Content uploaded by David Adrian McQueen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by David Adrian McQueen on Feb 19, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Fear, loathing and shale gas. The introduction of fracking to the UK: a case study.
David McQueen
Introduction
Energy, whether from oil, gas, coal, nuclear or renewables, has become one of the most
controversial areas of public policy in recent years, generating intense debate and
disagreement about the related economic, social and environmental choices faced by nation
states in an era of global insecurity. Politically divisive arguments around which energy
sources should be prioritised, invested in and supported have flared up in countries around
the world. This has occurred against increasingly urgent calls for international action to
reduce fossil fuel dependence and C02 emissions (IPCC 2014). Multinational energy
companies have often been accused of failing to operate in a socially responsible manner
(Balmer 2010; Tuodolo 2015; McQueen 2015) and the reputations of some of the largest
global players have wilted under intense public scrutiny and a growing awareness of the
impact of energy use and extraction on communities, ecosystems and the global climate.
Such concerns have been widely publicised in relation to hydraulic fracturing or ‘fracking’ in
the last decade in the US and Australia (see Bosworth 2014) which has intensified the debate
in the United Kingdom around proposed on-shore shale gas exploration. In January 2013
David Cameron announced that local councils would be able to keep 100 per cent of business
rates they collected from shale gas sites, ‘worth up to £1.7 million a year for a typical site’
because the government was ‘going all out for shale’ (Gov.uk 2013). The Prime Minister
argued that, ‘it will mean more jobs and opportunities for people, and economic security for
our country’ (Ibid). At a time of continuing conflict and instability in the Middle East, the
prospect of fostering domestic energy supplies, investment and economic independence
would appear an obvious policy choice, but as a KPMG (2011) report makes clear the shale
industry has to surmount tremendous reputational hurdles, particularly in the UK and
Western Europe where ‘the industry needs to control reputational risk and turn public opinion
around’ (p.19).
Gas currently accounts for nearly half of the UK’s total energy needs and around 30 percent
of total electricity generated (DECC 2015). With North Sea gas production declining since
2
2000 and imports of gas now exceeding exports, the Conservative government, led by David
Cameron, is pressing ahead with what has been described as a second ‘dash for gas’ (Elkins
2012). Inspired by the ‘shale revolution’ in the United States, which has helped dramatically
reduce global oil and gas prices and given a boost to the US economy, the British government
has put in place a series of policies designed to encourage shale gas extraction and thereby, it
is hoped, greater energy independence. These policies include halving the tax rates on early
profits from shale gas, offering at least £100,000 in community benefits per well-site where
hydraulic fracturing or ‘fracking’ takes place, and introducing industry-friendly regulatory
changes, including the ability to drill beneath properties without the owner’s permission
(DECC 2016). This ‘dash for gas’ has been deeply controversial with environmentalists and
civic groups, and since the first exploratory drilling site was established in Lancashire 2011
hundreds of environmental organisations and community groups have offered vociferous
opposition to the policy (see Jones et al. 2013).
The conservative government has, until now, appeared to pay scant attention to these groups
and it continues to vigorously promote the economic and environmental benefits of onshore
gas exploration. The government argues that shale gas, with lower CO2 emissions than coal,
can be a ‘bridge’ to renewables, as well as providing 65,000 jobs and energy security (DECC
blog 2015). Those opposed to shale, or unconventional gas (UG), point to the dangers of
widespread water and air pollution, increased earthquakes, drastically altered landscapes,
various social and economic costs, and the wider impact on climate change of continuing our
reliance on fossil fuels. This chapter provides an overview of a range of lobbying and public
relations efforts by the oil and gas industry to portray shale gas exploration as safe and
socially responsible in the face of determined and active opposition. It will outline some of
the ways the industry has downplayed scientific doubts about the environmental and health
impacts of fracking and related processes and successfully made its influence felt at the heart
of government. It will also examine efforts to manage public perceptions of this highly-
contested development through a media strategy which has been effective, at least in part, in
shaping broadcast coverage of the debate.
Definitions
3
Shale gas is natural gas, mainly composed of methane, found in shale rock beds often located
between 1,000 and 4,000 metres below the ground. The gas is released by fracturing or
‘fracking’ the shale by drilling a borehole down into the earth and then pumping a mixture of
water, sand and chemicals at high pressure into the shale, cracking the rocks and allowing the
gas to flow back through the borehole and to the surface (Jones et al 2015). This definition
of high volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF or ‘fracking’) is crucial because amongst many
concerns expressed around shale gas exploration, the use of chemicals is amongst the most
contentious. It is worth noting, for instance, that the government’s public explanation of
fracking often omits this aspect of the process, as in the following explanation found in the
government’s ‘Guidance on Fracking’ (Dec 2016): ‘Hydraulic fracturing, known as fracking,
is a technique used in the extraction of gas and oil from ‘shale’ rock formations by injecting
water at high pressure’ (p.2). This omission of the word ‘chemicals’, a key detail in the
information offered to the public can be seen as symptomatic of a wider effort by the UK
government and the fossil fuel industry to downplay potential hazards of fracking and present
the case for shale gas exploration in the most positive light possible.
Scientific disagreement
In fact, scientists appear divided, or at least uncertain, over the safety of hydraulic fracturing
and related activity. While there is neither the time nor space here to review the scientific
disagreements in detail, an outline of the areas of dispute is required to make sense of the
efforts to present univocal versions of the science around fracking. The disagreements can be
summarised around seven alleged impacts of ‘fracking’ – a term used henceforth to cover the
entire process of unconventional gas (UG) exploration and production. These seven impacts
are: depletion and contamination of freshwater supplies; ground pollution and loss of
biodiversity; the visual and physical effect on landscapes; increased seismic activity; air and
noise pollution; the strain on local infrastructure and communities; and the wider contribution
to man-made climate change.
A number of reports outline these and other threats in detail. For instance, The United
Nations Environment Programme released a report in 2012 pointing out the dangers of
methane leakage from fracking which has a Global Warming Potential (GWP) ‘up to 72
times higher than CO2 over a 20 year period’ (UNEP 2012, p.4). This and evidence of other
environmental and health impacts led the report’s authors to note that unconventional gas
4
exploitation ‘already includes instances of water contamination, leakages to soil, wide-scale
land clearing and negative health impacts’ and that ‘increased extraction and use of UG is
likely to be detrimental to efforts to curb climate change’ (p.11-12). Whilst not ruling out
fracking, it warns of ‘unavoidable environmental impacts even if UG is extracted properly,
and more so if done inadequately’ (p.11).
A report for the European Commission published in 2012 also noted ‘high risk for people and
environment’ in terms of water contamination and depletion, air pollution, risk to
biodiversity, noise impacts and traffic (AEA 2012, p.v-vi). The report details how developing
unconventional fossil fuel resources poses greater environmental risks than conventional gas
development. Some recent studies have also argued that state support for unconventional oil
and gas exploration is likely to be at the expense of the necessary huge investment in
renewable sources of energy such as solar, wind and tidal required to reduce C02 emissions
to acceptable levels (see Bosworth 2014). Hansen et al. (2012), for instance, argue that it
would be ‘foolhardy’ for governments to encourage the development of any further fossil fuel
extraction which may result in uncontrollable climate change. The danger underlined here
and in other studies (see Tyndale Centre 2011) is that if states encourage unconventional oil
and gas exploration our dependency on fossil fuels will simply be prolonged and the danger
of runaway global warming will increase.
Induced seismic activity is another area of concern for those opposed to fracking. Scientific
studies have clearly linked earthquakes with the underground disposal of wastewater from
both conventional and unconventional oil and gas wells. Consequently, while hydraulic
fracturing itself may not increase seismic activity, areas where fracking and associated
wastewater disposal takes place have seen an enormous increase in tremors and quakes. The
2016 US Geological Survey observed, for example, that from 1950 to 2005, Oklahoma
recorded an average of 1.5 earthquakes with a magnitude greater than 3.0 per year compared
to ‘several hundred M3.0+ earthquakes per year’ in recent years (Petersen et al. 2016, p.14).
In fact, the very short-lived exploratory fracking by Cuadrilla Resources in Lancashire in
2011 was halted due to widely reported earth tremors in the seaside town of Blackpool. While
these were relatively minor, at 1.5 and 2.3 on the Richter scale, Cuadrilla later admitted,
following an investigation they commissioned, that hydraulic fracturing was the most likely
cause.
5
While earthquakes, subsidence, noise, traffic and other threats to property values are of major
concern, the dangers of water, air and land pollution from fracking have usually been most
heavily prioritised in anti-fracking campaigns. These pollution issues have also been explored
in numerous scientific reports and studies (see Jackson et al. 2015; TEDX 2016). The
Chartered Institute of Water and Environmental Management (2012), for instance, stated that
the UK ‘should not encourage fracking as a part of our energy mix until there is more
evidence that operations can be delivered safely’ (cited Ritchie et al. 2014, p.3). A CHEM
Trust report in 2015 entitled Chemical Pollution from Fracking warned of serious risks of
local water, and land pollution and that fracking has the potential to massively impact the
countryside and those who live in it – ‘be it people, livestock or wildlife’ (p.16).
Based on US figures, 2,400 000 gallons of fresh water, on average, per well is required to
frack for shale gas, and the pressure on resources could be felt by communities that are
vulnerable to water shortages and periodic droughts (see Harrison et al. 2014). As Jones et al.
(2015) point out, these large volumes of water, mixed with a smaller volume of chemicals
and lubricants, are pumped into boreholes where it is often difficult to predict their migration.
Public opposition
In light of these and other environmental and health concerns, public opposition to fracking
in the US has increased significantly, rising from 40 percent to 51percent in 2015 alone
(Gallup 2016). Numerous states, towns and cities around the world have voted for a
moratorium on fracking, including the states of Vermont and Maryland in the US and
Victoria and Tasmania in Australia. New York State voted to ban fracking after the release of
a New York State Health Department (2014) report citing hundreds of peer-reviewed studies
that pointed to chemical contamination, excess methane in water, surface spills, noise
exposure and other health and environmental impacts. Many European countries have also
shown little appetite for fracking with bans and moratoria in place in France, Germany,
Netherlands, Czech Republic, Austria, Bulgaria, Scotland and Wales (Bloomberg 2014).
It may be that media coverage of fracking controversies and reports combined with the
sustained efforts of anti-fracking activists are now having an impact on British public
opinion. O’Hara et al.’s study of public attitudes in the UK to shale gas, for instance, shows a
marked decline in support for fracking between 2013 and 2015 dropping from around 62 to
6
47 percent. Shale gas, the authors observe, ‘remains the energy source the UK public are least
likely to want in the UK’s 2025 energy mix’ (2015, p.13). Their study shows that while shale
was still considered a potentially cheap energy source that could bring significant economic
benefits, growing numbers in the UK are opposed to its extraction, particularly amongst
women who worry about the environmental impacts of fracking. The survey concludes that a
growing proportion of the population do not want shale gas and that ‘If the government
pushes forwarded with its plans to fast track shale gas developments it must be prepared for
significant levels of opposition from grass roots activists’ (O’Hara et al. 2015, p.14).
Evidence of this opposition has already appeared in mainstream media coverage and prolific
social media coverage of protests around exploratory drilling in Balcombe in West Sussex,
Upton in Cheshire, Barton Moss in Salford and on the Fylde coast in Lancashire.
The shale gas campaign
In 2013 the Institute of Directors identified the negative ‘reputation’ of fracking as one of the
main barriers to enabling commercial production of on-shore shale gas to go ahead in the UK.
They recommended that ‘the industry itself needs to develop a social licence to operate’ and
that ‘more needs to be done to gain the confidence of local communities’ (cited Jones et al
2015, p.383). Efforts to build public confidence in shale gas as a socially responsible and
environmentally safe energy have taken a number of forms. Shale gas developers, such as
Cuadrilla Resources, Dart Energy, Igas Energy and Ineos, have engaged several public
relations, including Westbourne Communications, PPS, Bell Pottinger and Burson-Marsteller
(Spinwatch 2015), to develop ‘comprehensive, coherent and co-ordinated media relations
campaigns in an attempt to win hearts and minds at both the local and national levels’ (Jones
et al 2015, p. 387). The first element of this broad campaign had been underway for several
years and involved gaining elite support amongst policy makers and academics. At the policy
level the appointment of Lord John Browne Chairman, Board of Directors, Cuadrilla
Resources (until April 2015) in June 2010 as the government's ‘Lead Non-Executive
Director’ at the Cabinet Office (Parliament.UK 2016) enabled a number of shale gas industry
employees, supporters and advisors to be employed within relevant departments. Lord
Browne’s role in appointing business leaders as Non-Executive Directors to the board of each
government department included four appointees at the Treasury, three at DECC, four at
DEFRA which oversees the Environment Agency and three in the Cabinet Office.
7
In addition to these appointments, Lord Browne has lobbied the government for exemptions
from the Environment Agency regulations for the shale industry and worked with Lord Smith
(former Chair of the Environment Agency) to reduce consultation time on waste permits and
intervene with a council on planning permission for Cuadrilla (Friends of the Earth 2015). In
fact, lobbying is a somewhat insufficient term for what appears to be a partnership
arrangement, or alignment of goals between government and industry around shale gas (see
Cave and Rowell 2014 for an elaboration of the embedding of corporate interests in
government). The lobbying watchdog Spinwatch (2015) lists dozens of government advisors
with close connections to the fossil fuel and shale gas industries. The Spinwatch report also
shows fourteen public relations firms ‘hired by fracking companies’, including Westbourne
Communications, Weber Shandwick, Edelman, Burson Marsteller and Bell Pottinger with
personnel embedded through various roles in government or political parties. While such
connections are often hidden to all but the most diligent researcher, in other cases they are in
full public view. The Task Force on Shale Gas (TFSG) was charged with providing the
government and public with ‘an independent and impartial examination of both the potential
benefits and risks linked to shale gas extraction’, but received £650,000 from the fracking
industry, including the leading shale gas companies Cuadrilla, Centrica, French oil company
Total, and chemical giant Dow. These sponsorship details were made public on the task
force’s web page and hence no claim of subterfuge could be alleged.
Nevertheless, the ‘independence’ of a shale-industry sponsored panel of four advised by five
experts appears less certain on closer inspection. One of the panellists, Professor Ernest
Rutter, wrote an article in The Guardian in 2013 defending fracking in answer to Green Party
councillor’s article on the topic. A second panellist Professor Nigel Brandon has held a
research position with BP. The third, Emma Duncan, was the deputy editor of The Economist,
a freemarket-oriented magazine that has championed fracking. The fourth, Lord Chris Smith
is critical of the government’s policy on renewables and carbon capture, but supportive of
fracking. Amongst the five advisors, was former Greenpeace director Stephen Tindale,
known for his controversial support of GM crops and fracking. According to the TFSG’s
constitution, also published on the website, ‘the mission, goals, strategy and tactical plans for
the Task Force’ [is agreed] ‘in consultation with a Secretariat provided by Edelman’. Public
relations firm Edelman also provided the secretariat for The All Party Parliamentary Group
on Unconventional Oil and Gas until 2014. Edelman, which operationalises and implements
the TFSG mission and goals, represents Energy UK, a trade association representing 80 gas
8
and electricity suppliers in the UK. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the task force panel concluded
after a year of investigation that ‘shale gas can be produced safely and usefully in the UK
provided that the Government insists on industry-leading standards’ and that exploratory
drilling should begin (Task Force on Shale Gas 2015).
Lord Browne, a major stockholder and CEO of Cuadrilla, one of the funders of the shale gas
taskforce, was, amongst other roles, chairman of the Royal Academy for Engineering until
2011. In 2012, the Royal Academy released a government-commissioned report on fracking.
This was one of four key reports surveying the existing scholarship and assessing the risk of
fracking in various domains which the government draws on to support the scientific case for
shale gas. The Royal Academy report argued that the health, safety and environmental risks
associated with fracking ‘can be managed effectively in the UK as long as operational best
practices are implemented and enforced through regulation’ (The Royal Society and The
Royal Academy of Engineering 2012, p. 4).
The Geological Society (2012) issued a report the same year broadly echoing the position of
Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering that shale gas can be extracted safely
‘assuming wells are properly constructed’ and provided that ‘best practice is rigorously
applied under an appropriate regulatory regime which addresses environmental and societal
concerns’ (p.1). MacKay and Stone’s (2013) report for the Department of Energy and
Climate Change (DECC) argued that shale gas’s overall carbon footprint was comparable to
gas extracted from conventional sources. It underplayed the potential threat of methane
release, stating, ‘if adequately regulated, local GHG emissions from shale gas operations
should represent only a small proportion of the total carbon footprint of shale gas, which is
likely to be dominated by CO2 emissions associated with its combustion’ (p. 3). The fourth
report, Public Health England’s (2014) recommendations on the potential public health
impacts of exposures to shale-gas related chemical and radioactive pollutants concluded
using similar language to the three reports mentioned above: ‘currently available evidence
indicates that the potential risks to public health from exposure to the emissions associated
with shale gas extraction will be low if the operations are properly run and regulated. In order
to ensure this, regulation needs to be strongly and robustly applied’ (p.46).
One government report which is not cited by those promoting shale gas the is the notoriously
redacted Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs’ Shale Gas: Rural Economy
Impacts (2014) study which examined the ‘potential economic, social and environmental
9
impacts that are likely to be associated with an expansion in shale gas exploration’. The level
of censorship (for want of a better word) can be measured by reading the recommendations
(section 5) which are quoted in full here:
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED (DEFRA 2014. p.13)
A year later the government was forced to publish the report in full after the Information
Commissioner ordered the government to do so. The report provided some detail on likely
water, noise, light and air pollution alongside possible short term benefits and long terms
costs to the local economy, rents, house prices and insurance premiums. The covering note to
the full report appeared to discredit, or at least undermine, the contents:
‘This paper is an early draft of an internal document; it is not analytically robust.
[…] Containing no new evidence, the paper simply refers to data from overseas
studies which cannot be used to predict impacts in the UK with any degree of
reliability’. (DEFRA 2015, p.1).
Advocacy coalitions and sponsored research
However, as Cairney et al. 2015. observe, ‘evidence-based policy making’ (EBPM) is a
political process like any other, involving competition to decide what counts as evidence,
10
how it should be evaluated, and what policymakers should do with it. They explain that while
science plays an important role, ‘the link between scientific information and policy is not
linear or unproblematic’ (p.3). As Cairney et al. 2015 remark, policymakers form ‘advocacy
coalitions’ to join resources, coordinate their influence strategies, and translate their goals
into policy. These contain, ‘people from a variety of positions (elected and agency officials,
interest group leaders, researchers) who have similar policy beliefs and who coordinate
activity over time (p.9). A ‘network’ of academic experts is a core component of the
‘advocacy coalitions’ which emerge from the drive to formulate and enact energy policy. It is
unsurprising therefore, that some of the ‘experts’ on fracking most frequently cited in US and
UK government reports emerge from fossil-fuel funded institutes and research centres. The
issue of ‘sponsored research’ is acute in the US where most scientific work is directed toward
finding more efficient and cheaper ways of getting shale gas out of the ground, rather than on
the environmental and public health effects. However, with cuts to publicly funded research,
industry sponsorship is a rapidly growing practice in the UK (see Lander 2013). According to
research by investigative reporter Maeve McClenaghan (2015), 80 percent of the Russell
Group Universities received funding from the fossil fuel industry totalling £134,000,000
between 2010-15. Just four, the University of Manchester, University of Cambridge,
University of Oxford and Imperial University, received nearly 60 percent of this figure. The
long term reputational impacts on higher education institutions and academic research more
generally of industry-sponsored research grants are unclear, but the danger of perceived
‘sponsorship bias’ is that it may discredit much of the research funded, or part-funded, by the
oil and gas industries. Reputational damage to Higher Education institutions of this kind has
already occurred in the US several times. For example, New York State University’s Buffalo
Shale Resources and Society Institute (SRSI) was closed in November 2012 after allegations
that a report on ‘Environmental Impacts during Marcellus Shale Gas Drilling’ was
compromised by historical financial interests which may have influenced the authors'
conclusions.
As Dr Stuart Parkinson, Executive Director of Scientists for Global Responsibility, points out
leading oil and gas corporations now have a major influence on the teaching and research in
many of the UK’s top universities. They can, in his view, ‘steer’ research agendas towards
fossil fuel related R&D rather than urgently needed alternatives and thereby undermine
progress in tackling climate change (cited McClenaghan 2015).
11
Research centres frequently cited by the government and in the media on the issue of fracking
include Durham University’s Energy Institute and the British Geological Survey based in
Nottingham, which both receive sponsorship funds from a number of hydrocarbon and
exploration companies. ReFINE – a ‘fiercely independent’ research consortium led jointly by
Durham University and Newcastle University which focuses on the ‘potential risks of shale
gas and oil exploitation’ is primarily funded by Centrica (which bought a 25 percent stake in
Cuadrilla in 2013) and shale gas developers Ineos.
The BBC’s coverage
How successful the strategy of funding research centres has been for the shale industry can be
assessed by a surveying the BBC’s coverage of the controversial extraction process. If the
government and shale industry’s ‘trusted experts’ dominate coverage this might be a decisive
factor in the battle for the ‘hearts and minds’ of the general public. An Ofcom poll conducted
in 2015 showed that half of people surveyed regard the BBC's news outlets, across TV, radio
and online, as their ‘single most important source of news’ with the highest rating for
accuracy and trustworthiness (Ofcom 2015, p.62). If industry-funded scientists are found to
shape the scientific debate around shale gas on the BBC, this could play a critical role in
persuading a sceptical or undecided population of the merits of shale gas development.
To assess this, a sample of BBC stories on hydraulic fracturing was downloaded from the
BBC website to offer a snapshot of the coverage of the debate. The search terms ‘fracking’
and ‘science’ were entered into the BBC’s website (in March 2015) for the period 1st January
2013 to 31st December 2015 and any irrelevant results (such as stories about ‘tracking’) were
deleted. The search was confined to the top twenty stories published between 2013-15
leading up the passing of the Infrastructure Bill in February 2015 and awarding of 93
Petroleum Exploration and Development Licences (PEDLs) after environmental assessment
in December 2015. The onshore oil and gas licensing round was open to a period of six
weeks public consultation from August 2015 on potential environmental impacts and was
therefore a politically sensitive period in which hostile public opinion may have acted as a
potential impediment to the government’s plans to go ‘all out for shale’.
So how is the science around fracking represented in this sample of BBC’s coverage from
2013-15? The twenty online articles and on-demand radio broadcasts were analysed and
12
contributors’ views coded as either broadly in favour, neutral or against. While most articles
made some effort to offer a brief summary of positions in favour and against fracking, the
majority of contributions were broadly in favour, or presented a view that evidence-based
science supported the case for shale gas development. This can be seen, at one level, by a
simple tally of contributors over the sample with ten scientific sources, six industry sources
and nine political sources broadly in favour of fracking, while just two scientists, five
politicians and six environmental groups were cited as broadly opposing the case for
fracking. The coding revealed five scientific sources and four political sources offered
broadly neutral positions and that the British Geological Survey offered both neutral and
broadly pro-fracking positions. Significantly, some of the sources contributed to more than
one pro-fracking story. Professor Richard Davies was cited twice, as was Professor Quentin
Fisher of the University of Leeds and Professor Zoe Shipton of Strathclyde University, (all
frequent advocates for fracking in the media), while the British Geological Survey made
contributions to a number of stories. All four sources have received research funding from oil
and gas interests.
The range of contributors is of interest, with political sources outweighing scientific sources.
Where party affiliation was identified, seven conservative sources dominated the pro-fracking
argument with just one Labour, MSP Iain Gray, in favour. Political opposition to fracking
came from four sources – two SNP and one cross-party (Environmental Audit Committee)
and one unknown (planning officers at Lancashire County Council). The two scientists cited
as broadly against fracking was Professor Martin Mayfield of the University of Sheffield
(briefly) and Professor Kevin Anderson of Manchester University who wrote to BBC Inside
Science to complain, and was interviewed about, unbalanced coverage on fracking and
climate change. The impression created across the twenty articles was that scientific studies
supported the case for fracking, with very little science offered in the case against. Arguments
against fracking were mostly cited by various environmental groups such as Greenpeace
(three times), Friends of the Earth, Frack Off, WWF Scotland and National Trust.
The sense that the scientific evidence lies on one side of the debate is heightened by some of
the BBC’s own reporter’s commentaries. The following is taken from one of the twenty
reports published on July 28th 2014, in which the BBC’s environmental analyst Roger
Harrabin is quoted:
13
"If environmentalists succeed in stopping fracking in the UK by stirring up local
objections they will actually make the greenhouse effect worse in the short term.
This is because Britain will continue to use gas for heating and as a backup to
capricious wind and solar electricity. If the industry can't get British gas it will
import liquefied gas - and the energy needed to turn gas liquid makes it worse for
the climate than home-produced gas."
The language employed here ‘stirring up local opposition’, ‘capricious wind and solar
electricity’, ‘worse for the climate’ clearly favours the government and shale industry’s
narrative that shale can contribute to reducing the threat of climate change when, as we have
seen, many evidence-based scientific studies suggest the opposite may be true (Tyndale
Centre 2011; UNEP 2012; Harrison et al. 2014).
An examination of two radio broadcasts amongst the twenty stories reveals further lack of
impartiality on the science around fracking. The first story which emerges as no.1 from the
search for ‘fracking’ and ‘science’ on the BBC’s homepage, was a broadcast by Inside
Science on 26th September 2013 - a ‘fracking special’ meant to ‘really understand the science
surrounding the controversies’. The presenter, Adam Rutherford ‘sorts science fact from
science fiction’ by putting ‘your frack FAQs to four experts’. We are first introduced to Kris
Bone, a well engineering director at iGas who is given five of the 15 minute feature to
explain how the process worked from a coal-bed methane well in Warrington in Cheshire.
Bone reassures listeners that ‘fracking is not a new process’ and has been around in the UK
‘for at least 30 years’ and used at around 200 onshore wells already: ‘What is new is that it is
in the deeper shales, which is a relatively new process in the UK’. Rutherford then introduces
four experts who address some of the ‘anxieties expressed by the public about fracking’.
These are Professor Richard Davies from the Energy Institute; Dr David Rotherie, from the
Open University; Professor Zoe Shipton, from the University of Strathclyde; and Professor
Mike Stephenson from the British Geological Survey. These experts effectively dismiss
concerns about water pollution and depletion, earthquakes and climate change. For instance,
Richard Davies argues that ‘the risk of contamination from fracking itself is incredibly low.
There is not a single proven example of fracking causing contamination of groundwater’.
David Rotherie supports this view, stating ‘I don’t think people’s domestic water is at risk’.
Zoe Shipton, also argues that the 0.1-0.2 percent chemicals found in fracking slickwater were
14
safe and could be compared to, for instance, the scale inhibitor found in your kettles and that
these could be safely captured and treated on site.
Richard Davies addressed the issue of water scarcity and admitted the issue ‘depends where
you are’ (the risk in Southern England and Karoo desert in South Africa was greater than in
the North of England), but that the proposed water consumption for fracking was a tiny
percentage of overall national consumption in the UK. On climate change, Dave Rotherie,
makes the case that domestic gas would create less C02 emissions than importing gas from
abroad, and that shale gas is a ‘very good stop gap’ […] ‘otherwise we are going to be buying
gas from the Russians for the next few decades’. Finally, on the issue of earthquakes, Mike
Stephenson from the British Geological Survey admitted that the test drilling in Lancashire
had probably caused very small tremors, but that, fracking, could actually ‘save us from
larger earthquakes, rather than causing earthquakes’.
In another Inside Science broadcast devoted partly to ‘dispelling myths’ around fracking on
11th June 2015, after a vote by European MEPs for a moratorium on fracking, the two
scientists interviewed were Justin Rubinstein from the US Geological Survey and Zoe
Shipton (again) from Strathclyde University. The introduction to the interview sets out the
concern clearly: ‘There is no doubt that in the US, earthquake activity has rocketed in the last
decade’, but Justin Rubenstein argues that:
‘the increase in earthquakes certainly correlates with human activity and the
increase does correlate with fracking, but correlation is not causation. We really
don’t think many of these earthquakes are directly related to fracking. Maybe in
the order of 5-10 percent of these earthquakes are attributable to fracking. The
process that we think is related to these earthquakes is a process called waste
water disposal. And this is water that comes out when you’re pulling out oil or
gas’.
The presenter Adam Rutherford, puts aside the 5-10 percent of cases that may be caused by
hydraulic fracturing directly and comments:
‘Well that’s very interesting […] it is based on gas mining I suppose, but it is not
actually fracking that is causing that increase’.
15
This interpretation depends on the narrowest definition of fracking as only the actual cracking
of rocks deep beneath the earth’s surface, rather than the entire process around
unconventional gas extraction which includes, in the US at least, pumping water at high
pressure, which stresses well integrity and underground waste water disposal.
Zoe Shipton, from Strathclyde University, argues that because waste water injection is
‘unlikely’ to be allowed, seismic events will be small and ‘difficult to feel’. Returning to the
MEP’s largely ‘symbolic’ vote in support of a moratorium on fracking the presenter asks:
Is this a mistake? Is this a vote in the sway of popular opinion rather than
evidence-based policy?
Zoe Shipton replies:
People are often not driven by the science. We can inform people about the
science as much as we like, but the thing which makes people make their own
minds up is their own values, fears and their concerns. There have been a number
of reports including one by the Royal Society and Royal Academy of
Engineering, that I was involved in, that have looked at the issues around
environmental safety. The reports have largely found, or almost unanimously
found, that this industry can be managed in a safe way if it is regulated properly
and that the regulations in the UK are fit for purpose’
Conclusion
The BBC’s charter requires that it offers balance and impartiality in the reporting of news and
current affairs. In the case of reporting the scientific complexities and debates around
fracking, it appears that the BBC is falling short of its obligations. The proposed introduction
of fracking in the UK has so far passed the legislative hurdles and gained media and
mainstream political support from the major parties. The government and sections of the
media continue to frame shale gas as ‘the cleanest fossil fuel’ (DECC 2013, cited Jones et al.
2015). However, opposition to fracking continues to grow, and it may be that efforts to
suppress dissenting scientific evidence by the government, the shale industry and the media
16
will only amplify opposition and increase resistance to new technology. The various
scientific doubts and uncertainties about fracking have not prevented the shale industry, the
UK government and the BBC from presenting an optimistic and simplistic science-based case
for unconventional gas. If shale gas exploration proceeds as planned in the UK, any evidence
of negative impacts on communities, particularly accidents or contamination of water
supplies in such a densely populated island will only mobilise greater and more intense
opposition to the shale industry and any government or group of experts attempting to defend
it.
The danger is that a one-sided, industry-funded presentation of science research may affect
not only the reputation of fossil fuel industries, but academic institutions and values as well.
In this respect the shale industry has fallen short of its Corporate Social Responsibility
obligations to respect the views and livelihoods of communities and stakeholders in relation
to the extraction of unconventional gas. Retreating behind narrow definitions of ‘fracking’,
attempting to steer research and manage the debate in the media alongside intensive lobbying
operations in the government may ultimately backfire and exacerbate public distrust of
politicians, the mainstream media and the fossil fuel industry. A careful consideration of the
impacts of continued hydrocarbon exploration (and particularly ‘unconventional’ oil and gas)
on the environment, on communities and on long-term economic prosperity around the world
at a time of growing climate insecurity is urgently required. This must remain a priority for
any realistic discussion of corporate social responsibility – and is one that should be engaged
with urgently by all organisations currently engaged in the promotion of shale gas
development.
17
Bibliography
AEA., 2012. Support to the identification of potential risks for the environment and human
health arising from hydrocarbons operations involving hydraulic fracturing in Europe.
Accessed March 28, 2016,
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/energy/pdf/fracking%20study.pdf
Balmer, John M.T. “The BP Deepwater Horizon debacle and corporate brand exuberance”.
Journal of Brand Management. 18 (2) 2010: 97-104.
Bloomberg. “Fracking in Europe: fighting the revolution”. Last modified September 17,
2014. Accessed March 29 2016: http://www.bloombergview.com/quicktake/fracking-europe
Bosworth, T. “Unconventional and Unburnable: Why going all out for Shale Gas is the
Wrong Direction for the UK’s Energy Policy”. Issues in Environmental Science and
Technology: Fracking 39 (2014) 199-221.
Cairney, Paul., Manuel Fischer, and Karin Ingold. "Hydraulic fracturing policy in the UK:
coalition, cooperation and opposition in the face of uncertainty." In book chapter prepared
for the edited book Mapping Political Landscapes of Hydraulic Fracturing, undated,[Online]
available at htps://paulcairney. files. wordpress.com/2015/01/cairney-fischer-ingoldfracking-
in-the-uk-for-zurich-workshop-23-jan-2015.pdf, accessed on May, vol. 12. 2015.
Cave, Tamasin., and Andy Rowell. A Quiet Word: Lobbying, Crony Capitalism and Broken
Politics in Britain. London: The Bodley Head, 2014.
CHEM Trust. “Fracking pollution: how toxic chemicals from fracking could affect wildlife
and people in the UK and EU” (2015). Accessed March 20 2016:
http://www.chemtrust.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/chemtrust-fracking-briefing-june2015.pdf
Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). UK Energy Statistics, Q2 2015. (2015)
Accessed March 23, 2016,
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/463016/Press_
Notice_September_2015.pdf
Department of Energy and Climate Change blog (DECC blog). 2015. Shale gas – an
inconvenient truth for the anti-fracking lobby. Accessed March 23, 2016,
18
https://decc.blog.gov.uk/2015/09/23/shale-gas-an-inconvenient-truth-for-the-anti-fracking-
lobby/
Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). Guidance on fracking: developing shale
oil and gas in the UK. (2016) Accessed March 24, 2016,
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/about-shale-gas-and-hydraulic-fracturing-
fracking/developing-shale-oil-and-gas-in-the-uk
Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA). “Shale Gas Rural Economy
Impacts” (2014) Accessed March 23, 2016,
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/408977/RFI67
51_Draft_Shale_Gas_Rural_economy_impact_paper.pdf
Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA). “Draft Shale Gas Rural
Economy Impacts” [Unredacted] (2015). Accessed March 23, 2016,
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/440791/draft-
shale-gas-rural-economy-impact-report.pdf
Desmog. “Frack The Public: UK Shale Gets US Style PR Makeover”. (2015) Accessed
March 24, 2016, http://www.desmog.uk/2015/01/06/frack-public-shale-uk-gets-us-style-pr-
makeover
European Commission. “Climate Action: Paris Agreement”. (2015) Accessed March 23 2016
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/international/negotiations/paris/index_en.htm
Elkins, Paul., 2012. The UK’s new dash for gas is a dangerous gamble. In: New Scientist. 6
December. Accessed March 23, 2016, https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22594-the-
uks-new-dash-for-gas-is-a-dangerous-gamble/
Friends of the Earth. “Revealed: secret Government-Industry plans to circumvent fracking
opposition” 25th January (2015). Accessed March 24, 2016,
https://www.foe.co.uk/blog/revealed-secret-government-industry-plans-circumvent-fracking-
opposition
Gallup. “Opposition to Fracking Mounts in the U.S”. 30 March. (2016) Accessed March 23,
2016, http://www.gallup.com/poll/190355/opposition-fracking-mounts.aspx
19
The Geological Society. “Shale Gas and Fracking”. (2012) Accessed on 23rd March, 2016,
https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/Policy-and-Media/Resources/Shale-Gas-and-Fracking
Gov.uk. Local councils to receive millions in business rates from shale gas developments.
13th January (2013). Accessed March 19, 2016, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/local-
councils-to-receive-millions-in-business-rates-from-shale-gas-developments
Hansen, James., Sato, Makiko., Russell, Gary. and Kharecha, Pushker. “Climate sensitivity,
sea level and atmospheric carbon dioxide”. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, vol. 371, issue 2001, (2013) 20120294-
20120294. Accessed March 20, 2016, http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.4846
Harrison, Gwen., Parkinson, Stuart. and McFarlane, Gary. “Shale gas and fracking:
examining the evidence”. Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) and the Chartered
Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH). (2014). Accessed March 23, 2016,
http://www.sgr.org.uk/sites/sgr.org.uk/files/SGR-CIEH-Shale-gas-bfg.pdf
IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II
and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.
Accessed March 19, 2016, http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/
Jackson, R, Lowry, E, Pickle, A, Kang, M, DiGiulio, D, & Zhao, K. 'The Depths of
Hydraulic Fracturing and Accompanying Water Use Across the United
States', Environmental Science & Technology, 49, 15, (2015) 8969-8976.
Jones, Peter., Hillier, David., Comfort, Daphne. “Fracking and public relations: rehearsing
the arguments and making the case”. Journal of Public Affairs. Vol. 13, 4 (2013) 1479-1854.
Jones, P., Hillier, D. and Comfort, D. “The contested future of fracking for shale gas in the
UK: risk, reputation and regulation”. In World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and
Sustainable Development, Vol 11, No.4 (2015) 337-390.
KPMG. Shale Gas a global perspective. (2011) Accessed March 13, 2016,
https://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/shale-
gas-global-perspective.pdf
20
Lander, Ric. Knowledge and power: fossil fuel universities. Platform, People & Planet and
350.org. (2013) Accessed March 26, 2016, https://peopleandplanet.org/dl/fossil-
free/knowledge-power-report.pdf .
MacKay, David., Stone, Timothy. “Potential Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with
Shale Gas Extraction and Use”. Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) (2013)
Accessed March 28, 2016,
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/237330/MacK
ay_Stone_shale_study_report_09092013.pdf
McClenaghan, Maeve. “Investigation: Top universities take £134m from fossil fuel giants
despite divestment drive”. Greenpeace Energy Desk. (2015) Accessed March 14 2016,
http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/10/23/data-top-universities-take-134m-from-fossil-
fuel-giants-despite-divestment-drive/
McQueen, David. “CSR and new battle lines in online PR war: a case study of the energy
sector”. In: Ana Adi, Ana., Crowther, David and Grigore, Georgiana (eds) Online CSR
Corporate Social Responsibility in the Digital Age. (Developments in Corporate Governance
and Responsibility, Volume 7) (2015) Emerald Group Publishing Limited, p.99 – 125.
New York State Health Department. A Public Health Review of High Volume Hydraulic
Fracturing for Shale Gas Development. Accessed March 24, 2016,
https://www.health.ny.gov/press/reports/docs/high_volume_hydraulic_fracturing.pdf
Ofcom. “News consumption in the UK: research report” (2015) 15th December. Accessed
March 27, 2016, http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/tv-
research/news/2015/News_consumption_in_the_UK_2015_report.pdf
O’Hara, Sarah., Humphrey, Mathew., Andersson-Hudson, Jessica and Knight, Wil., 2015.
Public perception of shale gas extraction in the UK: two years on from the Balcombe
protests. University of Nottingham.
http://bettersociety.net/images/Public%20Perceptions%20of%20shale%20gas%20in%20the
%20UK%20sept131015MH.WK.JA-H.pdf [Date accessed: 17 March. 2016].
Parliament.UK., 2016. Lord Browne of Madingley.
http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/lord-browne-of-madingley/2172 [Date accessed:
17 March. 2016].
21
Petersen, Mark., Mueller, Charles., Moschetti, Morgan., Hoover, Susan., Llenos, Andrea.,
Ellsworth, William., Michael, Andrew., Rubinstein, Justin., McGarr, Arthur., and Rukstales,
Kenneth., 2016. 2016 One-Year Seismic Hazard Forecast for the Central and Eastern United
States from Induced and Natural Earthquakes. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.
Available at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2016/1035/ofr20161035.pdf [Date accessed: 30 March.
2016].
Public Health England., 2014. Potential Public Health Impacts of Exposures to Chemical and
Radioactive Pollutants as a Result of the Shale Gas Extraction Process.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/332837/PHE-
CRCE-009_3-7-14.pdf
Ritchie, Heather., Lloyd, Greg., Griffiths, Philip., 2014. A fracking good time? A planned
approach to energy resilience in the UK and Ireland. Paper presented to the Association of
European Schools of Planning (AESOP) Annual Congress 2014. “From control to co-
evolution”, University of Utrecht & University of Delft, July 9 – 12.
Spinwatch., 2015. Access all areas: Westminster's (vast) fracking lobby exposed. 29th April.
Available at: http://www.spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/climate/item/5765-access-all-areas-
frackers-lobbyists-and-the-revolving-door [Date accessed: 10th January 2016].
Task Force on Shale Gas., 2015. Final Conclusions and Recommendations.
https://www.taskforceonshalegas.uk/news-and-events/final-conclusions-and-
recommendations [Date accessed: 10th February 2016].
TEDX., 2016. Chemicals in Oil and Gas Operations - Peer-reviewed Papers. TEDX The
Endocrine Disruption Exchange. http://www.endocrinedisruption.org/chemicals-in-natural-
gas-operations/peer-reviewed-articles [Date accessed: 24th March 2016].
The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering., 2012. Shale gas extraction in
the UK: a review of hydraulic fracturing. http://www.raeng.org.uk/publications/reports/shale-
gas-extraction-in-the-uk [Date accessed: 18th February 2015].
Tuodolo, Felix., 2015. Corporate Social Responsibility: Between Civil Society and the Oil
Industry in the Developing World. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical
Geographies, [S.l.], v. 8, n. 3, p. 530-541, mar. 2015. ISSN 1492-9732.
<http://ojs.unbc.ca/index.php/acme/article/view/850/706>. [Date accessed: 25 March. 2016].
22
Tyndale Centre., 2011. Shale gas: an updated assessment of environmental and climate
change impacts.
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/sites/default/files/coop_shale_gas_report_update_v3.10.pdf [Date
accessed: 20 March. 2016].
UNEP., 2012. Gas fracking: can we safely squeeze the rocks? Global Environmental Alert
Service (GEAS) November. http://www.unep.org/pdf/UNEP-GEAS_NOV_2012.pdf [Date
accessed: 28 March. 2016].
Author note
David McQueen is a lecturer in Politics, Media and PR at Bournemouth University. His
research interests include public relations, news and current affairs, political communications
and media management. He is currently researching various lobbying and ‘greenwashing’
campaigns by the fossil fuel industry and the presentation of fracking in the news.
Abstract (218 word)
The controversial practice of hydraulic fracturing or ‘fracking’ as practiced in the US has
offered the promise of energy independence, a climate friendlier ‘bridge’ to renewable energy
than coal, and an economic boom for those states that have taken advantage of the new shale
oil and gas extraction techniques. At the same time, fracking is linked with widespread water
and air pollution, increased incidence of earthquakes, the splitting of communities and a
drastically altered landscape in many regions. How has the proposed introduction of fracking
in the UK fared in light of these concerns? What role has science played in the battle for
public opinion fought by the shale industry and its opponents? As part of a range of evidence
explored, this study examines the BBC’s coverage of the fracking controversy and scientific
research around shale exploration leading up to the introduction of the Infrastructure Act and
the public consultation on proposed extraction licenses in England in 2015. It considers the
growth of civil opposition to fracking and efforts by the fossil fuel industry to manage such
opposition, including the use of intensive public relations and lobbying activities. Finally, the
23
chapter reflects on the Corporate Social Responsibility dimension to the controversy and the
dangers for social cohesion and democratic engagement in light of recent developments in
this area.
Abstract (125 words)
The controversial practice of ‘fracking’ as practiced in the US has offered the promise of
energy independence, a climate-friendlier ‘bridge’ to renewable energy than coal, and a much
needed economic boost. At the same time, fracking is linked with widespread water and air
pollution, increased incidence of earthquakes, split communities and drastically altered
landscapes. How has the proposed introduction of fracking in the UK fared in light of these
concerns? What role has science played in the battle for public opinion fought by the shale
industry and its opponents? This chapter examines efforts by the shale industry to ‘win hearts
and minds’, including the use of intensive public relations including academic funding and
lobbying activities, and assesses their impact on media coverage of the controversy.
