Fracking is a difficult issue, as it allows for a lot of domestic energy production which brings down consumer costs and gives our foreign policy establishment more flexibility, but also introduces new environmental concerns that range from the traditional degradation associated with fossil fuel extraction to the urgent concerns we have with climate change to the associated earthquake damage we’ve seen in fracking areas. These concerns have led some areas (New York state, for example) to ban fracking outright. In other places, the bans have been passed locally.
That’s what happened in Colorado, and the Supreme Court that just struck down those local ordinances.
Colorado’s highest court overturned two cities’ bans on hydraulic fracturing Monday, ruling that state law preempts them.
The state’s Supreme Court cited the main state law regulating oil and natural gas drilling and found that lawmakers clearly intended to severely limit the ability of cities and towns to regulate or outlaw the controversial practice also known as fracking.
It’s a major loss for environmentalists, who have tried in recent years to get local fracking bans passed in places where state leaders are friendly to the oil and gas industry.
“The Oil and Gas Conservation Act and the [Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation] Commission’s pervasive rules and regulations … convince us that the state’s interest in the efficient and responsible development of oil and gas resources includes a strong interest in the uniform regulation of fracking,” the court wrote in striking down Longmont, Colo.’s ban on fracking.It had a similar finding for a five-year moratorium in Fort Collins, saying the measure “materially impedes the effectuation of the state’s interest in the efficient and responsible development of oil and gas resources.”
The decision could have effects beyond those two cities and in other localities in Colorado that have sought to regulate fracking without outright banning it.
The oil industry applauded the decision.
I try to separate out the two distinct issues here. Whether fracking is a good or bad thing, and whether it should be outlawed or simply regulated, are matters that need to be decided by scientists, regulators and lawmakers, not judges. But what level of government should get to decide? Should it be the federal EPA, or each of the state legislatures where fracking is viable, or every potentially impacted community?
I’d have to study the issue further to be sure, but I kind of doubt that fracking policy should be set by cities rather than (at least) states. So, I don’t really think the Colorado ruling is off base, even if the outcome is more fracking when we probably should have less.
FYI,
US Geological Survey page on induced seismicity. Hydraulic fracturing AKA fracking is one of the causes of induced seismicity.
Too much democracy, eh?
Poisoning the Well: How the Feds Let Industry Pollute the Nation’s Underground Water Supply
https://www.propublica.org/article/poisoning-the-well-how-the-feds-let-industry-pollute-the-nations-
undergroun
too much chaos, more like.
From the comments. This oughta reassure you.
Mario Salazar
Dec. 11, 2012, 4:41 p.m.
Kudos to Abrahm for a well-balanced and researched article.
The program at EPA that regulates underground injection is one of the smallest, both in funding and personnel. There is no incentive to increase it since it regulates some of the largest corporations in the US. I estimate that less than 200 feds are involved in oversight of the Underground Injection Program (UIC) nationwide. There are probably another 500 state workers that work in UIC in states that have been delegated the program by EPA. So you have less than 1,000 people trying to regulate, manage and do oversight on a universe of hundreds of thousands of wells.
In the early first decade of this century I tried to get a handle of aquifer exemptions in the country. We made significant progress, but when I retired from EPA the effort was stopped. I speculate that low resources, low interest and significant pressure from the states and affected corporations influenced the decision to stop the effort to get an inventory of aquifer exemptions.
Some interesting statistics in the US: almost 100% of liquid hazardous waste is injected, 90% of the Uranium is produced by using underground injection, over 300 million gallons of brine from oil and gas production are injected every month, no one knows how many improperly abandoned injection wells exist. Some have speculated that there are up to a million of these.
Really? With all the city and county exceptions on the books throughout the nation, you’re going to go after this one?
FFS…
Hmmm. And this?
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2015/07/13/states-battle-cities-ov
er-minimum-wage
Did you read the Sullivan thing? America’s problem is too much democracy.
That’s what comes from whiffing methane.
If fracking is a difficult issue, it is because the rural areas that are targets for fracking exploration and extraction have few alternative sources of economic development until coal mines have been repaired, superfund sites remediated, farming rejuvenated, or people just give up and leave. None of the cost/benefit analysis you cite justify fracking as conservation and other approaches deliver better long-term returns.
In principle, uniform coverage of laws requires federal interstate legislation on fracking under the EPA and USGS (geological damages from fracking). The real practical question is which level of government can be trusted not to be bought out by the fracking industry.
The Colorado law (and the recent minerals law passed in NC) both illustrate the intent of states when the legislators have been bought out.
Horizontal fracturing has the effect of not properly compensating owners whose property might be damaged by withdrawal of pressure that has been supporting rock formations or holding formations from slipping. In effect, it is stealing the gas under adjacent property-owners’ property. It can also have unpredictable surface consequences.
The populations of mining and drilling states, like Pennsylvania West Virginia, and Colorado, have been long abused by the mineral industry’s destroying surface rights and never restoring the landscape.
Even counties and municipalities can be corrupted with a dishonest story and cash under the table, as Lee County NC officials were beginning to be when the market fell out for fracked natural gas.
It is highly unlikely that we have any level of government that can deal with fracking as it needs to be dealt with. The amount of money that can be slung around in a bubble are quite sufficient for the players to get what they want.
Even with fracked natural gas, which I agree has been an accelerator of reduced coal usage often times just gets burned like in Bakken in ND. That kind of negates the one good I see in the whole thing. Should have banned it. You can always allow something later, but it’s harder to put a genie back in the bottle
If fossil fuels are Mother Nature’s savings account, leaving them in the ground begins to accurately price other forms of energy.
Leave them in the ground is still the most prudent solution for the future’s need for these substances for materials as well as energy.
I wish that position was the default.
Marijuana Laws: Who Gets to Decide?
Here in Oregon, marijuana is now legal…except. Here are the exceptions:
If a qualifying city or county wants to ban medical marijuana dispensaries or processing sites, it submits its prohibition ordinance to the Oregon Health Authority (OHA). If the city or county wants to ban recreational cannabis producers, processors, wholesalers or retailers, it submits its prohibition ordinance to the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC). Upon submission, the relevant agency cannot issue licenses in the opted-out jurisdiction.
Is this a problem for people who want local jurisdictions to have authority over fracking?
Fracking in and of itself, the process, is an old and relatively mature technique.
The larger picture of whether or not we should keep the petroleum in the ground is a hot topic, to be sure.
But
http://www.usatoday.com/picture-gallery/special-reports/2016/04/29/photos-floodwaters-in-texas-overw
helm-oil-wells-fracking-sites/83679602/
Is not ok.
The real problem with fracking is logistical. In order to efficiently (in terms of both money and energy return on investment over time) produce oil or natural gas from a tight shale reservoir, there needs to be on the order of 1 well pad (with 5 to 10 wells per pad) every kilometer above the producing area.
Having that many above-ground, open air wastewater storage, oil storage, chemical storage, fuel tanks, and so on in a region amounts to asking for very serious trouble in the instance of fire, flood, earthquake, storm, or other regional natural hazard.
It’s simply a bad idea.
Texas’s solution to pollution is dilution, doncha know.
Sadly it’s not only logistical as recent geologic surveys have shown the very process itself leads to regional earthquakes.
Even more reason to kill the entire concept as an energy solution.
And without the upswing in fracking coal wouldn’t be a dead industry walking. Fracking all but killed coal in the last 5-10 years, something that 30+ years of activism never accomplished. Acknowledging that reality is where this conversation should start.
From there the next question is how do we better regulate fracking and more importantly what do we do to move towards sustainable energy and away from fracking as soon as possible?
The problem is all carbon based fuel industries are now putting our planet at risk and they should all be dead industries walking.
The longer we put this off and continue to place more importance on our precious capitalist way of living the more unlikely we are to survive as a society.
We are past regulation; we are in crisis mode.
May be entirely wrong, but have wondered if resource extraction policies of Obama, which have been unusually pro-industry/anti-regulatory even for a Dem, have served him as a back door stimulus for the economy. That and defense spending, which Republicans can be relied upon to support, even when used for F-35s.
Low gasoline prices have a positive effect on the public perception of the economy. LNG exports will help with trade deficits, too. That and the total reversal of our policies regarding exports of raw fuels.
Any way we can kill off fracking is okay by me.
It’s not a complicated issue. The more carbon based fuels we pull out of the ground, the more fucked we are.
Period.