Will Kamala Harris Ban Fracking? She Now Says No, of Course, But Everything Else Suggests Yes.
Guest Post by Jim Willis at Marcellus Drilling News.
It’s really fascinating to watch this presidential election. Yes, we’ve promised to try and keep the politics to a minimum, but we must report on things we notice that have the potential to affect the shale drilling industry in general, and the Marcellus/Utica in particular. Here’s an issue we cannot keep silent about.
As we’ve pointed out repeatedly, Kamala Harris hates fossil fuel energy and wants to eliminate it. She told a CNN moderator in 2019 that she favors “a ban on fracking.” Period. For the entire country.
Yet, now, because she must win Pennsylvania in order to win the race, she professes she is against a ban on fracking (see PA Climate Zealots Spit and Sputter Over Harris’ Fracking Flip-Flop). Along comes the Democrat media, via outlets like PBS, to try and convince PA voters that even if she wanted to ban fracking on private land (which she does), she could not, as President of the U.S., do so. Inferring it’s OK to vote for her because fracking is safe. We’re here to tell you that claim (that she can’t ban fracking) is demonstrably untrue.
Let’s begin with the latest effort to convince voters who favor oil and gas and fracking that voting for Kamala won’t hurt the industry, that it’s A.O.K. to vote for her. Here is an article from Philadelphia PBS station WHYY flying under the title, “Fact check: A president can’t ban fracking in Pennsylvania.” We’ll debunk that statement below. First, the PBS story from well-known anti-fossil fueler Susan Phillips:
Fracking for natural gas in Pennsylvania took up significant airtime during the presidential debate Tuesday night at the National Constitution Center in Old City, especially when you consider how little influence a president has when it comes to drilling for oil and gas in the state.
In such a tight presidential race, Pennsylvania will be a hard-fought swing state. So, of course, we have to talk about fracking.
Former President Donald Trump is all for it, and at Tuesday’s debate, he claimed Vice President Kamala Harris is not.
“And she will never allow fracking in Pennsylvania. If she won the election, fracking in Pennsylvania will end on day one,” Trump said.
There’s a big problem with Trump’s statement because a president can’t “ban fracking” in Pennsylvania, only an act of Congress will accomplish that.
When you hear talk about banning fracking by a president – that is limited to federal land. And the state has virtually no federal land to frack. The Allegheny National Forest, in the north central part of the state, is the only place where federal leases exist, and they span about 850 acres.
The vast majority of leases are on private land, something a president cannot touch. The state also leases land to oil and gas development – in 2020 those leases included about 250,000 acres.
Harris, who favored a fracking ban when she first ran for president back in 2019, changed her position once she joined President Joe Biden as his vice-presidential running mate.
“Let’s talk about fracking because we are here in Pennsylvania,” she said. “I made that very clear in 2020. I will not ban fracking. I have not banned fracking as vice president of the United States.”
To be clear, a vice president can’t ban fracking on any private or state-owned land in Pennsylvania either.
Vice President Harris did say correctly that oil and gas development has increased over the past four years under President Biden.
In January, E&E News reported that federal leases for oil and gas development also increased under Biden.
And while most voters don’t make their presidential decisions based on fracking, it’s one of those issues where you’re either for it or against it. It’s what’s known as a wedge issue, which Trump is using to define himself in contrast to Harris, as he did in the 2020 race against Biden. This will likely continue despite both parties’ support for fracking, and the fact that it’s, again, not something a president can do much about in Pennsylvania even if they wanted to.
Even some on “our side” have been fooled, lulled into believing fracking “could never” be banned. Below is an article from Robert Rapier, a chemical engineer covering the energy sector who writes on the Forbes website. We have often enjoyed and quoted his articles here on MDN. His latest article is “Why Kamala Harris Won’t Ban Fracking.”
During a heated presidential debate on Tuesday night, former President Donald Trump repeatedly claimed that Vice President Kamala Harris would ban hydraulic fracturing (fracking) if she becomes president. He asserted, “If she won the election, fracking in Pennsylvania will end on day one.”
In response, Harris clarified, “I will not ban fracking. I have not banned fracking as Vice President of the United States. In fact, I was the tie-breaking vote on the Inflation Reduction Act, which opened new leases for fracking.”
Trump’s claim wasn’t entirely without basis, as Harris had previously stated during her 2019 presidential campaign that “there’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking.”
However, the reality is more nuanced because Harris, along with Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, has expressed support for a fracking ban. Even President Joe Biden campaigned on “no new fracking” before adjusting his position to acknowledge the necessity of fracking as part of an energy transition.
The truth is, political candidates often make statements to appeal to their base. Whether Harris was pandering or genuinely believed at one point that fracking should be banned, there is currently no practical way to stop it.
Fracking, which dates back to the late 1940s, sparked a U.S. oil and gas production boom when combined with horizontal drilling about 20 years ago. This surge in production has made the U.S. the world’s leading producer of both oil and natural gas.
Most of this production happens on private land, meaning that, even if Trump believes otherwise, Harris would have no authority to end fracking in Pennsylvania on her first day in office.
New laws would be required to halt fracking, and given its significant role in U.S. energy production, it’s highly unlikely Congress would pass such a law.
As a result, it’s a moot point. As an energy sector expert with decades of experience in the oil industry, I still don’t believe a ban on fracking will ever happen.
For years, we have argued that oil and gas development is solely and exclusively under the control of the individual states and not the federal government, according to the U.S. Constitution. However, time and again, we have seen how the Executive Branch of the federal government, controlled by the President, has extended its reach into controlling oil and gas exploration (see Biden EPA Gears Up to Begin Regulating Oil & Gas Via Back Door; Bidenistas Unleash Hellscape of U.S. Methane Regs at COP28; and Biden DOT Issues New Partisan Methane Rules for All Gas Pipelines).
Here’s why both articles we cite above are incorrect in stating a president cannot and will not ban fracking. The president has massive, almost uncontrolled authority via regulatory agencies like the EPA, PHMSA, FERC, DOE, DOI, BLM, and others. Harris will not call it a “ban” on fracking when/if she assumes office. She will call it “sensible regulations” in order to “protect people who live near this activity.” The EPA and other agencies will ramp up regulations so restrictive that it is, in effect, a ban. How?
What if the EPA or some obscure regulatory agency like OSHA instituted a nationwide setback (distance from the well to the nearest structure, like a house or shed) of 2,500 feet, like the zoning ordinance being contemplated in Cecil Township (see Cecil Twp Hellbent to Ban New Shale Drilling via 2,500-Ft Setback). Such a regulation nationwide would wipe out new shale drilling in perhaps 90% of all locations, effectively shutting down fracking. It’s not a “ban” per se, but it is a ban in the practical sense.
Or, regulatory agencies could require drillers to install all sorts of monitoring equipment at each drilling site that makes drilling so expensive they just give up.
Or, regulatory agencies that oversee block grants could hold billions of dollars hostage unless states meet certain unlegislated regulatory standards.
Etc. You get the picture. Harris (and the left) are experts at using (we’d call abusing) regulatory agencies to carry out edicts that would never make it through Congress.
“But,” you say, “Won’t the courts overturn such overregulation by the Executive Branch?” Anti-fossil fuel regulatory actions can and likely would get challenged. However, the judges already appointed by Biden and those who Harris would appoint (plus judges who Obama and Clinton appointed) would likely ignore the law and issue decisions that reflect their own political views. In case you didn’t know, our judicial system has been corrupted and is beyond repair. It’s loaded with leftists who ignore the law as written and make up their own laws. So no, we can’t depend on the courts to correct overregulation in a Harris administration.
The bottom line:
Harris and the left won’t call it a ban, but they will regulate the oil and gas industry out of existence. A Harris administration would be an existential threat to this country’s energy supply. We sure hope PA voters are smart enough not to fall for the line that Harris can’t ban fracking. She can and she will, via regulation.
Editor’s Note: See, too, Jim’s excellent article titled “DOE: Biden “Pause” (Ban) on Approving LNG Exports Still in Effect,” which explains exactly how Biden and Harris have politically employed their LNG facilities ‘pause’ to strangle the industry while sending signals to the contrary. They are liars extraordinaire!
#Pennsylvania #Fracking #Harris #KamalaHarris #Ban #WHYY #LNGexports
A constitutional convention is in order ASAP
The cackling concubine Harris backflop heels in the air will turn in every voter who supports her immediately after election. People supporting her are very stupid if they believe otherwise. The cackling concubine has several decades of far left and communist behavior; which will not change.
A true pathological liar.