Unconventional gas developments and the politics of risk and knowledge in Australia

Resource-making controversies: Knowledge, anticipatory politics and economization of unconventional fossil fuels

“…But even more significantly, the proliferation of protest campaigns around prospective extraction sites illuminates how 'fracking has the capacity both to fracture formerly cohesive communities and to bring formerly disparate communities together' (Willow and Wylie, 2014: 227). Similarly to widespread contestation of bituminous sands in Canada, the 'anti-fracking' fronts on both sides of the Atlantic reshape the social fabric by giving rise to divided and often irreconcilable public concerns, which cannot be occluded by narrowly designed calculations of environmental safety and techno-economic feasibility, but reveal, more fundamentally, historically wedged social inequalities, distrust of political regimes and desired modes of future collective life (Espig and de Rijke, 2016;Fry et al, 2015;Lis and Stankiewicz, 2016;Sica, 2015;Steger and Milosevic, 2014;Thomas et al, 2017;Williams et al, 2017). Despite being loosely defined, such 'political situations' (Barry, 2012) show tremendous potential to mobilize resistance across all segments of society, from the usual suspects of NGOs and green parties, to the farming and indigenous communities affected by exploration, to local health practitioners and 'Lancashire Nanas' representing the rights of future generations (e.g.…”

<b>Engaging the Underground: An STS Field in Formation</b>

“…This water-intensive extraction technique, coupled with failures in the underground infrastructure used to transport it to the surface, can damage human health and wellbeing by contaminating water and air. The rapid expansion of hydraulic fracturing activity close to US communities in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Colorado prompted scholars to track the environmental and social risks and harms, along with forms of community and political organization to mitigate them (Kroepsch 2016;Perry 2012;Espig and de Rijke 2016;Willow et al 2014;Eaton and Kinchy 2016;Partridge et al 2017;Smith 2017a, 2017b). Citizen science and other forms of public engagement 7 Other recent STS contributions to making sense of the underground have addressed topics ranging from the interpretation of remote data sources in petroleum reservoir geology to decision making about geothermal energy to conspiracy stories about the definition of geological boundaries around protected sites, among other subjects with public relevance (Almklov 2008;Almklov and Hepsø 2011;Raman 2013;Gilbert 2015;Rahder 2015;Barandiaran 2015;Gross 2015;Pijpers 2016;Bleicher and Gross 2016;Sareen 2016;Oskarsson 2017). in science have been key features of these controversies, as activists and concerned communities aim to fill the gaps in "undone science" (Kinchy 2017;Kinchy, Parks, and Jalbert 2016;Malone et al 2015;Jalbert and Kinchy 2016;Wylie et al 2016;Vera 2016;Zilliox and Smith 2018).…”

Introduction: The ethical constitution of energy dilemmas

“…They do this by studying the people who are critical of the industry, often because they are negatively impacted by it in some form (see also Hudgins ; Hudgins & Poole ; Paladino & Simonelli ; Pearson ; Willow ; Willow & Wylie ). Work by Kim de Rijke and colleagues (de Rijke 2013 a ; ; Espig & de Rijke ) on coal seam gas conflicts in Australia stands out for its broadening of research questions and interlocutors to include people who work inside of the industry as well as those who oppose it. As such, this work builds on other research in the anthropology of oil that examines the knowledge, practices, and world‐views of experts and executives (High, this volume; Hughes ; Mason, ; ; this volume; Rogers 2015 a ; Wood ; this volume).…”