turned out.</p>
<p>They came loaded with questions about drilling and its potential impacts on air and water quality, and the impacts of industry truck traffic on city and county roads.</p>
<p>“Are our waters going to get polluted?” asked John Traul, a Four Mile resident. What would be the recourse, he asked, if Four Mile Creek or the water table underlying Four Mile neighborhoods were to become polluted?</p>
<p>The Coalition leaders urged residents to send comments to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management opposing the current hot issue related to drilling in the Thompson Divide area — the unitization request filed with BLM by Houston-based SG Interests.</p>
<p>While the Thompson Divide area sprawls across 221,500 acres of national forest and BLM lands west of Carbondale, the unitization request is focused on a rectangular swath of 32,000 acres extending from the ridge just west of the Oak Meadows subdivision south to the Thompson Creek drainage southwest of Carbondale.</p>
<p>SG Interests is seeking unitization of 18 leases into what is called the Lake Ridge Unit. The company owns 16 of the leases, while Encana Oil and Gas (USA) owns the other two. All are due to expire in mid-2013, according to BLM spokesman David Boyd.</p>
<p>Unitization is normally a routine approval granted by BLM to place many adjacent gas leases into a common unit. Once unitized, companies can take a regional and long-term approach to gas development.</p>
<p>By developing one producing gas well somewhere in the unit, leases in the entire unit are secured for development any time in the future. Leases that would normally expire if they hadn&#8217;t been developed within 10 years are extended indefinitely, giving companies the option to resume drilling anywhere in the unit when market conditions are favorable, Fox-Perry told the group in her presentation.</p>
<p>The Coalition is working to stymie the unitization request. Colorado&#8217;s two U.S. senators have asked BLM to slow down the unitization approval and consider public comment, and the Coalition is asking citizens to send comments to the BLM urging denial.</p>
<p>Boyd said the agency is “carefully reviewing” the unitization request and the public comments, and continues to accept letters on the subject.</p>
<p>The time frame for issuing a decision on the Lake Ridge unitization remains uncertain, he said, but BLM will make a public announcement once it issues a decision.</p>
<p>Boyd noted that if industry filed an actual gas well development proposal, it must go through a public review process.</p>
<p>Stopping the unitization is part of a larger campaign by the Thompson Divide Coalition, which has been working since 2008 to prevent drilling in the entire Thompson Divide area before it starts. Members are working on a two-pronged campaign:</p>
<p>• Pass a bill in Congress to permanently withdraw the Thompson Divide area from gas leasing.</p>
<p>• Raise funds to buy out the area&#8217;s 81 existing but as yet undeveloped gas leases.</p>
<p>Fox-Perry noted that there&#8217;s no point in buying out leases unless the permanent withdrawal is enacted, because current rules require BLM to issue new leases whenever older leases expire.</p>
<p>Buoyed by the high level of interest at the organizing meeting Wednesday, Coalition leaders now plan to host another educational meeting in a larger venue, said board member Jock Jacober.</p>
<h1><a href="mailto:hmcgregor@postindependent.com">hmcgregor@postindependent.com</a></h1>
</h2>
<p> </p>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://sportsmenfortd.org/2012/01/22/a-view-from-a-pothole/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No. 6 News Story of 2011: Houston Company Proposed Gas Drilling in Thompson Divide</title>
		<link>http://sportsmenfortd.org/2011/12/16/test-post/</link>
		<comments>http://sportsmenfortd.org/2011/12/16/test-post/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 20:50:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sportsmenfortd.org/?p=168</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[John Colson Post Independent Staff Opposition to unitization wins support of Sens. Bennet, Udall Glenwood Springs Post Independent The battle grew hotter this year over plans by a Houston-based energy company, SG Interests, to drill for natural gas in the Thompson Divide area west of Carbondale. In particular, opponents of large-scale drilling in the area [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h2><a href="mailto:jcolson@postindependent.com">John Colson</a><br />
Post Independent Staff</h2>
<h1>Opposition to unitization wins support of Sens. Bennet, Udall</h1>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<h2><a title="Glenwood Springs Post Independent" href="http://www.postindependent.com/">Glenwood Springs Post Independent</a></h2>
<div>
<div>
<div><!-- Article template for generic article page --></div>
<p><!-- google_ad_section_start --></p>
<div>The battle grew hotter this year over plans by a Houston-based energy company, SG Interests, to drill for natural gas in the Thompson Divide area west of Carbondale.</div>
<p>In particular, opponents of large-scale drilling in the area raised objections to an application by SG Interests to “unitize” 18 leases, encompassing roughly 32,000 acres of mineral rights, in a proposed roadless area known as the Lake Ridge section.</p>
<p>Thompson Divide itself encompasses approximately 220,000 acres of remote and relatively undeveloped terrain, including the divide between Thompson Creek, which flows into the Crystal River, and West Divide Creek, which flows into the Colorado south of Silt.</p>
<p>According to attorney Peter Hart of the Wilderness Workshop, 13 of SG Interests&#8217; leases in the Thompson Divide area are set to expire in 2013.</p>
<p>Unitization is a federal process for combining certain mineral lease holdings by one or more companies into a single management unit.</p>
<p>That would allow SG Interests to maintain the leases “for the foreseeable future,” Hart told the Aspen Times in June, explaining that he believes the company wants to prolong the life of the leases through the unitization process.</p>
<p>Robin Guinn, a vice president for SG Interests, countered in a letter to the editor published on June 30 that the company has a reputation for being “environmentally responsible” in its drilling activities in western Colorado.</p>
<p>He maintained that the unitization process is the least potentially harmful way of drilling in the Thompson Divide. It would minimize disturbance and maximize production of gas from fewer wells.</p>
<p>“In no way does the unitization process short-circuit any federal requirements for gas exploration and development on public lands,” Guinn declared in his letter.</p>
<p>A group of activists based in Carbondale, the Thompson Divide Coalition, is fighting the unitization proposal as well as the entire idea of further gas exploration in Thompson Divide.</p>
<p>The coalition is made up of environmentalists, ranchers and recreationists, and hopes to protect the entire area from development of 81 mineral leases covering approximately 105,000 acres.</p>
<p>In support of the TDC&#8217;s goals, U.S. Sens. Michael Bennet and Mark Udall wrote to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar asking that the unitization request be delayed and the process be opened up to more comment by the stakeholders involved.</p>
<p>Numerous area governments have sent letters of support for the TDC&#8217;s goals, including both Pitkin and Garfield counties, although the Garfield Board of County Commissioners also called on the BLM to move forward with the unitization process as required under federal law.</p>
<p>SG Interests, along with its supporters in the region, is pressing the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, which handles unitization on federal lands, to get on with the process and grant the request.</p>
<p>As of early December, the BLM had not set a timeline for review of the request.</p>
</div>
</div>
<p><!-- google_ad_section_end --></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://sportsmenfortd.org/2011/12/16/test-post/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
