Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Geothermal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Geothermal developer seeks seismic study near Buena Vista; trustees ask legal review
Summary
A geothermal developer seeking to map subsurface heat near Buena Vista presented a plan Jan. 28 to conduct seismic surveys as a prelude to exploratory drilling; trustees asked the town attorney and planning staff to review whether such testing is allowed under the municipal code.
A company proposing deep geothermal development near Buena Vista briefed the Town Board on Jan. 28 about plans for a seismic survey that would precede exploratory drilling for a utility-scale geothermal power plant.
Paul Connor, presenting for Thermal GE (described in the packet as Thermal GE/Paul Connor), said the company is studying a 36-square-mile corridor along the Rio Grande rift and seeks to run a seismic survey to identify subsurface "hot spots" that could support a 50-to-200‑megawatt plant. Connor described a nonwater-extraction loop system that would use subsurface heat to produce electricity and said the next technical step is seismic imaging to locate fractures and reservoirs.
Public commenters raised strong objections. Jane McCracken of Save Our Arkansas Valley said residents worry about noise, wildlife impacts, water supply and seismic risk; she said similar projects elsewhere produced noise, surface ponds and long-term community disruption. "It could be detrimental to our valley," McCracken said, and she urged the board not to encourage siting the industrial plant near town.
Planning staff and the town attorney told trustees the proposal is premature for town approval. Jeff (town attorney) said an initial review suggests seismic-testing activity may not be a listed, permitted use in the town zoning code and might therefore be prohibited without a code change or specific authorization. Jeff recommended staff prepare a written legal opinion. Planning staff confirmed the company had not yet supplied written county approval; the presenter said he had county conversations but not a signed, written permit.
Trustees did not grant the company permission to start fieldwork. Instead they directed staff to work with the town attorney to produce a legal opinion about whether the proposed seismic survey is allowed under the town's land‑use code and, if not, what legislative steps would be necessary to permit it. Trustees also asked staff to provide the company with clear next steps and to return to the board once seismic results are available or if the company obtains required county approvals.
Connor said the company will not proceed to drilling without the seismic study and emphasized the company's intent to use industry-standard vibration limits and monitoring. He said the state receives copies of seismic data and that his firm intends to compensate landowners for participation. Connor acknowledged he did not yet have written county authorization to conduct survey work within the town's planning area and asked staff for a clear path forward.
The board directed staff to prepare a legal review rather than take action permitting the study at this meeting.
