U.S. judge blocks oil, gas drilling over climate change | TribLIVE.com
U.S./World

U.S. judge blocks oil, gas drilling over climate change

Associated Press
909740_web1_909740-157020eb178445329d31d1c84c29a1b3
The Casper Star-Tribune
Trinidad Drilling rigs are seen off of Way Highway 59 outside of Douglas, Wyo. A judge has blocked oil and gas drilling on almost 500 square miles in Wyoming and says the government must consider cumulative climate change impacts of leasing public lands across the United States for energy development.

BILLINGS, Mont. — A judge has blocked oil and gas drilling on almost 500 square miles in Wyoming and says the government must consider the cumulative climate change impact of leasing broad swaths of U.S. public lands for oil and gas exploration.

The order marks the latest in a string of court rulings over the past decade — including one last month in Montana — that have faulted the U.S. for inadequate consideration of greenhouse gas emissions when issuing leases and permits for oil, gas or coal production.

But U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras in Washington, D.C., appeared to go a step further than judges have previously in his order issued late Tuesday.

Previous rulings focused on individual lease sales or permits. But Contreras said that when the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) auctions public lands for oil and gas leasing, officials must consider emissions from past, present and foreseeable future oil and gas leases nationwide.

“Given the national, cumulative nature of climate change, considering each individual drilling project in a vacuum deprives the agency and the public of the context necessary to evaluate oil and gas drilling on federal land,” Contreras wrote.

The ruling coincides with an aggressive push by President Trump’s administration to open more public lands to energy development.

It came in a lawsuit that challenged leases issued in Wyoming, Utah and Colorado in 2015 and 2016, during President Obama’s administration. Only the leases in Wyoming were immediately addressed in Contreras’ ruling, which blocks federal officials from issuing drilling permits until they conduct a new environmental review looking more closely at greenhouse gas emissions.

Bureau of Land Management spokeswoman Kristen Lenhardt said the agency was still reviewing the ruling and “determining a path forward regarding the implications.”

The case was brought by two advocacy groups, WildEarth Guardians and Physicians for Social Responsibility.

WildEarth Guardians climate program director Jeremy Nichols predicted the ruling would have much bigger implications than a halt to drilling in some areas of Wyoming — assuming the government does what Contreras has asked.

“This is the Holy Grail ruling we’ve been after, especially with oil and gas,” said Jeremy Nichols, WildEarth Guardians climate program director. “It calls into question the legality of oil and gas leasing that’s happening everywhere.

“This forces them to pull their head out of the sand and look at the bigger picture,” he added.

The BLM already does the correct analysis of greenhouse gas effects at the leasing stage, which changes once it knows whether and how many oil and gas wells might be drilled on leased land, an oil and gas industry group said.

“The judge is asking BLM to take a wild guess at how many wells would be developed on these leases,” said Kathleen Sgamma with the Western Energy Alliance.

Categories: Business | Wire stories
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.