Is anyone investing in DJ Basin names who have exposure to Prop 112?

For those not familiar, Prop 112 is labeled as an "effective drilling ban" for 90%+ of acreage in Colorado

Exposed companies have been underperforming since the measure made the ballot

Names with exposure:
NBL
XOG
APC
NBLX
SRCI

Polls are inconclusive as to the outcome, but those have been hit with downgrades by the sell side

Not following it for investment purposes, but the local COGCC rep and I had a good laugh at the stupidity of 112. Even the regulators think it's dumb.

To combat 112, there's 108 that "would require that Colorado property owners be duly compensated for reductions in their "fair market" property value stemming from new state laws or regulations".

It seems like there is bipartisan opposition to 112, but the prices still havenot recovered

Out of all the races in colorado, vote no on prop 112 has definitely had the most advertising i've seen in denver.

So is BP still moving it's us hq to Denver?

The Lost said:

---

Out of all the races in colorado, vote no on prop 112 has definitely had the most advertising i've seen in denver.

---

It would be an absolute disaster for the state economy.

I would be pretty shocked if this vote was even 65/35 against. But never underestimate Denver and Boulder.

The Lost said:

---

Out of all the races in colorado, vote no on prop 112 has definitely had the most advertising i've seen in denver.

---

And I haven't seen or heard a single ad in favor.

NColoradoAG said:

---

The Lost said:

---

Out of all the races in colorado, vote no on prop 112 has definitely had the most advertising i've seen in denver.

---

And I haven't seen or heard a single ad in favor.

---

I assume there isn't a group pushing it considering even polis has come out against it. I have a feeling o&g and others are scared of voters being dumb and passing it like the stupid green roof initiative in denver that even the mayor was against. Got a huge pamphlet against 112 yesterday in denver county. This county is dumb enough to support it.

https://www.westword.com/news/green-roof-initiative-leader-discusses-big-win-over-denver-developers-9679900

The intention is to beat it so badly that it doesn't come back.

Sadly Denver and Boulder could easily ruin the entire state in a single vote.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

So is BP still moving it's us hq to Denver?

---

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/09/12/bp-opens-new-era-in-denver/

I don't know BP's coverage in CO by any means, but when I worked for wood group in CO, we still had a lot of work in ND, west TX, and OK that were under our regional umbrella.

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/10/22/colorado-proposition-112-oil-gas-setbacks/

not sure what i think of an online poll, but its definitely goin to be a close vote

NColoradoAG said:

---

The Lost said:

---

Out of all the races in colorado, vote no on prop 112 has definitely had the most advertising i've seen in denver.

---

And I haven't seen or heard a single ad in favor.

---

Per Ballotpedia
Expenditures:
Support - $790,402
Opposition - $18,925,453

It is scary how something like this can even be considered. It amounts to banning an entire industry just because some people don't like it and disguise the measure as a safety issue.

There is nothing in the measure about a setback on developers. We could very well see another Firestone house explosion because a homebuilder builds a house < 200 feet from a wellhead. The funny and sad thing is neither Denver nor Boulder have active development fields, but yet they may control the rest of the state. I hope this doesn't pass.

Do people not understand the windfall the O&G sector brings to Colorado?

Ragoo said:

---

Do people not understand the windfall the O&G sector brings to Colorado?

---

They don't care. They can bring in other companies to fill in the void ::makes jerking hand motion::

Satellite of Love said:

---

It is scary how something like this can even be considered. It amounts to banning an entire industry just because some people don't like it and disguise the measure as a safety issue.

There is nothing in the measure about a setback on developers. We could very well see another Firestone house explosion because a homebuilder builds a house < 200 feet from a wellhead. The funny and sad thing is neither Denver nor Boulder have active development fields, but yet they may control the rest of the state. I hope this doesn't pass.

---

It's amazing how ignorant the public is to what this actually will change. All I see on nextdoor is 'we don't need another firestone, we don't need wells next to schools' etc. Won't someone think of the children.

People have no clue that those issues are typically development being too close to existing wells, and that local jurisdictions regulate that min. distance (Firestone example, new development had a min. 150' set back requirement.)

Most new development (edit.. new well development) is out in rural areas; a great modification to this prop would be to have a setback, but also let the homeowners decide if they want a new well 300' from their house. (there is already a state mandated 1000' min setback for high occupancy, 500' for homes, and 300' for playgrounds)

62strat said:

---

Satellite of Love said:

---

It is scary how something like this can even be considered. It amounts to banning an entire industry just because some people don't like it and disguise the measure as a safety issue.

There is nothing in the measure about a setback on developers. We could very well see another Firestone house explosion because a homebuilder builds a house < 200 feet from a wellhead. The funny and sad thing is neither Denver nor Boulder have active development fields, but yet they may control the rest of the state. I hope this doesn't pass.

---

It's amazing how ignorant the public is to what this actually will change. All I see on nextdoor is 'we don't need another firestone, we don't need wells next to schools' etc. Won't someone think of the children.

People have no clue that those issues are typically development being too close to existing wells, and that local jurisdictions regulate that min. distance (Firestone example, new development had a min. 150' set back requirement.)

Most new development is out in rural areas; a great modification to this prop would be to have a setback, but also let the homeowners decide if they want a new well 300' from their house. (there is already a state mandated 1000' min setback for high occupancy, 500' for homes, and 300' for playgrounds)

---

Nextdoor makes me sad for the world before you throw politics into it, now its 10x worse which i didin't think was possible.

now we even got a nytimes article!

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/23/us/colorado-fracking-proposition-112.html

The Lost said:

---

Nextdoor makes me sad for the world before you throw politics into it, now its 10x worse which i didin't think was possible.

now we even got a nytimes article!

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/23/us/colorado-fracking-proposition-112.html

---

And look how this ignorance is spread; from the article:

"In recent years, Colorado oil and gas well operations have come so close to homes, schools and playgrounds that drill rigs, holding tanks, diesel trucks and floodlights are now common neighborhood features. "

What they could have said was, housing, school and playground developments have come so close to existing oil/gas wells!

Yes, some new wells are being built by homes.. but there is already a sufficient min. set back for that. Even the press is ignorant to the situation and what the prop will do. If 112 passes it will do nothing to prevent a house from being built 200' from an existing well. Why aren't we instead putting in longer min. distance regulations for new housing developments? Attack the housing developers. O&G already has sufficient setbacks for new wells.

This is like the people moving next to an airport, complaining about noise, and then trying to pass a setback regulation for new airports.

The company I work for (publicly traded and almost half our business is in the DJ) has been hosting rallies and stuff in opposition. Upper management doesnt seem to think it will pass. We would be F'd.

We will see.

JTA1029 said:

---

The company I work for (publicly traded and almost half our business is in the DJ) has been hosting rallies and stuff in opposition. Upper management doesnt seem to think it will pass. We would be F'd.

We will see.

---

That is what I'm hearing from folk very likely within the same company as yours

The ad presence in all forms is overwhelmingly against 112 here in the Denver area.

That won't stop a sizable portion of very blue Denver and most of The People's Republic of Boulder from trying their damndest to get this thing through.

At least it's not a constitutional amendment.

Thriller said:

---

The ad presence in all forms is overwhelmingly against 112 here in the Denver area.

That won't stop a sizable portion of very blue Denver and most of The People's Republic of Boulder from trying their damndest to get this thing through.

At least it's not a constitutional amendment.

---

That's because opposition has spent almost 25X more money on the campaign as proponents.

Also, it doesn't seem to be divided by blue and red to me. Look at the list of for and against on ballotopedia.. both sides are quite a mix of dem/repub senators, reps, political people.

Last I looked it was heavily R against with Polis and 1-2 other D's on that side. I think I saw 1 R for it. It's very. Much a red/blue and a city/rural issue.

Bottom line is that the proposal would absolutely harm the state economy. It's an insane proposal.

Thriller said:

---

Last I looked it was heavily R against with Polis and 1-2 other D's on that side. I think I saw 1 R for it. It's very. Much a red/blue and a city/rural issue.

Bottom line is that the proposal would absolutely harm the state economy. It's an insane proposal.

---

Sorry I was thinking of another prop on my ballot.

The denver mayor and hickenlooper are the other big Dems against it.

Between 112 and 73, Colorado is basically voting for unicorns to fart fairy dust. State is going off the rails, and like most looney lib ideas, it boils down to voting on other people's money.