Court OKs Trump repeal of Obama public lands fracking rule
By: RACHEL FRAZIN
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A federal judge on Friday upheld the Trump administration’s decision to repeal an Obama-era rule that established standards for hydraulic fracking on federal land.
California and several environmental groups sued over the repeal , claiming it was unlawful. California particularly claimed that the federal government was in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.
However, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr., an Obama appointee, sided with the Trump administration, writing : "The record does not compel the conclusion that [the Bureau of Land Management] arbitrarily ignored foregone benefits or arbitrarily overvalued the costs associated with the 2015 Rule, as California Plaintiffs urge."
"Although BLM could have provided more detail, it did enough to clear the low bar of arbitrary and capricious review, and that is all the law requires,” he added.
The 2015 Obama administration rule would have required companies to say what chemicals they use in fracking , make them cover surface ponds that contain fracking fluids and also set well construction.
But it never went into effect because it was temporarily halted by federal Judge Scott Skavdahl in 2015. The judge later overturned the rule in 2016.
The Interior Department celebrated the court’s decision on Friday, saying in a statement that it will “allow the Department to continue to implement the President’s direction to repeal overly burdensome regulations and ensure America’s energy independence, while protecting the safety of our workers and the health of our environment.”
“We are grateful the Court has affirmed that the Department’s actions were fully compliant with all legal requirements,” it added.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
55 visitors
And It was an Obama appointee!
Judge Gilliam you made us proud!
This is good news
Don't care who the judge is/was - the requirements in the EO are needed. The Feds do not have arbitrary control over lands they are responsible for fostering/protecting. Fracking ain't responsible.
I think a lot of people are happy the US no longer has to stand in line for Middle Eastern oil, nor have they forgotten the days when every time the American economy got going - OAPEC would raise the price of oil.
Strange that the statement above says it will ensure the health of the environment; yet, this has historically not been the case. We have had one spill, or leak, or overturned truck or train, or accident, one after the other, for years. What assurance do we have that the environment will truly be protected this time? Fracking accidents happen just like oil spills, ground water contamination,..
We don't! But that's why we decide issues like this via elections. You may recall in 2016 Hillary Clinton told Coal miners in Ohio that “I’m the only candidate which has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity using clean renewable energy as the key into coal country, because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right, Tim? and we’re going to make it clear that we don’t want to forget those people."
I guess the part about not forgetting them wasn't very reassuring.
Her opponent said he was going to bring back "beautiful clean coal." One of the greatest Trumpisms of all time!
And the rest is history!
Are you saying then that the assurances in the statement are not true?
Are you saying that the risks to our environment should be determined by vote, rather than by the science of the technology?
How could they be. We will never know. I take it you believed her, but your'e not a miner are you?
Are you saying that the risks to our environment should be determined by vote, rather than by the science of the technology?
Absolutely! And BTW I don't want any agency setting rules on their own
I think what Vic is saying, is.....
I'm saying that bureaucrats shouldn't make law in this country.
Use your words Ozzie, your'e a big boy
That is completely accurate for a lot of people.
[DELETED]
I would like to know why this was deleted. Asking you if only donald should be able to make law is not a violation.
I will talk to who I can about your indiscriminate deletions and deleting things you don't want to answer.
You do that!
[DELETED]
Exactly how has Trump brought back coal?
There are over 1,000 fewer coal miners working than when Trump took office and 11 coal corporations have declared bankruptcy in that time period.
At the end of 2019, the Kayenta coal mine in Northern Arizona closed and 350 jobs were lost. That led to the closing of the Navajo Generating Station, a coal-fired plant and another couple hundred jobs were lost.
The contraction of world economies the amount of coal burning will be further reduced.
The oil war between Saudia Arabia and Russia is driving the shale oil companies into the ground and there are many of them that will not survive. Combine that with a slowing world economy and there will be a serious contraction in that field.
How could they be. We will never know.
Thanks for being up-front with your answer.
Absolutely! And BTW I don't want any agency setting rules on their own
How about we don't have either agencies or voters determine the safety of a technology?
I'm not sure. I only demonstrated the difference in the two campaigns. There was a clear choice for miners, right?
The oil war between Saudia Arabia and Russia is driving the shale oil companies into the ground
And the President immediately ordered that US reserves be filled to the brim!
You really want some overpaid "expert" deciding energy policy?
No.
It would be great to have scientist, who are knowledgable about the technology involved and the environment being impacted, determining the safety of the endeavor. These would be folks who do not work for a political party, an energy company, or activists organizations; but, instead work simply for the safety of the environment. This should be a no brainer. What good is a bazzilion dollars or gallons of energy, if we don't have clean water to drink and plant with, clean food to eat, or clean air to breath?
Seems that there was but that choice hasn't increased their employment. As seen in the links I provided or saved coal companies from going into bankruptcy.
Yes he did. Are you aware of how many barrels of oil that is and has it been completed or started yet?
Shale oil producers need the price per barrel to be between $48 and $54 dollars to break even. Oil is currently in the mid $20 per barrel. The world oil glut is going to get worse before it gets better. Strategic reserve purchases or not.
My water & air is clean. Where are you?
It would be great to have scientist, who are knowledgable about the technology involved and the environment being impacted, determining the safety of the endeavor. These would be folks who do not work for a political party, an energy company, or activists organizations; but, instead work simply for the safety of the environment.
I prefer somebody who is accountable to the people. Energy policy should be made by those whom the people elected.
If you are right they will show their dissatisfaction in November.
Are you aware of how many barrels of oil that is
I assume it is enough to help our Shale oil companies from the effects of the Russia/Saudi competition.
Shale oil producers need the price per barrel to be between $48 and $54 dollars to break even. Oil is currently in the mid $20 per barrel. The world oil glut is going to get worse before it gets better. Strategic reserve purchases or not.
And Iran's economy needs at least $30 per barrel. It hurts a lot of counties including the two competing factions. Remember what Adam Smith taught us.
My water & air is clean.
Thanks to environmental protections, not energy companies.
I prefer somebody who is accountable to the people. Energy policy should be made by those whom the people elected.
Are energy policy and environmental protection the same thing? Because I was talking about environmental protection.
There is no reason why elected officials cannot set policy, while scientists determine safety.
The plans to purchase oil for the strategic reserves has been suspended.
The original request for proposal, filed on March 19 , outlined plans to purchase the first 30 million barrels of American-made crude oil for the SPR out of a total of 77 million barrels.
That's a lot of oil.
Russia, SA, and the UAE produce over 30 million barrels per day. In that context it really isn't that much.
We do have those. Fretting about might happen is not sound policy. Pipelines are here to stay, so if fracking. We can't let other countries determine energy policies.
We have those because of environmental protections, not the altruism of energy companies. We must fret about the future if history has determined inevitability. We know that oil companies have made huge mistakes that caused catastrophe; that is enough for us to fret about what they will do in the future.
Thanks for the info Kavika.
That would be great ender but nothing will happen.
Can't disparage this 'president' on Vics' seeds with the truth now.
The environmental disaster that is Trump plays out on every level.
Sherry Vargson has been turned into an anti fracking activist,
because of the unbelievable amounts of methane in her well water.
She and her husband stopped keeping animals or boarding other peoples horses on the bulk of their property
when they realized that they cannot freeze the water and
the fracking company will not reveal what chemicals are injected into the ground that could cause that.
Like others have suggested, the frackers should be made drink from the water tables that they have "injured".
Instead they provide bottled water service to the victims, with no comment.
The oil shales are usually far below the aquifers. How deep was her well?
How did their water get contaminated?
I've explained this to you before, as have others. Stop trolling.
Donald giving a middle finger to the environment. A big Frack-U.
Butt it is all ok as long as the 1% can make money. Groundwater be damned.
"Elections have consequences."
[removed]