A social take on unconventional resources: Materiality, alienation and the making of shale gas in Poland and the United Kingdom

Szołucha, Anna

doi:10.1016/j.erss.2019.101254

Cited by 12 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Only when a multi or mixed method approach in which qualitative and quantitative methods are combined can a comprehensive understanding of complex topics be obtained. Unlike the UK regulations, public risk tolerances of induced seismicity will not simply relate to event magnitude; there are other complicating factors at play (Trutnevyte & Ejderyan, 2018;Szolucha, 2019). Our findings about language, ambiguity, and potential to conflate perceived risks have application across a range of different geological and energy engineering technologies, many of which play a critical role in delivering a sustainable future (Stephenson et al, 2019).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Fracking bad language: Hydraulic fracturing and earthquake risks

Roberts¹,

Bond²,

Shipton³

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Hydraulic fracturing, fracking, is a well stimulation technique used to enhance permeability to aid geological resource management, including the extraction of shale gas. The process of hydraulic fracturing can induce seismicity and the risk of seismicity is a topic of widespread interest and is often reported to be an issue of public concern regarding hydraulic fracturing. This is particularly the case in the UK, where seismicity induced by hydraulic fracturing has halted shale gas operations, and triggered moratoria. However, there seems a disconnect between the level of risk and concern around seismicity caused by shale gas operations as perceived by publics and that reported by expert groups (from industry, policy, and academia), which could manifest in the terminology used to describe the seismic events (tremors, earthquakes, micro-earthquakes). In this paper, we examine the conclusions on induced seismicity and hydraulic fracturing from expert-led public facing reports on shale gas published between 2012 and 2018 and the terminology used in these reports. We compare these to results from studies conducted in the same time period that explore public views on hydraulic fracturing and seismicity. Further, we surveyed participants at professional and public events on shale gas held throughout 2014 to elicit whether they associate shale gas with earthquakes. We use the same question that was used in a series of surveys of the UK publics in the period 2012–2016, but we asked our participants to provide the reasoning for the answer they gave. By examining the rationale provided for their answers we find that an apparent polarisation of views amongst experts is an artefact and in fact responses are confounded by ambiguity of language around earthquake risk, magnitude, and scale. We find that different terms are used to describe earthquakes, often in an attempt to express the magnitude, shaking, or risk presented by the earthquake, but that these terms are poorly defined and ambiguous and do not translate into everyday language usage. Such “fracking bad language” has led to challenges in the perception and communication of risks around earthquakes and hydraulic fracturing, and leaves language susceptible to emotional loading and misinterpretation. We call for multi-method approaches to understand perceived risks around geoenergy resources, and suggest that adopting a shared language framework to describe earthquakes would alleviate miscommunication and misperceptions. This work is relevant for a range of applications where risks are challenging to conceptualise and poorly constrained; particularly those of public interest where language inconsistency can exacerbate communication challenges and can have widespread consequence.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Fracking bad language: Hydraulic fracturing and earthquake risks

Roberts¹,

Bond²,

Shipton³

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Unlike the UK's traffic light system (Fig. 1), public risk tolerances of induced seismicity will not simply relate to event magnitude; as we have outlined, there are other important complicating and competing factors at play (Evensen, 2018;Trutnevyte and Ejderyan, 2018;Szolucha, 2019). Understanding risk perception and tolerances, influencing factors, and values is important for public participation in socioscientific decisions (Dietz, 2013;Stern and Fineberg, 1996).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Fracking bad language – hydraulic fracturing and earthquake risks

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a borehole stimulation technique used to enhance permeability in geological resource management, including the extraction of shale gas. The process of hydraulic fracturing can induce seismicity. The potential to induce seismicity is a topic of widespread interest and public concern, particularly in the UK where seismicity induced by hydraulic fracturing has halted shale gas operations and triggered moratoria. Prior to 2018, there seemed to be a disconnect between the conclusions of expert groups about the risk of adverse impacts from hydraulic-fracturing-induced seismicity and the reported level of public concern about hydraulic fracturing induced seismicity. Furthermore, a range of terminology was used to describe the induced seismicity (including tremors, earthquakes, seismic events, and micro-earthquakes) which could indicate the level of perceived risk. Using the UK as a case study, we examine the conclusions of expert-led public-facing reports on the risk (likelihood and impact) of seismicity induced by hydraulic fracturing for shale gas published between 2012 and 2018 and the terminology used in these reports. We compare these to results from studies conducted in the same time period that explored views of the UK public on hydraulic fracturing and seismicity. Furthermore, we surveyed participants at professional and public events on shale gas held throughout 2014 asking the same question that was used in a series of surveys of the UK public in the period 2012–2016, i.e. “do you associate shale gas with earthquakes?”. We asked our participants to provide the reasoning for the answer they gave. By examining the rationale provided for their answers, we find that an apparent polarisation of views amongst experts was actually the result of different interpretations of the language used to describe seismicity. Responses are confounded by the ambiguity of the language around earthquake risk, magnitude, and scale. We find that different terms are used in the survey responses to describe earthquakes, often in an attempt to express the risk (magnitude, shaking, and potential for adverse impact) presented by the earthquake, but that these terms are poorly defined and ambiguous and do not translate into everyday language usage. Such “bad language” around fracking has led to challenges in understanding, perceiving, and communicating risks around hydraulic-fracturing-induced seismicity. We call for multi-method approaches to understand the perceived risks around geoenergy resources and suggest that developing and adopting a shared language framework to describe earthquakes would alleviate miscommunication and misperceptions. Our findings are relevant to any applications that present – or are perceived to present – the risk of induced seismicity. More broadly, our work is relevant to any topics of public interest where language ambiguities muddle risk communication.

show abstract

“…Predictably, environmental organizations have been less enthusiastic, warning about the side effects of hydraulic fracturing [86]. In time, the civil society grew to be especially critical of drilling, citing groundwater contamination and damage to natural habitats as undesirable consequences [87].…”

Section: Polandmentioning

confidence: 99%

What went wrong? Fracking in Eastern Europe

Maierean

2021

Discov Energy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A few years ago, optimistic estimates claimed that Eastern Europe possessed large shale formations that seemed likely to produce great quantities of natural gas. In addition, the countries in the region had strategic incentives to develop a transparent domestic shale industry in order to reduce its reliance on gas from Russia. Nevertheless, political and social factors as well as differences in physical characteristics, prevented the U.S. experience from being replicable in Eastern Europe. In the end, most multinational energy corporations announced that they had abandoned efforts to find and produce natural gas from shale rock in Eastern Europe. The paper discusses the impact of shale gas exploration on the quality of democratic governance by comparing and contrasting fracking regulations adopted in the United States with those of Eastern Europe. The main research question attempts to ask and identify: “what are the factors that influence a democratic and fair governance of public natural resources”.

show abstract

A social take on unconventional resources: Materiality, alienation and the making of shale gas in Poland and the United Kingdom

Cited by 12 publications

References 34 publications

Fracking bad language: Hydraulic fracturing and earthquake risks

Fracking bad language: Hydraulic fracturing and earthquake risks

Fracking bad language – hydraulic fracturing and earthquake risks

What went wrong? Fracking in Eastern Europe

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About