*Editors note: This story has been changed from it’s original version to reflect remarks by DCP Midstream personnel.
GREELEY — Controversy surrounding testimony before the House Finance Committee concerning natural gas processor DCP Midstream withdrawing an application on a $350 million compression plant seems to have generated conflicting answers within the company itself.
Complete Colorado reported late Monday that DCP had withdrawn its permit application after a company official testified to such before the House Finance Committee. However, by Tuesday morning, other company officials were retracting the testimony.
In testimony on Monday concerning the fiscal impact of Senate Bill 19-181, which would make sweeping changes to how oil and gas drilling is regulated in Colorado, Weld County officials said DCP withdrew its application from Weld because of uncertainty surrounding the new regulations connected to SB 181.
According to commissioners, DCP’s attorney Patrick Groom said the company was withdrawing its application because of the unknown results of SB 181. When contacted by phone Monday evening, Weld County Commissioner Chairwoman Barbara Kirkmeyer confirmed the withdraw Monday evening.
“While before they said there were looking at siting, (Monday) they came in and said that it was with regard to regulatory uncertainties in regard to Senate Bill 181,” Kirkmeyer said. “So they withdrew their application. They said the producers are uncertain and they cannot predict the amount of volume. So they just don’t feel comfortable about moving forward.”
Kirkmeyer identified the withdrawn permit as located east of Weld County Road 59 and north of Weld 48, near Kersey.
However, Tuesday, a DCP spokeswoman took back Groom’s remarks.
“It’s my understanding he did make reference to regulatory uncertainty, but not a direct reference to Senate Bill 181,” DCP spokeswoman Sarah Sandberg told Complete Colorado Tuesday evening. “But in this political environment, we can understand how these dots were connected. But this has nothing to do with 181.”
Sandberg also said the company had no plans to pull out of Weld County.
“We had several potential plans that we were looking at as it related to compression as it was relevant to (a currently approved) plant, and we are just pursuing other compression alternatives at a different location,” Sandberg said. “It’s a very small piece of an overall project that we’re solving at an alternative location.”
Sandberg said that location would also be inside Weld.
“It’s not changing anything we were planning to do, other than the geographic location,” she said.
