The Political History of Hydraulic Fracturing’s Expansion Across the West

Abstract

This article presents an historical-based analysis of how executive branch actions altered federal domestic energy policies and the effect of that shift on the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) domestic energy policies and resource allocations. The analysis is supported by interview data collected from among Department of Interior officials who served during the Bush-Cheney administration as well as BLM administrators located in Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico. The analysis and interviews were conducted at the close of President Bush's tenure in office (2008-2009). The article includes an analysis of archival and government documents describing executive branch actions directing the BLM to favor the energy development industry's use of the hydraulic fracturing development process. First, these events are presented chronologically to illustrate how a president and his executive appointees established changes to federal energy policies at the agency level that led to the reallocation of resources favoring domestic energy development. Second, an interpretive analysis of the interview data is presented as a means of validating the initial, document-based analysis. As the article concludes, documents as well as the voices of those most closely involved in the policymaking process confirm that executive branch actions shifted federal domestic energy policies, which then resulted in increased numbers and types of federal development projects using the hydraulic fracturing and directional drilling energy resource development process expanded rapidly across the states of the Rocky Mountain West.

Framed for Compromise? The Role of Bill Framing in State Legislative Behavior on Natural Gas Policy

“…Subsequent research has explored federalizing energy (Davis & Hoffer, 2012;Warner & Shapiro, 2013), land-use conflicts (Forbis, 2014), community right-to-know regarding fracking chemical disclosure (Fisk, 2013;Heikkila, Weible, & Pierce, 2014), and state regulatory responses (Davis, 2012;Rinfret et al, 2014). Forbis (2014) clearly identifies the land-use conflict among ranchers, industry, environmental groups, and state and federal regulators over the rapid expansion of hydraulic fracturing on splitestate and public lands. Gullion (2015) examines how "reluctant activists" working to pass restrictive city ordinances are responding to natural gas development in their communities by defining it as a threat to community health and cause of disease.…”

“…Modern hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling technologies can be traced back to the 1980s and their widespread application coupled with abundant resources and amenable federal and state policies drive this Rocky Mountain West natural gas boom (Davis & Kear, ; Forbis, ; Kear, forthcoming). Notably, the western boom precedes other unconventional shale gas booms including the Marcellus Shale (Appalachians) that began in the late 2000s; the popularization of fracking in the media as an energy wedge issue; and the more recent (post‐2010) contentious debate between municipalities and states over the legality of local fracking bans and moratoriums (Davis, ).…”

Impact of Executive Order 13211 on environmental regulation: An empirical study

“…(Van Natta and Banerjee, 2002) Despite early concerns, EO 13211's impact on both energy and environmental policy received minimal academic study or attention. (Forbis, 2014;Copeland, 2013;Shapiro, 2011;Johnson, 2008;Arbuckle, 2009;Klopf et al, 2007;Austin andPhoenix, 2005: Kalen, 2005) This study sought to determine whether the concern of environmental groups or the posturing by industry proved most founded. While we were particularly interested in reviewing the potential conflict between agency actions in proposed shale oil and gas extraction permit areas, we did not limit our review to actions involving unconventional oil and gas.…”

Does Arctic governance hold the key to achieving climate policy targets?

“…Stakeholders compete to control the policymaking environment, and those incapable of controlling or dominating the policymaking environment of subgovernments often form alliances to counter the dominant power [e.g. [13][14][15]. Identifying the actors and their strengths and weaknesses, determining how they are bounded by existing domestic and international laws, articulating their typology, and ranking them in the hierarchical power arrangement are all significant factors in determining the capacity of the scientific community to shape and influence the policy outcomes of the Arctic Council's decision-making in the context of Arctic energy resource exploration and development (figure 1).…”

“…Within domestic natural resource agency policymaking environments, scientific and environmental communities are currently situated at the rock bottom of the hierarchical arrangement of stakeholders competing for influence [15]. Stakeholders are typically defined by the political and financial resources they have at their disposal to influence/shape policy outcomes and, put bluntly, scientists and nongovernmental organizations have few of those resources at their disposal.…”