The Boulder Daily Camera officially endorsed Proposition 112 over the weekend, publishing an editorial that claims passing the economically devastating measure would be a net positive by addressing public health concerns,

“When it comes to oil and gas development, [regulators] glibly dismiss resident concerns about health and safety or claim that, given the laws on the books, there’s little they can do. But voters who live near oil and gas operations have legitimate fears about their physical well-being, and, in the face of inaction on the part of elected leaders, they should approve Proposition 112.”

But not only does the Daily Camera gloss over the harsh economic realities passage of Prop 112 would yield, its argument in favor of the measure is based almost entirely on thoroughly debunked health studies, underscoring why a vast majority of Colorado elected officials – even “Keep It In the Ground” gubernatorial candidate Jared Polis – oppose this extreme measure. Here are the most egregious claims made in the editorial, along with facts every voter should be aware of prior to heading to the polls on Nov. 6.

Yet another Coloradan warns against the ramifications of Proposition 112:

You may wonder why the owner of a crane and trucking company would be so concerned about a ballot proposal that relates to setbacks in the oil and gas industry. The simple fact is that the ramifications of Proposition 112 go well beyond those companies, businesses and employees who directly work in or for the oil and gas industry. The ripple effect of passing this measure would be felt by every business and resident of our state.

Proposition 112 is making national news…and not in a good way. Read the latest in Forbes on why Coloradans should vote ‘no’ on Proposition 112:

Thanks to a Rocky Mountain shale party, Colorado is an increasingly important oil and gas producer. Over the past decade, Colorado’s oil production has surged 365% to 380,000 b/d and natural gas production is up 30% to ~5 Bcf/d. The future shines bright: “Western Colorado’s Mancos Shale formation holds an estimated 66.3 Tcf of natural gas, way up from the 1.6 Tcf estimate in its 2003 appraisal. puts the Mancos basin 2nd only to the Marcellus Shale in terms of the largest gas reserves in the U.S.”

A new op-ed in The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel reads:

Colorado’s importance as a hub for oil and natural gas production is well established. Thanks to remarkable advances in hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” oil production has more than tripled in recent years and gas production has more than doubled.

But there is simply no credible way for Colorado’s shale boom to continue if voters approve Proposition 112 in November.

Want more reasons why you should vote ‘no’ on Proposition 112? A new article from The Boulder Daily Camera admits that:

There is little doubt that Proposition 112 would limit fossil fuel extraction in many populated areas of the state, even in some places to elimination — but, at least in growing Front Range neighborhoods, that’s the point. The jobs that industry advocates warn would be lost include retail, health care, hospitality and other positions presumed to be supported by oil and gas activity….

A business owner speaks out against Proposition 112 in the latest article from The Sterling Journal-Advocate:

You may wonder why the owner of a crane and trucking company would be so concerned about a ballot proposal that relates to setbacks in the oil and gas industry. The simple fact is that the ramifications of Proposition 112 go well beyond those companies, businesses, and employees who directly work in or for the oil and gas industry. The ripple effect of passing this measure would be felt by every business and resident of our state.

OneNOCO, formerly the Northern Colorado Economic Alliance, has come out against Proposition 112:

While Proposition 112 may sound like an appealing idea, the consequences to Colorado’s economy could be devastating.

Just a little research into the facts of public safety of the industry and the likely consequence to Northern Colorado’s economy, you quickly come to the conclusion that this is poorly written and could have long-term negative consequences for Colorado’s economy.

Don’t miss this letter to the editor in The Castle Rock News-Press. A reader writes:

I am a Colorado geologist who discovered my passion for our dynamic earth at an early age. Proposition 112 would effectively ban oil and gas development in our state, resulting in the loss of thousands of jobs, many of which would be outside of the oil and gas industry. It would also erase about $8 billion in state and local tax revenue that supports things such as schools, housing and other local programs.

A new op-ed in The Denver Post comes out strongly against Proposition 112:

An extreme activist agenda, fueled by out-of-state money, is threatening to put tens of thousands of oil and gas families – and scores of others outside industry — out of work if Proposition 112 passes. Of the 147,000 Coloradans who could lose their jobs, more than 113,000 of them don’t even work in oil and natural gas, according to the newly released study commissioned by the Common Sense Policy Roundtable.

We can’t let this happen.

More national news! The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board has come out in opposition to Proposition 112.

California normally gets all the attention on the front lines of environmental activism. Gov. Jerry Brown recently signed a bill to “decarbonize” all electricity production by 2045. But in real-world implications for the rest of the country, Colorado also deserves attention. A measure heading for the fall ballot would shut down nearly all oil and gas production in one of the top energy-producing states.

Colorado’s current rules on energy production prohibit oil and gas operations within 500 feet of a home or 1,000 feet of a school or hospital. But an environmental group called Colorado Rising has collected enough signatures for a proposal on the November ballot to expand these buffer zones and effectively create bans in nearly all of the state.