Connecting the dots between gas industry tycoons and the NAT GAS Act requires ink by the barrel load.

A recent investigation by DeSmogBlog and PRWatch exposes just who stands to benefit from the NAT GAS Act and the expensive tactics being used to ensure it flies through congress. The most recent tactic is a public relations campaign by Chesapeake Energy, which included the gas giant’s “Declaration of Energy Independence.”

Chesapeake Energy’s CEO, Aubrey McClendon, is joined by T. Boone Pickens, when it comes to who will benefit from NAT GAS Act. The legislation calls for the government to cut checks to any company that transfers its fleet of vehicles to methane gas and to have citizens shell out their taxes so that methane gas fueling stations can be constructed throughout the country.

According to the DeSmog report, Chesapeake, “will pour $150 million into Clean Energy Fuels Corporation (CEF). Energy tycoon and hedge fund manager T. Boone Pickens sits on CEF’s Board of Directors and owns a 41 percent stake, according to the company’s March, 2011 10-Q filing. That money will go toward funding methane gas fueling stations along federal highways spanning the country.

The timing of Chesapeake’s launch of the “Declaration of Energy Dependence” is no coincidence. The NAT GAS Act is at a critical stage. It currently has 183 co-sponsors, but it is also being considered at a time when the United States is trying to reduce handouts from America’s taxpayers. But with the help a public relations army that even includes a methane gas funded television network, McClendon and Pickens are betting they can buy another handout for the fossil fuel industry.

The Hanger Rule: How many times can one plug pro-industry talking points?

Isaac Newton taught us that for every action there is an equal or opposite reaction, and in John Hanger’s case that means answering in pro-industry talking points anytime something bad is said about the gas industry. We call it  ‘The Hanger Rule.’

Hanger is the former head of Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection and now works in Harrisburg as a lawyer with Eckert Seamans law firm as an advisor on energy and environmental issues. While he is mostly out of public life, Hanger emerges with blog posts within hours of almost any negative report about hydraulic fracturing that hits the mainstream media.

In February, Hanger responded to Ian Urbina’s piece in The New York Times that identified concerns about lax regulation of hydraulic fracturing in Pennsylvania with a series of posts to his blog, These concerns included such facts as: The Pennsylvania waste treatment facilities were ill- equipped to remove radioactive material from fracking wastewater before it was discharged into rivers and waterways throughout the Keystone State. This rapid reaction led Checks and Balances Project Director, Andrew Schenkel, to pay a visit to Hanger’s Harrisburg office to gain a better understanding of his perspective.

Hanger is a proud man who touts the numerous regulations he helped to impose on the gas industry while in office. It was perhaps natural that a man who dedicated so much of his life to improving regulations in Pennsylvania may be a bit defensive about allegations that his work was ineffective or simply did not go far enough. However, what was perhaps most striking was Hanger’s tone throughout the interview. He wasn’t combative. He wasn’t defensive. Instead, he maintained a friendly nature while talking in sound bites. Almost all of his answers mimicked the familiar rhetoric of the gas industry. In fact, Hanger touched upon almost 30 industry talking points.

As you can see in the video, Hanger uses key gas industry messaging, that gas is a cleaner alternative to oil and coal, 15 times.

Hanger’s comments are in line with the words of energy tycoons T. Boone Pickens and Aubrey McClendon of Chesapeake Energy.

-“Natural gas is about 30 percent cleaner than petroleum and produces no particulate emissions.” -Pickens

-“Natural gas has already achieved significant market share gains in the electrical generation market at the expense of coal largely on the basis of price, but also because of environmental issues.” –McClendon

Weeks after the first Urbina story, Hanger reemerged during the release of a new study that suggested that gas may not be a cleaner alternative to coal. The study, which was conducted by scientists at Cornell University, simply suggested that more research should be devoted to finding out if gas is as clean as many in the industry suggests. Following the release of that study, the gas industry embarked on a campaign to discredit the study’s authors including lead scientist Robert Howarth. A Google search of Howarth’s name generates a top search result as a link (paid for by the America’s Natural Gas Alliance [ANGA]), which casts doubt on his study. The link takes readers to quotes from John Hanger who says, “Professor Howarth does want the result to which he gets. He is a committed opponent of gas drilling and fracking, a position to which he is entitled in this free country.”

Following ANGA’s ad campaign, the Checks and Balances Project caught up with the Howarth. The scientist had no problem explaining that his conclusion, that more data is needed to find out if gas is on par with coal in terms of emissions, was not out of line. What was out of line, according to Howarth, was the lengths to which pro-gas advocates had gone to ruin his reputation. “It used to be that if you Googled my name… my boring lab site at Cornell University was the top pick up. Now there’s an ad from the gas industry, which has a critique of why my science is wrong. They are trying hard to push back,” said Howarth.

The latest news about gas broke in late June when Urbina filed another report for the Times that quotes an industry insider saying that rhetoric about the supply of gas is comparable to a “Ponzi scheme.” Since this story focused more on economic concerns rather than environmental ones it seemed unlikely Hanger would weigh in. But he did. “Would anyone imagine more sensationalistic narratives than radiation, Ponzi, and Enron?” asked Hanger. He continued, “Consistent with this reporter’s method, today’s article uses often anonymous statements to paint a sensational narrative and leaves out or underplays critical information that is inconvenient to establishing the credibility of the dominant anti-gas narrative.”

These comments led the Checks and Balances Project to go back and review its interview with Hanger from earlier this year. The point was to see if Hanger had weighed in on the economics of drilling for gas in Pennsylvania. It turns out Hanger did – using pro-industry talking points 13 times throughout the conversation.

Once again Hanger sounds a lot like McClendon, except with no soft background music as you can observe in this video.

-“CNG costs about 40& less than gasoline. Natural gas is abundant, American shale basins contain an ocean of natural gas”

During the initial interview, Hanger was asked if he was currently working for the gas industry or if Eckert Seamans was planning to assign Hanger any gas industry clients. At the time Hanger said he had no gas clients but added he wouldn’t rule out working for them. While the industry is not currently paying Hanger, what you hear in his interviews  certainly sounds like he is.

America’s Natural Gas Alliance Targets Cornell Research Professor in Smear Campaign

The gas industry has embarked on another discreditation campaign, this time against a research professor at Cornell University.

Robert Howarth is a biogeochemist and ecosystem scientist who recently authored a study that said gas may produce as much greenhouse gas emissions as coal production. Howarth’s study has gained much attention, especially from the America’s Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA), who apparently felt so threatened by Howarth’s work that they embarked on a discreditation campaign.

All one has to do is give ‘Howarth’ a quick Google search to notice that the first thing that pops up is a smear campaign against the professor. The first link from the search result takes you to the ANGA site where several “experts” explain why they think the study is wrong.

“It used to be that if you Googled my name and my boring lab site at Cornell University was the top pick up. Now there’s an ad from the gas industry which has a critique of why my science is wrong. They are trying hard to push back,” said Howarth.

As for the criticisms made by those on the America’s Natural Gas Alliance, Howarth describes them as being “way off base,” and indicative of the fact that the experts may not have even read his report.  “They say things like we didn’t consider the electricity generation and we did. It is in there. You just have to read our paper,” he said.

Others involved in the Cornell study like Anthony Ingraffea, say the attacks on the study and those who conducted it have become personal, which he says he expected. “For the industry to take an approach that attacks Bob and indirectly me, my name is mentioned, is not a good way to conduct a scientific response to what we think is a scientific inquiry. So I am disappointed but not surprised,” Ingraffea said.

Discredidation campaigns have been a frequent concern of citizens who have tried to speak out about fears surrounding gas production. In western Colorado several landowners have described what they call, “economic blackmail” as means of silencing any landowner fears that hydraulic fracturing, or fracking as it is known, is contaminating water supplies and causing other health problems. Another Colorado researcher, who now teaches at the University of Wyoming, says he lost his job at the Colorado School of Mines after doing a study that linked fracking to contamination in the West Divide Creek in Garfield County, Colorado. And as recently as April, citizens in Pennsylvania expressed frustration at the fact they were allowed to speak at a public hearing in Harrisburg, only after several pro-industry voices got speak first.

Now, thanks to some cash from the America’s Natural Gas Alliance, it appears scientists from Cornell University are the latest to have their reputations sullied by the gas industry.

Breaking from DeSmogBlog

DeSmogBlog today released a comprehensive report on the dangers posed by hydraulic fracturing to public drinking water, land and our health. Based on the findings of the report and recent events, DeSmogBlog is calling for a national moratorium on fracking until further independent research demonstrates that the process does not contaminate drinking water, pollute land or impact the global climate.

See DeSmogBlog’s post below and study here.

Fracking the Future: How Unconventional Gas Threatens Our Water, Health and Climate – Report

The United States is at the center of a high profile controversy over the threats posed by unconventional gas drilling, particularly surrounding the industry’s hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling techniques. Amidst the dirty energy industry’s rush to drill the last of America’s dwindling fossil fuel reserves, a growing number of independent scientists, politicians, environmental organizations and impacted citizens are urging the nation’s lawmakers to adopt a more cautious and informed approach to the fracked gas boom.The oil and gas industry, however, is fighting back against calls for caution, suggesting that it has everything under control – much like it did prior to BP’s offshore drilling disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

In a new report released today, “Fracking the Future: How Unconventional Gas Threatens Water, Health, and Climate,” DeSmogBlog details the concerns that scientists, cancer specialists, ecologists, investigative journalists and others have raised about the unconventional gas boom. Featuring original interviews and unpublicized reports, “Fracking The Future” delves into many of the key issues in the unconventional gas debate.

DeSmogBlog is calling for a nationwide moratorium on fracking, citing the fact that the potential impacts on water, health, and climate appear greater than previously understood. A moratorium is necessary to protect the public while fracking is studied much more thoroughly in order to determine if the risks of this practice outweigh the benefits.

Additionally, since state regulators have failed to safeguard the public from the ill effects of gas fracking, federal health and safety officials must be empowered to hold the gas industry accountable for damage to public health, drinking water and the environment.

The report traces the massive industry lobbying efforts to confuse the public and stifle long-overdue federal oversight of the unconventional gas drilling bonanza. We review the sordid history of industry favoritism by the Bush administration, typified by the infamous Halliburton Loophole, which created a recipe for recklessness that has led to air and water contamination and drilling-related accidents.  But the prioritization of industry greed above public health and safety didn’t start there.

Since the Reagan era, those charged with protecting health and the environment have instead worked with the gas industry to minimize public awareness of its practices, and to hide the early warning signs regarding the inherent dangers of drilling deeper into the Earth for fossil fuels. State agencies have been pressured to accommodate the industry’s increasingly dangerous drilling techniques, and have largely enabled the poor, unmonitored practices common in the industry today.

The gas industry is investing millions of dollars each year to restrict oversight to the state level and thwart all federal involvement. The number of gas industry lobbyists has increased seven-fold in recent years, exhibiting the dangerous political sway the dirty energy industry exercises in Washington and at the local level across the nation.

Industry front groups like Energy in Depth (EID) play a pivotal role in the dissemination of misinformation and efforts to attack and silence those who attempt to call polluters to account.

Despite EID’s claims to represent small, independent “mom and pop” gas producers, internal industry documents uncovered by DeSmogBlog reveal that the group was created with seed funding from Big Oil multinationals. When communicating with its industry friends, EID continues to repeatedly tout the funding it receives from BP, Halliburton, Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and other oil giants that certainly don’t fit the “mom and pop shop” characterization.

With international attention focused on the U.S. experience with unconventional gas, “Fracking the Future” urges a cautious approach and much greater industry transparency.  The public deserves to know the true costs of fracked unconventional gas before allowing the oil and gas industry to carry on with its pursuit of this fossil fuel.

Gas patch scientists explain how hydraulic fracturing can permanently contaminate public water supplies

Accounts from two experts show there are plenty of opportunities for toxic chemicals to enter drinking water supplies

As gas industry leaders prepare to discuss hydraulic fracturing at a congressional field meeting in California and at a Representatives’ briefing in DC, it will be interesting to hear what is said about the possibility of water contamination from hydraulic fracturing.

As recently as a week ago one contamination expert went on the record explaining exactly how the hydraulic fracturing process could contaminate water supplies.  The expert is Dr. Conrad ‘Dan’ Volz, former director of the University of Pittsburgh’s Center for Healthy Environments and Communities, who has testified on hydraulic fracturing before Congress and appeared as an expert as part of water contamination investigations on ABC news.

Volz spoke with Checks and Balances Project director Andrew Schenkel last week at a public hearing on fracking in Pennsylvania.

“[Wells] are going to leak and they are going to leak when the cement shrinks and when the cement shrinks it pulls away from the geological layer that it is sealed from and then it serves as a conduit as straight into ground water aquifers,” Volz said. When asked if the chemicals could travel miles upward towards aquifers that lie well above the bottom of hydraulically fracked wells, Volz replied, “of course” (see video below).

Volz’s comments reveal how fracking, like all industrial processes, is an imperfect process. While many in the industry, like Aubrey McClendon of Chesapeake Energy and T.Boone Pickens have repeatedly said that water contamination from fracking simply doesn’t happen, Volz’s remarks point out that not only has contamination occured, but that there is plenty of potential for contamination because of the very nature of what is involved with fracking. The imperfect integrity of the concrete casings that frack wells are lined with is one obvious part of the fracking process that could lead to contamination. There are also complicated pressure dynamics to deal with at the extreme subterranean depths that fracking wells are drilled into.

These complicated processes don’t even take into account the transporting of chemical-laced fracking fluids above ground and the millions of gallons of toxic wastewater that result from a produced well. The diagram below shows several different points of the fracking process where water contamination could occur.

How Natural Gas Drilling Contaminates Drinking Water Sources

During a visit to Colorado in early 2011, Dr. Geoffrey Thyne, a geologist who studies drilling at the Enhanced Oil Recovery Institute at the University of Wyoming, explained to the Checks and Balances Project that the fracking process is most vulnerable to accidental water contamination at the surface. Like Volz, Thyne did agree that there’s certainly possibility of aquifer contamination based on flaws in the concrete casings of fracking wells as well as the other uncertainties that lie underground. But it is above ground that Thyne is most concerned about.

“You are handling millions of gallons of fluid at the surface. It is easy to spill. It happens all the time. Valves jam up, pipes break, this is not without hazard,” Thyne said.

Thyne is well known for his West Divide Creek Study in Colorado, which is widely considered one of the first studies that conclusively linked fracking chemicals to water contamination in Garfield County, Colorado. When talking about the possibility of handling chemicals without causing any contamination, Thyne pointed out that even the most careful handlers of high amounts of chemicals make mistakes. He points to the United States military, which he says conducts the largest scale industrial processes in the world.

“It has an incredibly good safety record, but still things break, things go wrong, somebody doesn’t do a careful enough inspection, sometimes it’s also an act of nature. It is impossible to assure one hundred percent safety in any of these processes.”

Both Volz and Thyne’s comments and research directly refute much of the rhetoric of the oil and gas industry, and even some regulators, who claim with certainty that the hydraulic fracturing process does not contaminate water supplies. This raises many questions, one of which is what happens once contamination occurs. When asked if contamination to something like aquifers could be completely undone, Volz said, “No, you cannot ‘uncontaminate’ it. Not in the way that we think you can uncontaminate it. If it is a confined aquifer there is no ‘uncontaminating’ it.”

The scientists’ comments suggest that there is plenty to be concerned about when it comes to the large-scale hydraulic fracturing taking place in the states like Pennsylvania, Colorado, Wyoming, Texas, Oklahoma and New Mexico. In all the fracking states there are different regulations, different ways of dealing with fracking fluids and fracking wastewater. And in all of these states, according to the words of these scientists, there is plenty of potential for water contamination from fracking both above and below the ground.

THE BALANCE SHEET: APRIL 26, 2011

Our weekly update to unravel the industry and political spin around the energy debate


IN CASE YOU MISSED IT

WE’RE IN THE WRONG LINE OF WORK

While Americans are suffering from pain at the pump, Halliburton reported last week that its first quarter revenue set a company record at $5.3 billion, which is up from $3.8 billion in the first quarter of 2010. First quarter profits were up 148 percent from $206 million in 2010 to $511 million in 2011.

Halliburton cited increased U.S. onshore drilling activity as the reason for its success, with Chairman Dave Lesar stating, “North America delivered strong performance as margins progressed due to increased activity while Eastern Hemisphere operating income was significantly impacted by geopolitical events in North Africa, delays in Iraq, and typical seasonality.”

ANOTHER EARTH DAY, ANOTHER SPILL

A Chesapeake Energy Corp. well blowout occurred in Northern Pennsylvania Tuesday, spilling up to tens of thousands of gallons of toxic, chemical-laden fluid onto area residential land and contaminating a tributary of the Susquehanna River. The incident may be the most serious fracking accident in the history of the commonwealth’s Marcellus Shale development. DeSmogBlog has the story.

WORD GAMES

Last week, Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Director David Neslin testified before a Senate committee looking into hydraulic fracturing’s less than spotless track record on safety. Contrary to his testimony, where he asserted that groundwater contamination from fracking has never occurred, Neslin told The Checks and Balances Project immediately following the hearing that oil and gas production in Colorado had indeed led to contamination. Most drilling is fracking, so to say fracking does not cause groundwater contamination is disingenuous at best. Watch how Neslin and industry representatives use rhetorical tactics to excuse corporate responsibility for toxic fracking fluid casing leaks and pit overflows.

PRICE, NOT POLICY, DETERMINES HEALTH OF WESTERN ENERGY DEVELOPMENT

Headwater Economics on Tuesday released a report analyzing the relative success of states and communities to maximize energy development’s benefits and minimize its costs. The report concludes with a series of policy recommendations for communities trying to achieve that goal. In five Rocky Mountain, energy-producing states – Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming – Headwater Economics discovered that common sense standards and protections did not hamper energy production. Price was the ultimate factor in determining whether energy development occurs. Read the full report.

DID WE LEARN OUR LESSON FROM THE GULF OIL SPILL DISASTER?

Checks and Balances Deputy Director Matt Garrington asks that question in his guest-commentary piece for Sunday’s Denver Post. Give it a read and let us know what you think.


DID YOU KNOW?

OIL & GAS NY LOBBY FUNDS UP 400 PERCENT IN TWO YEARS
In New York State last year, the oil and gas industry spent $1.6 million on lobbying to fight common sense protections from oil & gas fracking impacts, up from $400,000 in 2008.


COMING UP THIS WEEK

BLM TO REVIEW COMMERCIAL OIL SHALE LEASING PROGRAM

The Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management will host public hearings in three Western states – Colorado, Utah and Wyoming – beginning today to gather input from residents and experts as they review the federal oil shale leasing program. Find out more about the hearings.

Now that gas prices are hovering around $4 per gallon, risky schemes like oil shale are back in the national debate. Oil shale is pure science fiction, as companies have failed to produce commercial oil from oil shale despite a hundred years of experimentation.

Chairman Doc Hastings (R-WA), Subcommittee Chairman Lamborn (R-CO), Rep. Scott Tipton (R-CO) and Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) have all been throwing about this fantastic tale. Compare what politicians are saying to those in the oil and gas industry, who believe viable oil shale is a decade out or more.

Furthermore, oil shale today is being conflated with shale gas and shale oil, giving the false impression that oil shale is ready for prime time. This has led to inaccurate rhetoric, and it has the potential to mislead investors, policymakers and other Americans interested in real energy solutions.

Compare what politicians are saying to those in the oil and gas industry, who believe viable oil shale is a decade out or more: Oil Shale Quotes – Congress v Industry


CONTACT US

Twitter: @checksandbals | Email: tips@checksandbalances.org

State regulator admits, but not to Congress, that gas production led to water contamination in Colorado

Neslin’s narrow definition of hydraulic fracturing misleads Committee members

**As Pennsylvanians deal with the breaking news that wastewater from a Chesapeake hydraulic fracturing well blowout has entered their drinking supplies, similar stories continue to unfold in Colorado.**

Within minutes after his testimony about the safety of hydraulic fracturing in front of the United States Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works Committee last week, Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Director David Neslin said that gas production in Colorado has indeed led to groundwater contamination throughout the state. But when testifying, Neslin repeatedly told members of the committee that he had no “verifiable evidence” that fracking had contaminated groundwater supplies or aquifers in Colorado.

Yes, literally moments after the committee hearing ended, Neslin validated what many Coloradans already know: gas development in the state has contaminated Colorado ground water. In an interview with the Checks and Balances Project, Neslin divulged a few details he left out of his testimony. “We have not found a verifiable instance of hydraulic fracturing contaminating ground water, but oil and gas development has contaminated ground water in other ways. Sometimes a pit leaks, sometimes a pit overflows” (emphasis added).

Neslin justifies the contradiction by adopting a blinkered, compartmentalized definition of hydraulic fracturing. By his definition, pit leaks, overflows and even cracks in concrete pipe casings are not considered part of the fracking process, despite being essential components to gas development in Colorado.

Like Neslin, industry also defines hydraulic fracturing using rhetorical tactics. Speaking in April at a journalism lecture, Chesapeake Energy Corp. CEO Aubrey McClendon told his audience that, “We can tear up a road, we can be noisy, we can create dust, we can hurt somebody, and sometimes there is a lack of transparency about operations. All those are legitimate concerns, but fracking is not the story” (emphasis added).

This type of messaging has even penetrated national politics. On Thursday morning, the day after a the Chesapeake gas well blew out, spilling thousands of gallons of toxic fracking fluid, the same senator Neslin addressed during his meeting, James Inhofe (R-OK) said, on record, that, “[There’s] never been one case — documented case — of groundwater contamination in the history of the thousands and thousands of hydraulic fracturing” (emphasis added).

It’s true that states vary in how they deal with waste fracking fluid. The state of Pennsylvania, for example, has tried and failed to process its fracking wastewater safely in public water treatment facilities. The failure of treatment plants to remove carcinogens from wastewater and the admission by industry that those toxins had entered drinking supplies has led the state’s governor to order a stoppage to treating the wastewater at public works facilities immediately.

Meanwhile, Colorado stores its waste frack fluid in concrete containment casings and storage pits. Neslin does not consider the disposal of waste produced by fracking a part of the fracking process.

Neslin’s comments raise two questions. First, there is the obvious question of whether or not he was being completely forthright with the Senate committee when he characterized fracking as having never contaminated water supplies. Even if he honestly believes that fracking is not contaminating groundwater supplies, why didn’t the officer tasked with overseeing oil and gas production in Colorado tell the Environment and Public Works Committee that contamination had happened, even if it was, as he suggested, tangentially related to the process.

The second question surrounds his frequent use of the term “verifiable evidence,” when saying that groundwater contamination has not been caused by hydraulic fracturing. Just like his statements about groundwater contamination, Neslin’s use of “verifiable evidence” seems to fall well short of telling the whole truth about gas production in his state.

Dr. Geoffrey Thyne, a geologist tasked with studying contamination in the West Divide Creek in heavily fracked Garfield County, Colorado understands verifiable evidence very well. The geologist is often credited with conducting one of the most conclusive studies connecting ground water contamination with fracking. In fact, Thyne’s West Divide Creek study was deemed so conclusive, and therefore so damning to the gas industry, that many say it led to the loss of his job as a professor at the Colorado School of Mines. Thyne says that gas interests at the university had allegedly pressured Thyne to stop the study. Thyne didn’t stop the study, and he lost his job. But, as Thyne explains in the video below, the verifiable evidence he found while conducting his study suggests that fracking fluids seeped into the West Divide Creek as recently as 2004.

How was Thyne so sure? Just like the situation in Pennsylvania it comes down to salt, which is also found in fracking fluids. When asked about fracking and water contamination during the congressional committee meeting, Neslin did not once bring up the Thyne study.

Despite the contradiction pointed out by the Thyne situation, there still remains the issue of Neslin separating failures in the process associated with fracking from fracking in general. This tactic has become known as compartmentalizing. Community organizer Frank Smith, who advocates for safe drilling procedures in western Colorado happened to be in Washington, D.C. at the same time as Neslin. Smith said Neslin’s selectivity when talking about hydraulic fracking before the Senate committee was a tactic Smith has gotten used to seeing out west. “Too often they don’t want to look holistically at all of it. It’s all one and the same. It’s all part of the same system. If in fact there is a faulty casing, or those fracking chemicals or fluids do in fact end up where they shouldn’t end up that’s all part of the problem,” said Smith.

It should be pointed out that Neslin and all those who answered questions before the Senate Environment and Public Works committee were speaking of their own accord and therefore didn’t have to take an oath before talking. Neslin has returned to Denver where he has been asked to reapply to continue serving as the Director of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.