This document discusses political science and law theories related to regulating natural resource extraction, specifically fracking. It analyzes the "race to the top" theory from political science and the "compact theory" and "federal common law" from law. Based on these theories, the document concludes that the best approach is minimal federal regulation with priority given to state control, to balance environmental protections with state profit and energy demands. It recommends further research on how to regulate fracking without significantly impacting economics or energy needs and analyzing other natural resource case studies.

1. BrandonRobinson
INTS_3300_001
November17,2014
Focus Question
Political science and law can address the complex issue around the regulation of the
extraction of natural resources, what causes management of certain natural resources to be
regulated by state or federal law?
Insights
Political science uses the race to the top theory, which is a trend of increasing
environmental and social standards as a result of increased income due to globalization. This
theory is biased and states the environmental standards will increase, but through my research I
have noticed that this is not the case in the situation of fracking. The instrument choice in
environmental regulation theory discussed the relationship between globalization and the energy
demand and its effects on the environment. It has a bias that leans toward lack of environmental
protection due to economic gains, which is closely correlated with the findings I have gathered
on the topic of fracking.
Law has a theory know as the compact theory, which believes that the federal
government is the creation of the states and that the states are the final arbiters on whether the
federal government has over stepped the limits of its authority. Looking at this, I would say it
aligns with the states being in control of the natural resources within its boundaries and would
benefit the energy demand and the fracking companies. Another theory is federal common law,
which believes that when there is state conflict and the interests of the people outweigh or collide
with states interests then the federal government should step in. Applying this to the fracking

2. BrandonRobinson
INTS_3300_001
November17,2014
regulations, the population is having serious conflicts with the environmental impact that the
energy demand and the fracking companies are causing.
New Insights and Problems
The main problem that my research has uncovered is the feud between environmental protection
and demand for energy, and state or federal regulations. Looking at the multiple theories and
insights from both political science and law I have come to the conclusion that to appease all
sides there would have to be minimal federal regulations, but federal regulation nonetheless, and
priority state control over the fracking issue. This would allow the most important environmental
protections guaranteed in all states, but would allow the state to maximize profit to the fullest
extent while obeying federal regulations and laws. Also, if a state wanted to make environmental
protections a priority and give more protections than what is federally demanded, than the state
will still have this ability.
Future Research
Scholars should do more research on how environmental regulations can be implemented
without causing a significant impact on economic gains and inhibiting the energy demand of the
state. Researches could look at all the regulations ever implemented on fracking and determine
the effect of the regulation to see which regulations the federal government should implement to
have the biggest impact environmentally while not inhibiting the state from meeting energy
demands. Researchers should look at other natural resource extraction practices to study how
states and the federal government regulated those practices to see if there are examples that relate
to fracking that could be applied and help with these issues.