On Friday New Energy Economy formally requested the NM Department of Justice to use their authority to instigate an investigation to determine if consultants used by oil and gas operators have falsified data on oil and gas remediation reports in New Mexico. This request was prompted by the revelation that these same consultants, Eagle Environmental Consulting, Inc. and Tasman Geosciences, contracted in both states by Chevron and Occidental (Oxy), falsified data about environmental contaminants at about 350 well sites in Colorado in reports submitted to a regulatory agency called the Energy and Carbon Management Commission (ECMC), equivalent to the Oil Conservation Division (OCD) in New Mexico.
The two consulting firms falsified data in doctored reports, including materially misleading readings on extremely toxic contaminants associated with oil and gas drilling, including benzene, total petroleum hydrocarbons and elements such as arsenic and barium known to be extremely hazardous to human health. Benzene, for example, is a known carcinogen found in oil and gas. Health effects from prolonged exposure to benzene include:
Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and other blood cancers
Childhood leukemia (particularly AML)
Acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL)
Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)
Other blood-related cancers (such as multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma).
The oil and gas industry has known about these dangers since at least 1948, when an American Petroleum Institute report stated that "the only absolutely safe concentration for benzene is zero.”
According to the Colorado commission, “the degree of fraud merits criminal investigation.” The same consulting firms provide similar services for the oil and gas industry in New Mexico.
The purpose of remediation reports is to document the details of abandoned or closing well sites or spill incidents, including the location, volume of any contaminating substances, cleanup actions taken, and environmental impacts, allowing regulatory agencies and responsible parties to track the remediation process, ensure proper cleanup procedures are followed, and demonstrate compliance with environmental regulations regarding contamination response and mitigation.
Though we do not know the number of wells sites these consultants were responsible for testing in New Mexico, we do know that OCD data on spills of oil and gas fluids in New Mexico documents more than 6000 spills by Chevron, Occidental and its subsidiary, Oxy USA, between 2019 and 2024. Remediation data related to all of these spills must now be called into question.
It is unlikely that two oil and gas consulting agencies would admit to similar fraudulent reports to Colorado regulators regarding toxic discharges, perpetrated over the same time period of time, and disclosed publicly within two months of each other without the likely prospect that this falsification scheme was ongoing, a pattern of conduct that should have been knowable by members of the oil and gas industry, and potentially perpetrated across state lines where ever these firms operate.
The fraudulent reporting included 296 wells in unincorporated areas of Weld County, but also 48 wells within the boundaries of 15 cities and towns, including Greeley, Milliken and Evans. County Commissions in Weld County have questioned why the ECMC waited to report the falsified data for at least three months after receiving the first admission of fraud in July. Colorado regulators are conducting tests on all of the affected well sites to determine the current status of contamination and whether any additional sites not yet disclosed might also be contaminated. The matter has been referred to law enforcement for investigation.
Here in New Mexico enforcement of oil and gas regulations is already hampered by lack of funding and personnel at NMED and OCD. If oil and gas companies are providing these agencies with falsified information about the remediation of well sites and spills, the public has a right to know.
Chevron and Occidental have a responsibility to the people of New Mexico to ensure that their well sites and the thousands of spills they are responsible for are properly remediated and that their reports to regulators are truthful.
We requested the NM Department of Justice to investigate whether the same individuals involved in the falsification efforts in Colorado submitted C-141 (oil and gas remediation forms) to OCD, determine how and why these falsifications came to light now, and follow the leads that the above information provides to protect human health and the environment in New Mexico, hold the oil and gas companies involved accountable for fraud and misrepresentation to the fullest extent of the law, and keep the public apprised of any findings.
IN A CASE BROUGHT BY AVANGRID THAT THE NM COURT OF APPEALS DEEMED A "STRATEGIC LAWSUIT AGAINST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION," THE COURT UPHELD THE PUBLIC'S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO SPEAK AT REGULATORY HEARINGS IN NM
In an important ruling on Tuesday the NM Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's decision to dismiss Avangrid's SLAPP suit against Mr. Paulo Silva and his company for public comments made at the Avangrid/PNM merger hearing. A SLAPP suit is "a strategic lawsuit against public participation."
Especially in the current political atmosphere, in which attempts to silence critics in the public sphere and the media are growing more brazen and dangerous each day, this ruling is an important affirmation of our First Amendment rights to participate in our democracy freely and without fear of retaliation.
In its ruling the court emphasized that under the First Amendment, individuals have the right to petition the government without fear of retaliation. This protection extends to public comments made during regulatory hearings unless the activity is deemed a sham. The court noted that public comments are a critical part of regulatory decision-making processes, as intended by statutes requiring public input. These comments, though not considered evidence, are integral to the proceedings.
During the hearing Mr. Silva offered public comment based on his personal experience as a security contractor to Avangrid. Mr. Silva's comments included:
Allegations of procurement corruption, extortion, and coercion tactics within Avangrid and its parent company, Iberdrola.
Claims that Iberdrola and its affiliates faced criminal investigations in Spain for corporate espionage and procurement fraud.
Concerns about risks to national security posed by Avangrid.
Assertions that Avangrid artificially raised consumer rates in New York and engaged in favoritism in contract awards.
Alleging that these claims were falsely made in furtherance of furtherance of an attempt to extort contract work from Avangrid, the company sued Mr. Silva in NM District Court for making false and defamatory statements about Avangrid and Iberdrola. That case was rightly dismissed, and upon appeal, the courts have once again affirmed that our First Amendment rights must not be abridged.
The court found that the public comments made by the defendants were not "objectively baseless," as they addressed real concerns about the proposed merger, aligning with the PRC's decision to reject the merger on similar grounds. Mr. Silva's comments truthfully questioned whether Iberdrola-affiliated executives should be permitted to play an important role in the provision of energy services in New Mexico given the criminal investigation in Spain. Mr. Silva was awarded $36,000 in Attorney's fees, plus interest.
Avangrid/Iberdrola attempted to punish an individual for speaking out against them during public comment; this is similar to its threat against Mariel and New Energy Economy for defamation. But the truth prevailed.
Comments