Santa left some lumps of coal for Weld County during this holiday season. To be exact, he left concentrates of benzene, arsenic, barium, selenium and other organic and inorganic compounds that derive from fossil fuel production that can contaminate soil and groundwater.

These compounds were supposedly cleaned up, but some individuals, as yet unnamed, created false data and reports at consulting firms hired by the three largest oil-and-gas producers in the state. The falsified data were used to verify about 350 well sites’ completion and remediation. Unfortunately, well sites designated as good to go are not.

Two firms were involved in data falsifications that took place from 2021 to summer 2024: Eagle Environmental Consulting from Wheat Ridge and Tasman Geosciences from Broomfield. Eagle performed work for Chevron and Civitas Resources and Tasman worked for Occidental. The 350 affected well sites are among 4,700 in cleanup stages in Weld County.

According to Jeff Robbins, chair of the Energy and Carbon Management Commission (ECMC) with oversight of oil-and-gas operations in the state, these wells represent “in the grand scheme of things a small percentage” of the total wells in remediation.

Weld County Commissioners aren’t as sanguine. They decried delayed notification of the falsified data discovered in July but revealed in late November in a letter to ECMC: “It is unconscionable for a state agency to sit on a land use and environmental issue such as this for at least four months without any communication with the relevant local government.”

Weld County commissioners have been generous with drillers and operators as the county depends on severance and other taxes from the industry for many of its services. Other counties, especially Boulder County, have been more circumspect in agreeing to oil-and-gas drilling and production. Weld’s commissioners must feel they got a kick in the teeth from the data falsifiers as well as the ECMC. Many of the subject wells are near where people live and recreate. Playing soccer on fields of benzene and arsenic is not good for health.

Stay up to speed: Sign up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

Julie Murphy, executive director of ECMC, testified in a late November hearing when the data falsifications were announced there is “no new risk to public health. Risk is limited to remediation for sites already disturbed by oil-and-gas operations.” That is, if this is a correct interpretation, the contamination risk has existed since extraction operations took place so there is no more emergency now than over the many years during which production occurred. Whether that provides comfort to citizens in remediation zones is unknown.

Chevron and Civitas might have performed closer scrutiny of Eagle Environmental Consulting when they engaged the company. Eagle’s mission statement says, “Our clients succeed when the delivery of our services lowers their costs, decreases their environmental liabilities and allows them to get back to focusing on their core business.” While lowering costs may be important to a bottom line, it can conflict with delivering data that may show additional work and expense must be undertaken to clean up contamination.

Similarly, Tasman’s mission statement reflects concern with dollars: “Tasman is committed to providing reliable, cost effective solutions for our clients.” The company adds: “We strive to restore and protect human health and the environment through innovation, efficiency, and persistence.” It has yet to be revealed which company is responsible for more or fewer falsifications. It’s also unclear why these events occurred during the same time frame.

ECMC will have to do some serious investigation not only to understand the dimensions of the alleged malfeasance but to determine what corrections must be put in place. As Murphy stated repeatedly in testimony to the commission, the agency relies on the integrity of operators to conduct its regulatory mission.  She stated, “Our work is rooted in the assumption that people obey the law.” Such reliance may be noble. Other entities prefer the trust-but-verify route.

ECMC does perform audits and other assessments. Why the commission didn’t catch these violations has yet to be stated. ECMC has fined drillers and operators in the past for various compliance violations so the agency knows following the rules must not be taken for granted. Nevertheless, Murphy seemed shocked — shocked, rather like in the film “Casablanca,” — that data finagling happened over a three-year period.

Dan Gibbs, executive director of the Department of Natural Resources and boss of the ECMC, also expressed his deep consternation: “I am disappointed in the actions of a few consultants to oil and gas operators who have undermined the industry’s ability to meet their regulatory obligations.” On the other hand, he says he has “complete confidence in the leadership and staff at the Energy and Carbon Management Commission to investigate this falsification and take appropriate enforcement action as well as work with appropriate law enforcement.”

Murphy acknowledged in her most recent report to ECMC commissioners that the case has been forwarded to prosecutors, but no one will say which prosecutors will be involved. At this time, however, ECMC has not prohibited either consulting company from continuing to perform work that will affect ECMC decisions.

Paula Noonan owns Colorado Capitol Watch, the state’s premier legislature tracking platform.