ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA, May 25, 2016: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks at campaign event in the Anaheim Stadium in Anaheim California to Thousands of fans and Supporters.

The Trump Energy Plan: A Sea Change in U.S. Energy Policy

It has been a year now since we all awoke on Nov. 9, 2016, to the reality that, against all odds and all predictions by the polls and political “experts,” Donald J. Trump had somehow defeated Hillary Clinton in the race to become the 45th President of the United States. It was a stunning outcome to a seemingly endless campaign, one that had turned into the most vicious and personal presidential contest in modern times.

The oil and gas industry had not supported Trump’s candidacy during the Republican Party’s primary and nominating process, when most contributions from industry executives and company employee PACs flowed to more conventional politicians like Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, and Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Marco Rubio of Florida. The same held true in the general election, during which the vast majority of contributions from industry executives flowed to Clinton.

Despite that slight, Trump made the promotion of policies that support a healthy oil and gas industry a centerpiece of his campaign strategy from beginning to end. During his speeches, the primary and general election debates, and the hundreds of rallies he conducted before crowds of thousands of supporters, candidate Trump talked about issues all too familiar to those in and around the nation’s oil patches: the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, EPA’s Waters of the United States regulatory scheme, the Clean Power Plan and the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) hydraulic fracturing rule.

At a September 2016 rally in Pittsburgh, Trump made a speech that was very typical to what he said throughout his campaign: “I am going to lift the restrictions on American energy and allow this wealth to pour into our communities — including right here in Pennsylvania. The shale energy revolution will unleash massive wealth for American workers and families.”

It was an extraordinary thing. No candidate in modern times from any political party had worked so hard to make energy in general, and the oil and gas industry specifically, such a major part of his or her campaign’s messaging. When seeking support from the oil and gas industry and many others, though, Trump turned off many people with his rhetoric and antics on other matters. His unpredictability made millions of Americans simply uncomfortable with the idea of having this person occupying the highest office in the land. This factor remains true a full year after his election.

Another problem that impacted Trump’s ability to obtain support from industry leaders is the simple fact that Americans have become conditioned to not expect political candidates to keep the promises they make out on the campaign trail. There is a very good reason for this: Very few politicians really mean most of what they say during their campaigns — they rarely have any intention of following through on the great majority of things they promise once they have been safely elected to office.

Most Americans saw no reason to think that Trump would be any different. With the advantage of hindsight, this assumption seems very naive given that Trump showed that he is completely different from ordinary politicians in pretty much every other way possible — for better or worse — as he campaigned across the country.

So it was that, as Election Day dawned on Nov. 8, 2016, most everyone associated with the oil and gas industry — indeed, most Americans in general — went to the polls believing that, no matter which candidate they intended to vote for, they would wake up the following day knowing that Hillary Clinton had been elected to the presidency.

For those who deal with efforts to influence or comply with regulatory or legislative policy matters, this was not exactly an appealing thought. Clinton had campaigned on the promise that, if elected, her first term in office would effectively be a third term for Barack Obama, whose energy and environmental policies she promised to continue and expand upon. At more than one event during her campaign, she promised audiences that, in her administration, she would work to make sure that it would become almost impossible to conduct hydraulic fracturing operations. During a March 2016 debate with Bernie Sanders, she stated, “By the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place.”

The Obama administration’s EPA and Department of the Interior (DOI) had spent eight years producing layer upon layer of new regulations directed at the industry, and its agencies had worked intently to find ways to extend their reach further and further over time. This process had sped up to a fever pitch during the final two Obama years, as regulators worked overtime to produce as much new regulation as possible just in case a Republican were to win the 2016 election.

Thus, those in the industry who worked in policy-related areas of the business went into Election Day with a very long laundry list of proposed and pending new regulations on their plates. Many companies were uncertain how their people would manage to absorb the requirements of this regulatory onslaught and find ways to comply with it all.

Few — even those executives who had supported Clinton’s candidacy — truly looked forward to the prospect of a continuation down this regulatory path for another four or eight years. But many had decided to contribute to the Clinton campaign more as a defensive measure than anything else, in the hopes that their campaign support would at least help to ensure that they and their companies might at least have opportunities to meet with the new political appointees at the various agencies that would assuredly be looking to further regulate them in a Clinton administration.

Such was the mindset, the overall prevailing mood of those in the oil and gas industry, as the polls closed on the evening of Nov. 8. In just a handful of hours, that prevailing mood would undergo a radical shift, as the late-night results coming in from traditionally “blue” states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and, most surprising of all, Wisconsin made it clear that there would be no third term for the Obama administration. The Trump era had dawned, and a sea change in federal energy and environmental policy was about to begin.

Hitting the Ground Running

Throughout November and December and into January, President-elect Trump continued to frequently talk about energy issues and his intentions to follow through on the promises he had made once he took the oath of office and began managing his administration. Many in the industry remained skeptical, but that mood began to shift as Congress convened a week prior to the inauguration and immediately took up a series of joint resolutions that would repeal some of the massive regulations that were put into place during the final months of the Obama administration under the rarely used Congressional Review Act (CRA).

The CRA is a relatively new law, enacted in 1996 by a Republican-dominated Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton, a Democrat. The purpose of the law was to allow a newly elected Congress to mitigate the impacts of exactly the sort of rush-to-regulate activity that took place during the final months of the Obama era. However, during its 20-year life prior to 2017, the CRA had only been used to successfully reverse a regulation of a prior administration a single time, when the 2001 Congress used it to reverse an obscure, but no doubt important at the time, regulatory action of the outgoing Clinton administration.

Even though the process was difficult and seemed unlikely to yield much fruit, GOP leadership in the 2017 Congress were determined to give it the old college try. Where the oil and gas industry was concerned, the House of Representatives ultimately passed resolutions that would have repealed several Obama-era regulations that the industry had opposed, including:

• a regulation finalized by the Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) that would have dramatically increased royalties owed by the industry on oil and gas produced from federal lands;

• a BLM regulation governing venting and flaring of natural gas on federal lands; and

• an EPA regulation governing methane emissions from upstream oil and gas facilities.

While none of these resolutions would ultimately pass the Senate — which notoriously moves much more slowly than the House, and where the Republican majority is much smaller — the fact that Congress was even taking up this kind of legislation related to oil and gas injected a dose of much-needed optimism into an industry that had grown all too used to receiving nothing but bad news from the nation’s capital.

It deserves to be remembered that the resolution related to the EPA methane regulation failed by just two votes in the Senate. The other two resolutions were never taken up by the Senate as they were delayed so long that the administration decided to deal with them in other ways.

Before the CRA process ran its course, Congress had passed — and President Trump had signed — 14 joint resolutions that reversed Obama-era regulatory actions, several of which had an impact on the oil and gas industry. Thus, early congressional efforts in the new Trump era produced some results and began the initial trickle in what was about to become a massive sea change in both the tone and direction of federal regulation of the oil and gas industry.

The Trump administration dealt with the ONRR royalty regulation administratively; and after a court challenge, this bad regulation finally died a quiet death in September. The DOI is still engaged in a process that would dramatically rewrite the BLM venting and flaring rule, and is being challenged every step of the way by anti-development groups. Parts of the EPA methane regulation have gone into effect, but the EPA continues to find ways to mitigate the rule’s negative impacts. Thus, President Trump, even in the face of adverse outcomes in Congress and legal challenges from multiple plaintiffs, has found creative ways to keep the promises he made during his campaign.

Executive Action

Following his inauguration in January, the new President wasted little time making a splash in energy policy, as just four days into his term in office he issued an executive order related to the embattled Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) project in North Dakota and the northern leg of the Keystone XL Pipeline that had been held up for years by President Obama.

The President’s order on Keystone XL invited the operator, TransCanada, to reapply for its cross-border permit and directed the U.S. Department of State to “take all actions necessary and appropriate to facilitate its expeditious review.” The order further gave the Department of State 60 days from receipt of TransCanada’s new application to issue a final decision.

After suffering through six years of delays, it no doubt seemed like a breath of fresh air to TransCanada’s executives. Indeed, the company confirmed later that same day that it had already begun preparing its new permit application in advance of the President’s order. That application was submitted several days later, and the Department of State approved it in late March. While some conflict groups are continuing to challenge the pipeline, there is no doubt that the 2016 election completely changed the equation related to this controversial pipeline project.

Given that DAPL was at a different point in the process than Keystone XL, the executive order related to it had to be drawn under different terms. In December 2016, President Obama ordered the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to perform an Environmental Impact Statement related to the project, ostensibly designed to explore alternative routes that would placate the then ongoing protests conducted by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and a raft of outside protest groups latched on to the cause during the summer of 2016. In reality, this was basically President Obama’s means of avoiding having to make a final decision on the project, punting it to the Trump administration.

The President’s order on DAPL was directed not to Energy Transfer Partners, the builder of the pipeline, but to the Army, ordering the Corps of Engineers to “take all actions necessary and appropriate” to conduct this review and approve the pipeline “in an expedited manner, to the extent permitted by law and as warranted.” Within a few weeks, the Army responded affirmatively, withdrawing its requirement for the conduct of a full Environmental Impact Study and issuing the final easement necessary to move forward with completion of the final segment of the line.

That all took place by mid-February, and the completion of the final segment of the pipeline — after being held up for half a year by the Obama administration in support of protest action — took less than a month. Line-fill oil began flowing through DAPL a week after a U.S. Court of Appeals rejected an appeal by the Standing Rock Sioux and Cheyenne River Sioux tribes on March 18, and the pipeline was able to move into full operation mode a couple of months later.

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe has continued to fight DAPL in the federal courts, but its challenges have thus far been rejected. The pipeline has also been the target of attacks by eco-terrorists, several of whom have been arrested and charged by law enforcement officials.

In the end, though, this pipeline will continue to operate, an outcome that likely would not have happened under a Clinton presidency.

Clean Power Plan Order

On March 27, President Trump issued an executive order instructing the EPA to begin the process of rescinding major parts of the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, which was a centerpiece of the Obama administration’s efforts to ensure the U.S. would be able to meet carbon emissions targets under the Paris Climate Accord (more on that later). Although the press portrayed this move as a way for Trump to keep his oft-stated campaign promise to save the coal industry, they missed the fact that the order contained almost as many benefits for the oil and gas industry as it did for the coal industry. Provisions beneficial to oil and gas included:

• the rescission of the Obama administration’s “social cost of carbon” construct, which focused on carbon’s costs but not its gigantic benefits to U.S. society;

• the elimination of the Council on Environmental Quality’s guidance that all federal agencies consider climate change in every new regulatory or permitting action;

• the instruction to all relevant agencies to ‟review all existing regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, and any other similar agency actions (collectively, agency actions) that potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources, with particular attention to oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy resources”; and

• the instruction to the Secretary of the Interior to perform a review of regulations issued late in the Obama administration and make recommendations to “suspend, revise, or rescind the guidance, or publish for notice and comment proposed rules suspending, revising, or rescinding those rules,” an instruction that ultimately resulted in efforts by the DOI to rescind the BLM rules on venting and flaring and hydraulic fracturing.

Thus, the March 27 order related to the Clean Power Plan represented a 180-degree reversal from the regulatory direction taken by the Obama administration, not just toward the coal industry, but the oil and gas industry as well. As a direct result of this order, the DOI rescinded the BLM hydraulic fracturing rule; and, after various court challenges, the rule was finally taken off the books in late September.

The BLM venting and flaring rule remains a source of conflict, as a federal appeals court ordered parts of it to go into effect on Oct. 4, despite objections filed by the BLM. But on Oct. 9, the BLM announced its intention to rescind the other provisions of the rule and begin the process of rewriting them.

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt acted on the President’s executive order in early October when he announced that his agency was rescinding the Clean Power Plan entirely and would begin the administrative process to replace it with new regulations. Many observers reacted to this action as if it would become the salvation of the nation’s coal industry, but, yet again, they were incorrect. The economic decisions to retire the older, less efficient fleet of coal-fired power plants in the U.S. were made by power providers years ago and are inevitable.

Texas power provider Luminant clearly illustrated this market-based reality when, just three days before Pruitt made his announcement, it announced it would be closing its huge Monticello coal-fired plant in East Texas in early 2018. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports that power providers retired about 14 gigawatt hours of coal-fired capacity in 2015 alone, and the agency only expects the pace of such retirements to accelerate in the coming years. The vast majority will be replaced by combined-cycle natural gas plants, with the remaining needs being filled mainly by wind and solar.

The Trump Plan for American Energy Dominance

One of the themes Trump focused on during the campaign, which he continued to come back to after assuming office, was his intention to pursue policies that would promote U.S. energy dominance. Not energy independence or energy security, both themes adopted by past presidential campaigns and administrations, but energy dominance.

Most Americans remained confused over what this term actually means, even after the President attempted to articulate it in a speech he made in late June during what the administration was calling “Energy Week.”

In all fairness, it does take some explaining. When President Trump talks about his goal of energy dominance, he’s referring to a plan that envisions policies encouraging four major elements:

• taking full advantage of America’s abundance of oil, natural gas and coal;

• increasing exports of all three of these fossil fuels and their related products;

• relying more on imports of oil from Canada, Mexico and other Western Hemisphere nations, and less on imports from the Middle East and North Africa; and

• leveraging oil, natural gas and coal to enhance U.S. bargaining positions in the country’s foreign policy initiatives.

As if on cue, the President engaged in a bit of energy leveraging during his discussions with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, folding India’s growing reliance on U.S. LNG imports into his request to lessen the rapidly growing nation’s import tariffs on U.S. goods. We have since seen the President and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson leverage energy into negotiations with China, Pakistan and Russia.

There have been other clear results in the intervening months as well. In early October, the EIA announced that — thanks in part to expedited permitting at the Department of Commerce — U.S. producers were exporting almost 2 million barrels of domestically produced crude oil per day, more than several OPEC nations manage to do. In September, Dominion announced that its Cove Point LNG export facility would be coming online during the fourth quarter of 2017, months earlier than had been expected. The administration’s efforts to streamline permitting and other approval processes have also helped to ensure that several more LNG export facilities will come online during 2018.

We should expect to see the President rely more and more on this sort of leverage as U.S. exports of oil, LNG and coal continue to rapidly grow in the coming years. This, more than anything else, is what the President means when he talks about energy dominance.

Critics point to the reality that the U.S. currently imports about half of its daily crude oil needs, but this misses the point. This is not a discussion about energy independence — the President clearly understands that the U.S. will always be a net importer of crude oil.

One main point of the energy dominance discussion is to change that import mix so that the U.S. is mainly importing from friendly governments in more stable parts of the world, rather than from often hostile governments in the Middle East and North Africa, both of which are extremely unstable. Achieving this goal will lessen the incentives for the U.S. to constantly intervene in conflicts and civil wars in those unstable regions; it will also provide the President and his Department of State with greater leverage in the complex and often seemingly intractable negotiations with the region’s governments.

The President’s willingness and active plan to leverage U.S. energy abundance in his foreign policy and international negotiations stand in stark contrast to his predecessor. President Obama seemingly regarded this country’s fossil fuels as more of a nuisance than tools to be used to enhance the nation’s negotiating positions or improve national security.

A Return to Normal Order in the Regulatory Process

One of the great frustrations among U.S. regulated industries during the Obama years was the unwillingness of federal agencies to engage in “normal order” in the regulatory process.

The federal regulatory process is governed by the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), which requires agencies to first post proposed regulations in the Federal Register, and then run them through a public consultation process before finalizing them.

The point of this regimented process is to solicit input from the regulated industry and other interested parties, and seriously consider and factor such input into the development of the final regulations. After all, the real experts are mainly employed within the industry — it only makes sense for regulators to consult with these experts as they attempt to develop new regulations.

When a new proposed regulation is large and/or highly complex in nature, this consultation process could go through several iterations and consume many months or even years before a final version is issued. The whole point of the process is to develop regulations that actually take into account the realities of the impacted businesses and avoid unintended consequences.

In administrations previous to the Obama years, most agencies actively requested input from the regulated industry and other parties even before developing a proposed rule, in a sincere effort to get it right early on and avoid unnecessary controversy. I was heavily engaged in this realm on behalf of the oil and gas industry during the Clinton administration and can attest to the fact that the DOI and other federal departments during those years went out of their way to consult with regulated industries at length before even beginning to draft proposed rules. The same was true during the George W. Bush administration.

But that changed immediately in January 2009. Suddenly, the regulatory process became strictly adversarial, at least toward regulated industries, as partisan ideologues began to take office at the various regulatory agencies. Within a few months of the Obama administration’s assumption of power, a growing flood of new proposed regulations began to appear in the Federal Register; industries were given little prior notice, or none at all. Timelines for the filing of public comments were consistently minimal, and requests for extensions of time routinely denied.

Where in past administrations the regulated industries were routinely allowed to meet informally with regulators to discuss the potential impacts of their planned regulations, the only opportunity for offering verbal input during the Obama years came in all-too-rare formal public hearings. This was an administration in a hurry to get a lot done, policies they knew would not be popular with the industries they planned to regulate. The prospect of four or maybe even eight more years of this rush to regulate with little regard for the consequences was not appealing to those who dealt with new regulations.

Thus, when 2017 dawned, one of the great hopes among these folks was that, if nothing else, perhaps the Trump administration would at least mark a return to the prior, normal order. That is exactly what has happened. Of course, it helps that the Trump administration has been more focused on finding ways to do away with existing regulations than on writing new ones during its first year. But there is no question that the normal order has made a comeback. While this new reality creates great concerns within the anti-fossil fuel community, which had become very accustomed to having little objection, it is a great relief to the regulated industries, and probably to most of the regulators as well.

A Sea Change in Every Way

Donald Trump is a very flawed President. He is unpredictable and not especially eloquent. He often lacks a keen grasp of the policies he is promoting, probably tweets too much, sometimes has only a passing acquaintance with the truth and frequently goes out of his way to offend both adversaries and friends alike. Trump is a hard man to unreservedly admire and can be a very hard President for many to support.

Trump’s oversize ego and mercurial personality has encouraged a sense of barely controlled chaos among observers of his administration, but this has not really been the case. For example, he has filled his cabinet with strong people. Where the oil and gas industry is concerned, his appointees Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and Secretary of Energy Rick Perry have been especially relevant. These cabinet officials have played major roles in fleshing out the President’s energy and environmental strategies.

Zinke and Pruitt both hit the ground running in their respective departments and have worked on plans to dramatically reorganize and downsize them, to make them more suited to their scaled-back and re-prioritized missions in this administration. They are both highly organized, goal-oriented individuals who are very suited to direct major change and instill the radical cultural shift for their agencies envisioned by the President.

Of course, with major change comes major pushback from the old guard, and both Pruitt and Zinke have experienced this significantly. Pruitt became so frustrated with leaks of not just documents but of his spoken words that he felt the need to have a soundproof room installed in his office suite at the EPA headquarters. Pruitt and his staff have also received numerous threats on their lives, as NBC reported in October that law enforcement had formally investigated at least 70 threats this year, a 50 percent increase over 2016. Zinke told an interviewer in late September that he estimated that one-third of the staff at the Department of the Interior’s headquarters in Washington were disloyal to the administration, an estimate that could be an understatement. Even so, the pace of change at both departments has been impressive.

With the President’s outsize personality and constant conflicts with a variety of individuals dominating every day’s news cycle, most of the change in direction, policy and outcomes has gone unnoticed by the dominant news media. With a more traditional politician in the White House, announcements like the rescission of the Clean Power Plan or the BLM’s hydraulic fracturing rule would have been major news for days. With Trump dominating the headlines, these policy moves were just blips on the screen. Even President Trump’s decision to cancel U.S. participation in the Paris Climate Accord had a news cycle that lasted no more than 24 hours before it was relegated to the back pages of the nation’s newspapers.

One can debate whether this dynamic has been strategic or pure happenstance, but one cannot debate that it has been effective. In less than a full year after assuming office, the Trump administration has reversed a major portion of the Obama energy and environmental policy legacy, and the mainstream news media that normally amplifies the messaging of anti-fossil fuel groups has barely had time to notice.

The administration’s plans to redirect and reorganize the various federal regulatory agencies affecting energy have only begun to be implemented. Their objective to push as much regulatory authority as is reasonable to the states is still in the planning stages. As these and other initiatives are set in motion in the coming months, the changes will become even more noticeable and institutionalized.

Donald Trump is an unconventional President in pretty much every way. Quite unconventionally for the office, he’s worked hard to keep the promises he made on the campaign trail. That’s very rare in a President; and where energy and environmental policy is concerned, it is making a huge difference. You might even say it’s a sea change.


About the author: David Blackmon is Associate Editor for Oil and Gas for SHALE Magazine. He previously spent 37 years in the oil and natural gas industry in a variety of roles, the last 22 years engaged in public policy issues at the state and national levels. Contact David Blackmon at


Photo courtesy of pixabay, mikeledray/

Read an unlimited number of articles by signing up for a free account:
Terms and Conditions

Agreement between User and
Welcome to The website (the “Site”) is comprised of various web pages operated by SHALE Oil & Gas Business Magazine (“SHALE Magazine”). is offered to you conditioned on your acceptance without modification of the terms, conditions, and notices contained herein (the “Terms”). Your use of constitutes your agreement to all such Terms. Please read these terms carefully, and keep a copy of them for your reference. is a News and Information Site.

Shale Oil & Gas Business Magazine is a publication that showcases the dynamic impact of the energy industry. The mission of SHALE is to promote economic growth and business opportunities and to further the general understanding of how the energy industry contributes to the economic well-being of Texas and the United States as a whole. Shale’s distribution includes industry leaders and businesses, service workers, entrepreneurs and the public at large.

Your use of is subject to SHALE Magazine’s Privacy Policy. Please review our Privacy Policy, which also governs the Site and informs users of our data collection practices.

Electronic Communications
Visiting or sending emails to SHALE Magazine constitutes electronic communications. You consent to receive electronic communications and you agree that all agreements, notices, disclosures and other communications that we provide to you electronically, via email and on the Site, satisfy any legal requirement that such communications be in writing.

Your Account
If you use this site, you are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of your account and password and for restricting access to your computer, and you agree to accept responsibility for all activities that occur under your account or password. You may not assign or otherwise transfer your account to any other person or entity. You acknowledge that SHALE Magazine is not responsible for third party access to your account that results from theft or misappropriation of your account. SHALE Magazine and its associates reserve the right to refuse or cancel service, terminate accounts, or remove or edit content in our sole discretion.

Children Under Thirteen
SHALE Magazine does not knowingly collect, either online or offline, personal information from persons under the age of thirteen. If you are under 18, you may use only with permission of a parent or guardian.

Cancellation/Refund Policy
You may cancel your subscription at any time. Any cancellations made after 14 days of service will not qualify for a refund. Please contact us at with any questions.

Links to Third Party Sites/Third Party Services may contain links to other websites (“Linked Sites”). The Linked Sites are not under the control of SHALE Magazine and SHALE Magazine is not responsible for the contents of any Linked Site, including without limitation any link contained in a Linked Site, or any changes or updates to a Linked Site. SHALE Magazine is providing these links to you only as a convenience, and the inclusion of any link does not imply endorsement by SHALE Magazine of the site or any association with its operators.

Certain services made available via are delivered by third party sites and organizations. By using any product, service or functionality originating from the domain, you hereby acknowledge and consent that SHALE Magazine may share such information and data with any third party with whom SHALE Magazine has a contractual relationship to provide the requested product, service or functionality on behalf of users and customers.

No Unlawful or Prohibited Use/Intellectual Property
You are granted a non-exclusive, non-transferable, revocable license to access and use strictly in accordance with these terms of use. As a condition of your use of the Site, you warrant to SHALE Magazine that you will not use the Site for any purpose that is unlawful or prohibited by these Terms. You may not use the Site in any manner which could damage, disable, overburden, or impair the Site or interfere with any other party’s use and enjoyment of the Site. You may not obtain or attempt to obtain any materials or information through any means not intentionally made available or provided for through the Site.

All content included as part of the Service, such as text, graphics, logos, images, as well as the compilation thereof, and any software used on the Site, is the property of SHALE Magazine or its suppliers and protected by copyright and other laws that protect intellectual property and proprietary rights. You agree to observe and abide by all copyright and other proprietary notices, legends or other restrictions contained in any such content and will not make any changes thereto.

You will not modify, publish, transmit, reverse engineer, participate in the transfer or sale, create derivative works, or in any way exploit any of the content, in whole or in part, found on the Site. SHALE Magazine content is not for resale. Your use of the Site does not entitle you to make any unauthorized use of any protected content, and in particular you will not delete or alter any proprietary rights or attribution notices in any content. You will use protected content solely for your personal use, and will make no other use of the content without the express written permission of SHALE Magazine and the copyright owner. You agree that you do not acquire any ownership rights in any protected content. We do not grant you any licenses, express or implied, to the intellectual property of SHALE Magazine or our licensors except as expressly authorized by these Terms.

Use of Communication Services
The Site may contain bulletin board services, chat areas, news groups, forums, communities, personal web pages, calendars, and/or other message or communication facilities designed to enable you to communicate with the public at large or with a group (collectively, “Communication Services”). You agree to use the Communication Services only to post, send and receive messages and material that are proper and related to the particular Communication Service.

By way of example, and not as a limitation, you agree that when using a Communication Service, you will not: defame, abuse, harass, stalk, threaten or otherwise violate the legal rights (such as rights of privacy and publicity) of others; publish, post, upload, distribute or disseminate any inappropriate, profane, defamatory, infringing, obscene, indecent or unlawful topic, name, material or information; upload files that contain software or other material protected by intellectual property laws (or by rights of privacy of publicity) unless you own or control the rights thereto or have received all necessary consents; upload files that contain viruses, corrupted files, or any other similar software or programs that may damage the operation of another’s computer; advertise or offer to sell or buy any goods or services for any business purpose, unless such Communication Service specifically allows such messages; conduct or forward surveys, contests, pyramid schemes or chain letters; download any file posted by another user of a Communication Service that you know, or reasonably should know, cannot be legally distributed in such manner; falsify or delete any author attributions, legal or other proper notices or proprietary designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other material contained in a file that is uploaded; restrict or inhibit any other user from using and enjoying the Communication Services; violate any code of conduct or other guidelines which may be applicable for any particular Communication Service; harvest or otherwise collect information about others, including e-mail addresses, without their consent; violate any applicable laws or regulations.

SHALE Magazine has no obligation to monitor the Communication Services. However, SHALE Magazine reserves the right to review materials posted to a Communication Service and to remove any materials in its sole discretion. SHALE Magazine reserves the right to terminate your access to any or all of the Communication Services at any time without notice for any reason whatsoever.

SHALE Magazine reserves the right at all times to disclose any information as necessary to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, legal process or governmental request, or to edit, refuse to post or to remove any information or materials, in whole or in part, in SHALE Magazine’s sole discretion.

Always use caution when giving out any personally identifying information about yourself or your children in any Communication Service. SHALE Magazine does not control or endorse the content, messages or information found in any Communication Service and, therefore, SHALE Magazine specifically disclaims any liability with regard to the Communication Services and any actions resulting from your participation in any Communication Service. Managers and hosts are not authorized SHALE Magazine spokespersons, and their views do not necessarily reflect those of SHALE Magazine.

Materials uploaded to a Communication Service may be subject to posted limitations on usage, reproduction and/or dissemination. You are responsible for adhering to such limitations if you upload the materials.

Materials Provided to or Posted on Any SHALE Magazine Web Page
SHALE Magazine does not claim ownership of the materials you provide to (including feedback and suggestions) or post, upload, input or submit to any SHALE Magazine Site or our associated services (collectively “Submissions”). However, by posting, uploading, inputting, providing or submitting your Submission you are granting SHALE Magazine, our affiliated companies and necessary sublicensees permission to use your Submission in connection with the operation of their Internet businesses including, without limitation, the rights to: copy, distribute, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, reproduce, edit, translate and reformat your Submission; and to publish your name in connection with your Submission.

No compensation will be paid with respect to the use of your Submission, as provided herein. SHALE Magazine is under no obligation to post or use any Submission you may provide and may remove any Submission at any time in SHALE Magazine’s sole discretion.

By posting, uploading, inputting, providing or submitting your Submission you warrant and represent that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to your Submission as described in this section including, without limitation, all the rights necessary for you to provide, post, upload, input or submit the Submissions.

Third Party Accounts
You will be able to connect your SHALE Magazine account to third party accounts. By connecting your SHALE Magazine account to your third party account, you acknowledge and agree that you are consenting to the continuous release of information about you to others (in accordance with your privacy settings on those third party sites). If you do not want information about you to be shared in this manner, do not use this feature.

International Users
The Service is controlled, operated and administered by SHALE Magazine from our offices within the USA. If you access the Service from a location outside the USA, you are responsible for compliance with all local laws. You agree that you will not use the SHALE Magazine Content accessed through in any country or in any manner prohibited by any applicable laws, restrictions or regulations.

You agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless SHALE Magazine, its officers, directors, employees, agents and third parties, for any losses, costs, liabilities and expenses (including reasonable attorney’s fees) relating to or arising out of your use of or inability to use the Site or services, any user postings made by you, your violation of any terms of this Agreement or your violation of any rights of a third party, or your violation of any applicable laws, rules or regulations. SHALE Magazine reserves the right, at its own cost, to assume the exclusive defense and control of any matter otherwise subject to indemnification by you, in which event you will fully cooperate with SHALE Magazine in asserting any available defenses.

In the event the parties are not able to resolve any dispute between them arising out of or concerning these Terms and Conditions, or any provisions hereof, whether in contract, tort, or otherwise at law or in equity for damages or any other relief, then such dispute shall be resolved only by final and binding arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, conducted by a single neutral arbitrator and administered by the American Arbitration Association, or a similar arbitration service selected by the parties, in a location mutually agreed upon by the parties. The arbitrator’s award shall be final, and judgment may be entered upon it in any court having jurisdiction. In the event that any legal or equitable action, proceeding or arbitration arises out of or concerns these Terms and Conditions, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its costs and reasonable attorney’s fees. The parties agree to arbitrate all disputes and claims in regards to these Terms and Conditions or any disputes arising as a result of these Terms and Conditions, whether directly or indirectly, including Tort claims that are a result of these Terms and Conditions. The parties agree that the Federal Arbitration Act governs the interpretation and enforcement of this provision. The entire dispute, including the scope and enforceability of this arbitration provision shall be determined by the Arbitrator. This arbitration provision shall survive the termination of these Terms and Conditions.

Class Action Waiver
Any arbitration under these Terms and Conditions will take place on an individual basis; class arbitrations and class/representative/collective actions are not permitted. THE PARTIES AGREE THAT A PARTY MAY BRING CLAIMS AGAINST THE OTHER ONLY IN EACH’S INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, AND NOT AS A PLAINTIFF OR CLASS MEMBER IN ANY PUTATIVE CLASS, COLLECTIVE AND/ OR REPRESENTATIVE PROCEEDING, SUCH AS IN THE FORM OF A PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACTION AGAINST THE OTHER. Further, unless both you and SHALE Magazine agree otherwise, the arbitrator may not consolidate more than one person’s claims, and may not otherwise preside over any form of a representative or class proceeding.

Liability Disclaimer



Termination/Access Restriction
SHALE Magazine reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to terminate your access to the Site and the related services or any portion thereof at any time, without notice. To the maximum extent permitted by law, this agreement is governed by the laws of the State of Texas and you hereby consent to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of courts in Texas in all disputes arising out of or relating to the use of the Site. Use of the Site is unauthorized in any jurisdiction that does not give effect to all provisions of these Terms, including, without limitation, this section.

You agree that no joint venture, partnership, employment, or agency relationship exists between you and SHALE Magazine as a result of this agreement or use of the Site. SHALE Magazine’s performance of this agreement is subject to existing laws and legal process, and nothing contained in this agreement is in derogation of SHALE Magazine’s right to comply with governmental, court and law enforcement requests or requirements relating to your use of the Site or information provided to or gathered by SHALE Magazine with respect to such use. If any part of this agreement is determined to be invalid or unenforceable pursuant to applicable law including, but not limited to, the warranty disclaimers and liability limitations set forth above, then the invalid or unenforceable provision will be deemed superseded by a valid, enforceable provision that most closely matches the intent of the original provision and the remainder of the agreement shall continue in effect.

Unless otherwise specified herein, this agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the user and SHALE Magazine with respect to the Site and it supersedes all prior or contemporaneous communications and proposals, whether electronic, oral or written, between the user and SHALE Magazine with respect to the Site. A printed version of this agreement and of any notice given in electronic form shall be admissible in judicial or administrative proceedings based upon or relating to this agreement to the same extent and subject to the same conditions as other business documents and records originally generated and maintained in printed form. It is the express wish to the parties that this agreement and all related documents be written in English.

Changes to Terms
SHALE Magazine reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to change the Terms under which is offered. The most current version of the Terms will supersede all previous versions. SHALE Magazine encourages you to periodically review the Terms to stay informed of our updates.

Contact Us
SHALE Magazine welcomes your questions or comments regarding the Terms:

SHALE Oil & Gas Business Magazine

5150 Broadway #493

San Antonio, TX 78209

Email Address:

Telephone number:
(210) 240-7188

Effective as of November 27, 2017
I agree with the Terms & Conditions

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via