Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jesse Drang on August 1, 2016 at 4:34am

This is a great issue involving federalism.  Go here to learn more: http://law.rwu.edu/story/burger-fracking-and-federalism

It depends on whether you believe in a bigger federal government or whether states and political subdivisions should exercise a degree of autonomy from the federal government.  

I think there should be local choice and I think that the locals should chose fracking.  I feel the same way about forced pooling.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Frank Walker on August 2, 2016 at 2:52am

Well said, Jesse.  I support Trump's position on this across the board.  The less fracking there is on account of local or state bans, the higher is likely to be the price of the natural gas being harvested from my land right now!

But of course a Federal ban, as supported by the Hildabeast, would be a catastrophe.  Also, local or state control over NG pipelines would be very bad for producing regions.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim Litwinowicz on August 2, 2016 at 5:31am

A couple of issues come into play.  In most municipalities, the majority of voters live in homes with less than an acre or two of land.  To them, fracking will produce little income but will change their neighborhood and perhaps their lifestyles. Many would vote to ban fracking.

The more populated, the more likely to ban fracking. But when they do so, they deny owners of land the 'full enjoyment' of said land, ei they cannot develop their O & G rights and are denied income. It is possible that landowners could sue the muni for unfair taking and loss of value.

Perhaps a fairer way would to be require a super majority of votes to ban fracking, say 60% or 66%. Doesn't seem fair that a majority of one could deny landowners, many that have owned the land for generations, can deny them the full use of that land.

Fracking benefits the munies in many ways, not just landowners.  It creates jobs, pays taxes, increases income of landowners. Those landowners will buy cars, farm equipment, add on to homes. They will pay higher real estate taxes, sales taxes, and more. They will support local businesses that create more jobs and pay more taxes. All of this benefits even those that don't own land.

What I feel is important in this article is that infractions are way down and there were no new instances of methane contamination. These drillers get better and better every year and have proven this to be a safe method.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jesse Drang on August 2, 2016 at 6:35am

Adding to this is my thought from several years ago ... the industry should have embraced a well head tax.  Once that revenue becomes a reliable funding stream, the state will never outlaw it.  The industry played the wrong card.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Middlesex Resident on August 10, 2016 at 11:11am

Jim, All good, logical points, and I agree with you. My experience though, in Western PA we had a referendum on our ballot in our local municipality to vote either for or against fracking. People voted for fracking, 3 to 1 (perhaps more) if I remember correctly. The people against fracking sued, tied the whole thing up for 2 years in litigation, very high legal fees for the municipality to defend their zoning. Eventually pro fracking won but by then the energy company was almost broke, municipality was broke and the price of gas had plummeted and leases expired so the lease holders lost in the end. They are drilling again but everyone lost a lot of money in the meantime, and life-long friends will never speak to each other again in some instances. In my area the anti-frackers never see that there is ANY positive to fracking.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jon on August 2, 2016 at 6:22am

I hope that you're right about pa and ohio.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Money Bags on August 5, 2016 at 2:40am

States should have the bigger voice in all matters within their jurisdictions! The Feds are out of control! My Opinion

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jon on August 9, 2016 at 8:13am

Didn't Oklahoma outlaw fracking bans?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Barry D on August 9, 2016 at 11:16am

This is a non issue.

His position is correct with regard to the Constitution and to states rights.

The issue of the regulation of oil and gas should remain local, the position of Donald Trump is Constitutional and respectful of states rights.

HilLIARy would wield the heavy hand of the federal government and impose un-Constitutional regulations on oil and gas development. These regulations would also fly in the face of the Constitutionally protected states rights.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan on August 9, 2016 at 10:31pm

No it isn't. There is a big difference between a township, city, county and state.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by patricia on August 11, 2016 at 4:13am

I can not believe anyone would read Politico and expect it to be correct.  They like to twist news to their opinion.  Trump was saying leave this to the states and local people.  Most important was that he is "FOR" Fracking.  He did not say he was with Hillary Clinton.  Their end results are as far apart as any one could be.  She is for Federal Govt. to decide.  While Trump is for States and Local Governments to decide.  He wants the voters, you and I, to decide what is to be done.  Yes, if a Local Government decides not to Frack in this particular spot then he feels that is their right.  HILLARY IS NOT FOR FRACKING, COAL MINING OR ANYTHING THAT WILL MAKE UP ENERGY SAFE.  IT IS "US" OR THE MIDDLE EAST AND SHE SEEMS TO PREFER THE MIDDLE EAST MONEY TO GO TO "HER".  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Debra Lynn Pennell on August 11, 2016 at 4:20am

I am glad to hear that drilling is picking up in western Pa. I have 2 parcels under lease, and one that is under Consol with an inactive well. Luckily I found out it had been producing up to 2011.

• ▶ Reply