On Monday, a federal judge ruled that a pair of fracking projects in California had to stall while stakeholders re-examined potential environmental effects. The judge determined that insufficient attention had been given to the negative impacts of these projects which would include fracking and horizontal drilling. US District Court Judge Paul Grewal said that the Bureau of Land Management, from which the leases were sought…
…did not adequately consider the development impact of hydraulic fracturing techniques … when used in combination with technologies such as horizontal drilling … The potential risk for contamination from fracking, while unknown, is not so remote or speculative to be completely ignored …
We can speculate what this might mean for Minnesota. One one hand, this may raise the general level of expectation with respect to environmental impact assessment for fracking projects. This is important because fracking projects have two features that may obviate against proper consideration of environmental impacts. First, it is sometimes viewed as “exploration” (which it isn’t) thus avoiding detailed review. Second, the process is quick. You go into an area, frack it, then over time remove the oil and gas. By the time environmentally concerned stakeholders get organized and lawyered up, the hit and run process is done.
On the other hand, the Monterey Shale Formation, the geological formation of interest in the California case, may represent well over half of the total US shale oil reserves, most or all of which require fracking to exploit. This is a big hit on the fracking industry, and could cause increased pressure to frack elsewhere, in other states or regions, where the environmental lobby is less powerful or less prepared.
Comment