fracking

Subscribe to fracking via RSS

As we discussed earlier, environmental activists have asked the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to update its oil and gas drilling waste disposal rules under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”).  The groups sought to force the EPA’s hand by suing the EPA in an attempt to get a court order requiring the EPA to update its regulations.

Under RCRA, non-hazardous solid waste, which includes oil and gas production waste, is governed by Subtitle D. Subtitle D focuses on state and local governments as the primary regulating entities for the management of non-hazardous solid waste. It establishes minimum federal technical standards and guidelines for state solid waste regulations.  The EPA is required to review and approve state Subtitle D waste disposal programs to ensure that they meet the minimum standards.

Section 2002(b) of RCRA requires the EPA to review and, if necessary, revise at least once every three years the Subtitle D regulations. The activists have asked the EPA to revise its Subtitle D regulations and set clear requirements to govern the storage and disposal of oil and gas waste amid a “patchwork of [state] requirements with varying protections.”
Continue Reading Industry Groups Push Back Against Environmental Activists in Suit Over Oil & Gas Waste Disposal Regs.

UPDATE: Quickly following on the heels of the Wyoming federal district court’s order striking down the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) hydraulic fracturing rules, the state governments of North Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah have now moved to dismiss the pending Tenth Circuit appeal of the district court’s preliminary injunction order.  Those state government indicated in their brief that they had unsuccessfully attempted to reach out to counsel for the BLM and the environmental groups who filed that appeal, but expected those parties will oppose the dismissal motion.

Separately, the BLM and the intervening environmental groups each filed notices seeking to directly appeal the district court’s June 21 order and judgment striking the BLM’s rules to the Tenth Circuit.  While it remains unclear exactly how this matter will now proceed on appeal, it seems likely that the Tenth Circuit will combine or consolidate all of these appeal issues in one way or another.

______________________________________________________________

As we’ve previously reported, a Wyoming federal court issued a preliminary injunction order last year that temporarily halted the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) final rule regulating hydraulic fracturing on public lands.  Since that time, the case has split into two proceedings: the Wyoming court moved forward with conducting a full legal analysis of the BLM’s final rule, while several environmental groups who had intervened in the lawsuit appealed the preliminary injunction order to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.  This week we received some clarity on one of those proceedings, while the other remains pending.

District Court Strikes Down BLM Final Rule

On June 21, the Wyoming court struck down the BLM’s final rule, finding the agency lacked the legal authority to promulgate those regulations.

In his order, Judge Scott Skavdahl premised his opinion on whether Congress delegated requisite authority to the BLM to regulate hydraulic fracturing on public lands, and “not whether hydraulic fracturing is good or bad for the environment or the citizens of the United States.”  Ultimately, Judge Skavdahl held, a federal agency “may not exercise its authority in a manner that is inconsistent with the administrative structure that Congress enacted into law.”Continue Reading Wyoming Court Strikes Down BLM Hydraulic Fracturing Rule; Existing Appeal Remains Pending (For Now)

On May 4, 2016, a coalition of environmental organizations (“Plaintiffs”) filed suit against the U.S. Environmental Protection (“EPA”) in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to compel the EPA to promulgate revised regulations and guidelines for the disposal, storage, transportation, and handling of oil and gas wastes.  Environmental Integrity Project et al. v. Gina McCarthy (Case No. 1:16-cv-00842).  In the Complaint, Plaintiffs state that the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) requires the EPA to review and revise regulations for drilling wastes every three years.  42 U.S.C. § 6912(b).  According to Plaintiffs, the EPA last conducted a review of the regulations in 1988, but has since failed to update the regulations.  Further, the EPA has not updated the guidelines for state solid waste management plans as required under RCRA.

The environmental organizations are the Environmental Integrity Project, Natural Resources Defense Council, Earthworks, Responsible Drilling Alliance, San Juan Citizens Alliance, West Virginia Surface Owners’ Rights Organization, and the Center for Health, Environment and Justice.
Continue Reading Environmentalists Sue EPA to Force Update of Drilling Waste Regulations

On May 2, 2016, the Colorado Supreme Court issued opinions in two separate cases challenging local bans on hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”).  A win for the oil and gas industry in the state, the Supreme Court held that the challenged fracking bans were preempted by state law in both cases.  These decisions highlight the legal principle or doctrine of “preemption” – if  state law allows a process, like fracking, a local government is not permitted to ban or outlaw it.

In City of Fort Collins v. Colorado Oil and Gas Association (No. 15SC668, 2016), the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, an industry trade association, sued the City of Fort Collins seeking a declaratory judgment that Fort Collins’ moratorium on fracking was preempted by state law.  In November 2013, the citizens of Fort Collins approved a citizen-initiated ordinance that placed a moratorium on “hydraulic fracturing and the storage of its waste products within the City of Fort Collins or on lands under its jurisdiction for a period of five years, without exemption or exception, in order to fully study the impacts of this process . . .”  Opinion, at 5.  In finding that the State of Colorado has an interest in regulating fracking, the court held that Fort Collins’ fracking moratorium “renders the state’s statutory and regulatory scheme superfluous” because it prevents oil and gas operators from complying with state law that permits and regulates fracking.  “In doing so, the moratorium materially impedes the effectuation of the state’s interest in the efficient and responsible development of oil and gas resources.”  Id. at 14.Continue Reading Colorado Court Strikes Down Local Fracking Bans that Conflict with State Law

The Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) recently filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in a lawsuit brought by a coalition of environmental activists who have challenged the BLM’s Resource Management Plan (“RMP”) for public lands and minerals in California managed by the Bakersfield Field Office.  The activists asked a California federal judge to strike down the BLM’s RMP, claiming that the BLM never considered the effect of “unconventional drilling methods,” such as hydraulic fracturing on the land.

The BLM responded by pointing out that hydraulic fracturing is not a new, unproven technology and has been routinely used in California for over 50 years. It is estimated that only 25% of new wells in the Bakersfield planning area are expected to undergo hydraulic fracturing.  Furthermore, the BLM noted that 98% of new wells on federal mineral lands in the planning area are projected to be drilled on existing leases that have been producing for over 30 years and not on pristine, undisturbed lands.

The activists claimed that the BLM failed to take a “hard look” at the environmental impacts associated with fracking as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). However, any claim that the BLM did not comply with NEPA in developing the RMP is particularly weak under these facts.  The BLM developed a comprehensive, 1,000-page environmental impact statement (“EIS”).  Additionally, before issuing a final decision, BLM commissioned an independent review of well stimulation technologies in California to ensure that its EIS accurately reflected the potential impacts of fracking.  And finally, the independent review concluded that overall, the direct environmental impacts of well stimulation practice are relatively limited in California.
Continue Reading BLM Fights Back Against Activists’ Criticisms of CA Resource Management Plan

Two lawsuits were filed within days of each other in Oklahoma, claiming that energy companies engaged in hydraulic fracturing and underground disposal of produced water are causing earthquakes throughout the state. These lawsuits probably come as no surprise to the industry after the Sierra Club recently threatened to sue four oil companies for contributing to increased earthquakes in Oklahoma and southern Kansas.

A pair of Oklahoma residents, in a class-action lawsuit, have accused four energy companies of causing “a dramatic increase” in earthquakes throughout the state during the last five years. The lawsuit names Sandridge Exploration and Production, Chesapeake Operating, Devon Energy Production Company, and New Dominion as the defendants.

The plaintiffs claim that hydraulic fracturing and underground disposal of produced water are causing earthquakes across the state by increasing the pore pressure within faults making the fault more prone to slip.

The lawsuit alleges that the companies are liable to the plaintiffs and the class for nuisance, trespass, negligence, and engaging in an ultra-hazardous activity. The plaintiffs are seeking not only compensatory damages, but also punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.
Continue Reading Two Frackquake Lawsuits Filed in Oklahoma

Following a Wyoming federal court’s order temporarily halting the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) final rule regulating hydraulic fracturing on public lands, Sierra Club and several other environmental groups requested the court enter final judgment and delay proceedings while they pursue an appeal through the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.  (Our complete coverage of this…

On Monday, November 2, the Sierra Club issued a Notice of Intent to Sue (“Notice”) four oil companies, alleging ongoing violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”).  Specifically, the Notice states that the injection and disposal of hydraulic fracturing waste fluids into the ground is a “past and present handling and disposal of Production Wastes in a manner that may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health and the environment,” in violation of RCRA.  The Notice claims that fluid injection by oil companies, Sandridge Exploration and Production, New Dominion, Devon Energy Production Co. and Chesapeake Operating, is contributing to increased earthquakes in Oklahoma and southern Kansas.

This Notice follows a recent publication by the U.S. Geological Survey (“USGS”).  On October 20, the USGS released a report, A Century of Induced Earthquakes in Oklahoma?, that reviews the increased rate of seismicity in the central and eastern U.S. since 2009.  The report attempts to link industrial activity to the incidence of large earthquakes in the region.  As the Sierra Club Notice points out, the report states that injection of wastewater in deep disposal wells “potentially” induces earthquakes.  Additionally, a research letter published in October 2015 examined the two Cushing, Oklahoma earthquakes that occurred in October 2014, stating that a study of earthquake hazards and “its relationship to wastewater injection is important in order to understand potential damage to critical infrastructure in the region.”Continue Reading Sierra Club Issues Notice of Intent to Sue over Frackquakes in Oklahoma

Late yesterday, Judge Scott Skavdahl of the federal district court in Wyoming issued a much-anticipated order granting a series of preliminary injunction motions filed in litigation challenging the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) final rule regulating hydraulic fracturing on public lands.  (Our full coverage of the litigation is available here.)  In a detailed 54-page…

In June, a Wyoming federal district court temporarily delayed implementation of the Bureau of Land Management’s (“BLM”) new final rule regulating hydraulic fracturing on federal public lands, while it granted the BLM an extension to lodge its administrative record and permitted the parties more time to file citations to that record in support of their…

On Wednesday, August 26, a coalition of environmental groups threatened to sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) if the regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) are not updated to restrict the disposal of waste associated with oil and gas production.

The coalition specifically asked the EPA to review and revise the RCRA regulations pursuant to the statutory mandate found in sections 2002(b) and 4002(b) of RCRA. Under these sections, the EPA must review and revise RCRA regulations and guidelines “no less frequently than every three years.” (42 U.S.C. §§ 6912(b), 6942(b).)

RCRA was enacted in 1976 to govern the disposal of solid waste. Solid waste is broken down into (1) hazardous solid waste and (2) non-hazardous solid waste. The most notable provisions of RCRA are included in Subtitle C, which directs the EPA to establish controls on the management of hazardous wastes from their point of generation, through their transportation and treatment, storage and/or disposal.
Continue Reading Activists Threaten to Sue if EPA doesn’t Update RCRA Regs to Cover Oil & Gas Industry

About the Mineral Law Blog

Learn More

Here Stoel Rives shares insight and analysis about key mineral law developments. Drawing on a very active natural resources practice, we aim to keep readers informed about the legal aspects of news that impacts exploration and development of all things mineral.