Bring Your Questions About the Risk Assessment to the Community Meeting on Friday at 5 p.m.

Do you want to ask DNV GL why they used data from New Mexico to do a Broomfield Extraction project risk assessment?

Are you puzzled by CCOB Manager Ozaki’s announcement at Tuesday’s Council Meeting that he has already approved the risk assessment?

Why does the City call it a “risk assessment” instead of a HAZID (Hazard Identification)? 

Are you concerned that there is no analysis of cumulative impacts of risks?

If you are leaving for spring break, you can email Council at

but you can have your questions answered in person at: 

What:  Community Meeting on Risk Assessment for Extraction Operations in Broomfield

When: Friday, March 22 from 5:00 p.m. – 6:30 p.m.

Where:  Broomfield Council Chambers

After CCOB Manager Ozaki announced at the Tuesday, March 19 Council Meeting that he had already approved a risk assessment, the City released responses by the contractor DNV GL to questions raised by Council and submitted by a few residents at the Study Session on February 19.  At the Feb. 19 Study Session, Council requested more time to review the document and hold a public comment forum since residents had only been able to email comments.

You can read the 508-page document, including a 30-page text followed by data appendices, here.

You can read the DNV GL responses to Feb. 19 questions here.

According to the City, the panelists will include Cynthia Spitzenberger and Marisa Pierce from DNV-GL, and Barbara Ganong, a petroleum engineer, who worked on Broomfield’s behalf in the development of the risk assessment.

According to a January 7, 2019 letter from Broomfield Health and Safety First, Broomfield Concerned and Wildgrass Oil and Gas Committee to the City, “the risk analysis has been a requirement since the final negotiations with Extraction and remains a requirement still today.”  They traced the history as: “Extraction agreed to conduct a risk analysis; Extraction then included the Charles Taylor matrix in the first three iterations of the CDP; Extraction then disagreed with the matrix and promptly removed it from the CDP, but refused to do their own analysis; and finally, the City made the risk analysis a condition of the CDP approval (even though the risk analysis is required per the CDP) and then approved the CDP, but stated that, ‘Broomfield will contract with DNV-GL to complete a risk assessment process’ followed by a concerning statement that, ‘[i]f additional mitigation measures are warranted, Broomfield will take action to address them.’ It appears that the contract between the City and DNV-GL is for a Hazard Identification (HAZID), rather than a quantitative risk analysis.”