Swamp Stomp
Volume 16, Issue 32
The Obama administration put forth rules about fracking on public lands that oil and gas companies did not like. These companies believe that these regulations would be the first step to federal regulation of all fracking activity. The Obama administration argues that these rules are solely put in place due to safety concerns within the industry. These companies took the rules to court and a federal judge ruled in the oil and gas companies favor. The White House does not agree with the judge’s ruling and plan to appeal the ruling.
The regulations were made by the U.S. Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and were finalized in March 2015. U.S. District Judge Scott Skavdahl made his ruling on June 21, 2016 stating that “the [BLM] lacked Congressional authority to set fracking regulations for federal and Indian lands” (Bailey).
The BLM’s regulations that Skavdahl struck down “would have required companies to provide data on chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing and to take steps to prevent leakage from oil and gas wells on federally owned land” (Bailey). This would change the regulation of fracking from states to the federal level.
Fracking extracts oil and natural gas from underground by shooting high pressurized amounts of water, sand, and chemicals into the ground.
Not everyone is happy with the use of fracking to extract oil and natural gas. “Environmental groups and some neighbors of oil and gas wells have linked fracking to water pollution as well as increased earthquake activity in certain areas” (Bailey).
Less than three quarters of U.S. fracking occurs on federal land so the ruling and the case has had little direct effect on the fracking currently operating. Most of the 22 percent of federal land fracking is done from offshore Gulf of Mexico operations.
Though the effect these rules would have on current fracking operations would have been minimal, oil and gases companies were still concerned. They worried that these mandates would lead to the federal government making all of the rules regarding fracking operations.
“Skavdahl, nominated by Obama to the bench in 2011, had put the rules on hold a year ago to weigh requests from energy industry groups and four states to stop them from being implemented. He issued a preliminary injunction against the rules in September and made it permanent in Tuesday’s decision” (Bailey). Skavdahl said that the case was based on where the Interior Department had the authority to make these rules and not about whether fracking was good or bad. Skavdahl ruled that the BLM overstepped its authority, given to them by Congress.
Skavdahl backed up his ruling by saying “Congress in the 2005 Energy Policy (EP) Act specifically removed hydraulic fracturing operations that do not involve diesel fuels from Environmental Protection Agency regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act” (Bailey).
As with most regulations, there are those who support the rules and those who are against them. The pro side argues that regulation is necessary due to the potential high amounts of pollution caused by fracking. Those against regulation point out the growth in U.S. oil production, the lower energy costs, and the jobs created by the fracking industry.
This ruling, as well as regulation on fracking, continues to be a polarizing issue. Do you agree with Judge Skavdahl’s ruling? What are your thoughts on fracking?
Source: Bailey, David. “Court Strikes down Obama Fracking Rules for Public Lands.” Reuters. Thomson Reuters, 22 June 2016. Web. 25 July 2016.