In the fall of 2018, Colorado voters decided whether new or modified oil and gas wells should be set back 2,500 feet from homes, schools, streams, and other human developments or environmental features. The measure, known as Proposition 112 (Prop112), would have dealt a substantial blow to the oil and gas industry in Colorado. According to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, the state regulator, passage of Prop112 would have made about 80 percent of Colorado’s surface area off limits for drillers. (This arrangement excludes federal lands and does not account for the ability of operators to drill horizontally underground.) The oil and gas industry spent heavily on a marketing campaign to sway voters, focusing on the economic consequences of such restrictions. In the end, Coloradans rejected Prop112 with a 56 percent majority.
As researchers who have worked extensively on the socioeconomic effects of oil and gas development (with one of us—Morgan—based in Colorado), we eagerly awaited the results of the election. Once it was over, we wanted to know about the factors that swayed the vote. In a new paper published this week in the journal Energy Research & Social Science, we found some answers.
The Great Divide
A historic surge in US natural gas and oil production has taken place in a mix of locations over roughly the last 10 years. Some states, such as Texas, Oklahoma, and North Dakota, have unambiguously welcomed the growth in production. Others, such as New York, have preemptively banned fracking in an effort to prevent the practice from taking root. Somewhere in the middle, we find Colorado, where drilling has moved forward briskly, but with substantial efforts to restrict the industry. A few cities and counties along the state’s Front Range have attempted to ban fracking (and lost in court), while the state government over the last 10 years has often led the nation by adopting new regulations on fracking fluid disclosure, methane emissions, public health monitoring, gas gathering lines, and more.
Colorado’s diversity of opinions, economic and energy development, and geography offer a rich environment for researchers like us. Oil and gas development occurs in parts of the state that are both rural and urban, liberal and conservative, mountainous and flat. Drilling rigs and pump jacks are old hat in some regions, while the industry is relatively new in others. At the same time, the state’s Front Range—stretching north and south from Denver along the eastern edge of the Rockies—is growing rapidly, with newcomers from around the United States relocating to Colorado and, often to their surprise, finding themselves in the midst of a suburban oil and gas boom. What might these new residents, many of whom move to the state to enjoy its beautiful scenery, recreational opportunities, and sunny weather, think about rigs in the backyard?
Three Questions at the Front Range
A fast-growing body of literature has used surveys to assess what people think about the growth of oil and gas development in their communities. While the results of this work are nuanced, the research tends to find that individuals living closer to oil and gas development are more supportive than those who live farther away (controlling for other factors). The data also show, perhaps unsurprisingly, that political conservatives tend to be more supportive of the industry than liberals.
Our paper tests whether these two key themes identified from the literature pan out in the real world. We add a third question that’s particularly relevant for Colorado, namely: Are the residents of communities where drilling has increased the most—and who, in the case of Colorado with its newly relocated residents, may not have as much historical experience living near drilling rigs and the like—more or less supportive than other drilling communities?
We used precinct-level voting data from the state of Colorado and well-level oil and gas data from DrillingInfo (recently renamed Enverus) to examine the following three questions:
- How does industry support differ between voters living in communities with lots of oil and gas wells, compared to voters in communities with few or no wells?
- How does industry support differ between voters in Republican-leaning communities, compared to voters in Democratic-leaning communities?
- How does industry support differ between voters in communities where drilling has expanded most rapidly in recent years, compared to voters in communities with little change in drilling?
To be clear, when we say “industry support,” we are measuring the proportion of each precinct that voted either “Yes” or “No” on Prop112. Because a “No” vote blocks the imposition of new restrictions on oil and gas development, we take a “No” vote to indicate support for the industry, while we interpret a “Yes” vote as opposition to the industry.
What We Found at the Mountaintop
Most of Colorado’s oil and gas wells are in precincts that voted against Prop112 (i.e., these precincts were more supportive of the industry). Conversely, most precincts voting for Prop112 have little or no oil and gas activity (Figure 1).
