Science and discourse: The debate over unconventional hydrocarbon development, hydraulic fracturing and water resources in the US and the UK

December 16th, 2014

Ben Roberts-Pierel, United States

In the last decade development of unconventional hydrocarbons through the use of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, has vastly expanded the recoverable petroleum and natural gas in the United States and is poised to have a similar effect in a number of other countries worldwide. Hydraulic fracturing utilises large quantities of water mixed with chemical additives and proppant, a natural or artificial sand, which is injected into a well at very high pressure. The wells are drilled vertically and then horizontally through the target formation and the water mixture, known as fracking fluid, creates fractures in the rock and allows the natural gas and/or oil to flow more easily to the surface.1

While this process has fundamentally changed the energy landscape in the United States, it comes with potentially serious drawbacks. With respect to water resources, there are two major concerns: over consumption and pollution. Consumption is considered a more serious issue in places which are more water scarce, such as the southwestern United States or western Colorado. Water pollution can happen in a few different ways and while much of the public focus has been on groundwater, surface water can also be adversely affected.

Water and Unconventional Hydrocarbon Development (UHD) was the subject of the author’s Master’s thesis completed in September of 2014. The research investigated two questions: Firstly, whether there is in fact a scientific basis for water pollution claims and second, how that conclusion informs the discourses utilized by pro- and anti-UHD groups to achieve their respective aims. The research was carried out through interviews with key informants as well as consultation of primary and secondary data.

Water pollution can be caused by a variety of chemicals and naturally occurring substances, which can mix with ground or surface water through a number of different pathways. Spills and casing leaks are probably the most common causes of pollution. Examples are numerous but a brief selection follows: a commonly cited and controversially dropped EPA study in Pavillion Wyoming, evidence of fracking fluid in water wells in the Barnett formation in Texas (see New perspectives on the effects of natural gas extraction on groundwater quality),2 fracking fluid and produced water spills in virtually all of the states where UHD is widespread, 3 and the widely circulated and discussed studies from Duke University, linking thermogenic methane found in groundwater in Pennsylvania to the Marcellus shale formation, which underlies the state. 4

While there is a growing body of scientific research verifying links between UHD and water pollution, many industry groups, companies and members of the public vehemently deny these claims and exonerate fracking of all blame. These pro-UHD groups, are very careful about the precision of their definitions, focusing solely on the discrete act of hydraulic fracturing. By doing this, they claim that water pollution not directly attributable to fracking is no different than in traditional oil and gas extraction. Anti-UHD groups on the other hand, focus their attention on fracking, making it a hated and distracting term, while in reality they need to consider the process more holistically, from well drilling to completion, not just stimulation. Although pro-groups argue this is not accurate, none of these wells would have been drilled if the fracking had not made them economically or technically feasible in the first place. Therefore, the anti- groups must become more precise with their language to more effectively connect UHD and pollution.

Although there is this increasing attention to scientific work on UHD and water, much less has been done by social scientists, with some notable exceptions.5 Therefore, this research attempted to fill this gap, resulting in a number of interesting findings. Unsurprisingly, the first was that although UHD and the associated science on water pollution is quite complex, science does not play a major role in forming discourses and messages on the topic. Instead different groups use other strategies to advance their arguments, in the process misconstruing, misusing or ignoring science. On the anti-UHD side, this manifests itself in an emotional appeal and a use of fear to dissuade public support. This is evident in the rhetoric of many anti-fracking organizations and the images they utilize of apocalyptic skylines, polluted water and irreversible environmental impacts.6

Conversely, the pro-UHD groups have the advantage of nearly limitless funds. This can be seen in the national advertising campaigns, and in the dollars spent on lobbyists. In 2013, all environmental organizations lobbying in the US were outspent by the oil and gas industry by a factor of almost 10 to 1. 7 Granted, these numbers are not completely reflective as they include conventional oil and gas development (although most of the largest players in UHD are also the biggest spenders on lobbying)8 and conflates all environmental causes into one, but it serves to illustrate the disparity.

Another important result was that each argument enjoys greater success and acceptability at different levels. Most of the interviewees, as well as a consultation of primary data revealed that the pro-UHD groups tend to do well appealing to regional or national audiences in the United States. Polls done at institutions such as Quinnipiac University and the Pew Center9 suggest that national opinion of the practice is favourable. The interviewees also noted widespread advertisements in media at the state and national level supporting fracking and the use of natural gas.10

Conversely, protests, opposition groups and politicians have been more successful at the local level. In the UK the major anti- group “Frack-Off” lists more than a hundred local opposition groups and protesters were successful at stopping UHD in south east England in the summer of 2013. In New York, the Supreme Court ruled that two small towns could ban fracking through zoning regulations.11 This was also reinforced by a respondent noting that “on the local scale, that noise [of the national discourse] is countered, in many cases drowned out.”12

Differences between sites in the US and between the US and UK further led to the finding that the context is important. Interviewees in the UK suggested that acceptability is highest in north west England, where heavy industry and coal mining has long been prevalent. Likewise, a interviewee working for a major US field services company reported a generally supportive atmosphere in North Dakota, compared to Pennsylvania where workers were confronted by protesters on a daily basis. Finally, while the US public seems to be in favour of UHD, public opinion in the UK has been and is increasingly opposed,13 although it is supported by the conservative government.14

Although brief, this article serves to illustrate some important points in the debate surrounding hydraulic fracturing and water resources. Firstly, it notes the importance of being clear with definitions. It shows that contrary to industry claims as well as government officials,15 there have been numerous verifiable cases of water pollution as the result of UHD. It also presents some conclusions from social science research such as the lack of scientific backing for discourses on both sides as well as the role of emotional appeal and money in creating messages. Going forward, this research could be greatly expanded to include more interviewees representative of a wider spectrum of the public and to try to disaggregate further some of the differences in scale and scope.

References:

American Petroleum Institute. (2014). Hydraulic Fracturing Primer: Unlocking America’s Natural Gas Resources. Retrieved July 24, 2014, from http://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-gas-overview/exploration-and-production/hydraulic-fracturing/hydraulic-fracturing-primer Fontenot, B. E., Hunt, L. R., Hildenbrand, Z. L., Carlton, D. D., Oka, H., Walton, J. L., Schug, K. A. (2013). An evaluation of water quality in private drinking water wells near natural gas extraction sites in the Barnett Shale formation. Environmental Science & Technology, 47(17), 10032-40. Arenschield, L. (2014). Halliburton delayed releasing details on fracking chemicals after Monroe County spill. The Columbus Dispatch. Retrieved July 23, 2014, from http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/07/21/details-on-chemicals-trickle-in-after-spill.html Jackson, R. B., Vengosh, A., Darrah, T. H., Warner, N. R., Down, A., Poreda, R. J., Karr, J. D. (2013). Increased stray gas abundance in a subset of drinking water wells near Marcellus shale gas extraction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(28), 11250-5. Cartwright, E. (2013). Eco-Risk and the Case of Fracking. In T. Strauss, S., Rupp,. Love (Ed.), Cultures of Energy: Power, Practices, Technologies (pp. 201-211). Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. FrackFreeYork. (2014). FAQs. Retrieved August 06, 2014, from http://www.frackfreeyork.org.uk/faqs/ Center for Responsive Politics. (2014a). Lobbying Spending Database Environment, 2013. Retrieved August 13, 2014, from https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=Q11&year=2013 Center for Responsive Politics. (2014b). Lobbying Spending Database Oil & Gas, 2013. Retrieved August 13, 2014, from https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=E01&year=2013# Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. (2012). As Gas Prices Pinch, Support for Oil and Gas Production Grows. Retrieved August 05, 2014, from http://www.people-press.org/2012/03/19/as-gas-prices-pinch-support-for-oil-and-gas-production-grows/ Personal Correspondence De Avila, J., Vilensky, M., & Gold, R. (2014). New York Communities Can Ban Fracking, Court Rules – WSJ. Retrieved August 05, 2014, from http://online.wsj.com/articles/new-york-towns-and-cities-can-ban-fracking-court-rules-1404145435 Personal Correspondence O’Hara, S., & Humphrey, M. (2014). Support for fracking drops for third time in a row with Conservatives most in favour. Retrieved August 05, 2014, from http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/news/pressreleases/2014/may/support-for-fracking-drops-for-third-time-in-a-row-with-conservatives-most-in-favour.aspx Ibid State of Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Comission. (n.d.). Background. Denver. Retrieved from http://cogcc.state.co.us/library/GASLAND DOC.pdf

Ben Roberts-Pierel is a young professional and consultant on water issues and has an interest in the food-energy-water nexus and unconventional hydrocarbons. He received his MSc in Water Security and International Development from the University of East Anglia and his BA in Government and Legal Studies from Bowdoin College. The full text of the thesis is available upon request. The article is based on a Master’s thesis completed as partial fulfilment of requirements for the MSc in Water Security and International Development at the University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.

The views expressed in this article belong to the individual authors and do not represent the views of the Global Water Forum, the UNESCO Chair in Water Economics and Transboundary Water Governance, UNESCO, the Australian National University, or any of the institutions to which the authors are associated. Please see the Global Water Forum terms and conditions here.