Shale tales: Politics of knowledge and promises in Europe’s shale gas discourses

Cantoni, Roberto; Klaes, Matthias S.; Lackerbauer, Simone Ines; Foltyn, Claudia; Keller, Reiner

doi:10.1016/j.exis.2018.09.004

Cited by 19 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Two articles on Australia reveal the substantial regional differences (across states) in public views about the industry's social licence, public response to perceived social licence (Luke et al 2018) and industry and government reaction to public positions (Witt et al 2018a). At the most macroscopic level, Cantoni et al (2018) highlight differences between three European nations in the content and tone of discourse that emerged on UHD.…”

Section: Regional Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Yet more ‘fracking’ social science: An overview of unconventional hydrocarbon development globally

Evensen

2018

The Extractive Industries and Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this introduction to the special issue on 'social aspects of unconventional hydrocarbon development globally' I explain the unique contributions made by the 26 research articles contained herein. Following a discussion of why additional research on social aspects of unconventional hydrocarbon development is still useful and relevant, I concisely describe ten major themes that emerged across the range of articles presented in this issue: (1) substantial regional differences in public reactions, perceptions, and policy, (2) context dependence, (3) role of experience with prior extraction, (4) critiques of policy and regulation, (5) procedural justice deficits, (6) distributive justice issues, (7) engagement and response from industry and government, (8) characterisation of opposition and activism, (9) interaction between actors internationally, and (10) a need for a long-term view. I conclude with my thoughts on the most promising areas for future research, including longitudinal research, comparisons across less developed and more developed nations, investigations of relationships between actors from different countries, and further examination of energy justice specifically in relation to public representation in decision making processes.

show abstract

Section: Regional Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Yet more ‘fracking’ social science: An overview of unconventional hydrocarbon development globally

Evensen

2018

The Extractive Industries and Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…safe and yet many residents have mobilized around hydraulic fracturing's risks (Cantoni et al 2018). Yet, beyond this polarized narrative, uncertainty about the outcomes of extraction produces emotional reactions because of how the potential harms are deferred to the future (Davies, 2018).…”

Section: Embodiment Emotion and Uncertaintymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These benefits are often technoscientific promises for the future such as that of job creation, and the assertion that gas extraction is a safe, controlled risk (Cantoni et al 2018). These promises allow residents to become invested in the idea of economic prosperity tied to this development and believe that UOG extraction is progressively becoming safer through increasing extractive technologies.…”

Section: Turley 79mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Mineral owners who lease their shale rights may not live near the extraction site and may never encounter the extraction processes.Considering these different perspectives, social scientists have explored the ways in which industry representatives and residents frame the benefits, risks, and knowledge around UOG development(Hudgins 2014;Matz and Renfrew 2015). Industry representatives frame the benefits of UOG through future technoscientific promises and multi scalar impacts such as job creation, and the assertion that gas extraction is a safe, controlled risk(Andrews and McCarthy 2014;Cantoni et al 2018). These promises are multi scalar because positive impacts are framed at every scalelocal, regional, nationalas well as across scales in multiple ways in which residents benefit from royalties in one place, and other residents experience better air quality from cleaner burning fuels in another place(Sica 2015).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These promises are multi scalar because positive impacts are framed at every scalelocal, regional, nationalas well as across scales in multiple ways in which residents benefit from royalties in one place, and other residents experience better air quality from cleaner burning fuels in another place(Sica 2015). At the same time, ongoing scientific studies about how natural gas extraction impacts groundwater continues to assert that groundwater cannot be impacted because of the depth of the fractures, hence drinking water wells are safe(Harkness et al 2017; U.S EPA 2016) Cantoni et al (2018). posit that these promises allow residents to become invested in the idea of economic prosperity through UOG development and believe that UOG extraction is progressively becoming safer through increasing extraction technologies.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

West Virginia waterscapes: Surface and mineral owners’ perspectives on groundwater contamination due to natural gas extraction

Turley¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

List of Figures iv Acknowledgments v Chapter One: Introduction to the research 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Research questions 1.3 Note on terminology Chapter Two: Conceptual framework 2.1 Political ecology 2.2 Waterscapes and hydro-social cycle 2.3 Embodiment and water 2.4 Epistemic authority Chapter Three: Unconventional oil and gas extraction in the United States and West Virginia 3.1 Unconventional development in the United States 3.2 The social dimensions of unconventional oil and gas development 3.2.1 Social science literature on unconventional oil and gas 3.2.2 Water and unconventional extraction Chapter Four: Methodology 4. 1 Epistemology 4.2 Positionality 4.3 Methods 4.3.1 Case Study: West Virginia 4.3.2 Interviews 4.3.3 Member-checking and dissemination 4.3.4 Data Analysis Chapter Five: Household groundwater impacts due to natural gas extraction 5.1 Impacts of water contamination 5.2 Baseline water testing and trust Chapter Six: Discussion 6.1 Embodiment, emotion and uncertainty 6.2 Epistemic authority 6.3 Intersections of embodiment and epistemic authority Chapter Seven: Conclusion References Appendix A: Interview guide for local stakeholders I would first like to thank everyone who participated in this research for welcoming me into your homes and sharing your stories with me. Additionally, I want to thank everyone who supported me during graduate school. Chris, thank you for your support, encouragement, and love the last seven years. Thanks also to my parents and family for their support and love, always. Thank you to my adviser and committee chair Martina Angela Caretta. I appreciate your deep commitment to mentoring and I feel lucky to have had my first graduate experience as your student. I am also grateful to my committee members Karen Culcasi and Cynthia Gorman who have provided constant insights and willingness to push my thinking along. Thank you to my colleagues who are first and foremost my friends. Alanna Higgins, I appreciate your friendship, constant encouragement, and support. Thanks also to Elizabeth Dever for reading this thesis and for accompanying me during fieldwork. Jess Holler, you have also been a constant source of inspiration, knowledge, and support over the years and I hope someday to thank you for that. Lastly, I want to thank the West Virginia Energy Institute for funding this research.

show abstract

Fighting Science with Science: Counter-Expertise Production in Anti-Shale Gas Mobilizations in France and Poland

Cantoni

2022

N.T.M.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Between the second half of the 2000s and the first half of the 2010s, the prospect of shale gas extraction in Europe at first prompted fervent political support, then met with local and national opposition, and was finally rendered moot by a global collapse in the oil price. In the Europe-wide protests against shale gas and the main technique employed to extract it, hydraulic fracturing (or fracking), counter-expertise played a crucial role. This kind of expertise is one of the main elements of “energy citizenship,” a concept recently developed in the field of energy humanities which describes the empowerment of citizens in decision-making processes related to energy issues. This paper provides a socio-historical analysis of the co-production of counter-expertise and energy citizenship in the two European countries endowed with the largest shale gas reserves: Poland and France. In my analysis, concerns over the disruption of the food-water-energy nexus due to possible pollution emerge as particularly important. I argue that the exchange of information between activist groups and NGOs, as well as between activist groups from distant European locations, allowed for the creation of a genuinely transnational and science-based anti-fracking movement.

show abstract

Shale tales: Politics of knowledge and promises in Europe’s shale gas discourses

Cited by 19 publications

References 22 publications

Yet more ‘fracking’ social science: An overview of unconventional hydrocarbon development globally

Yet more ‘fracking’ social science: An overview of unconventional hydrocarbon development globally

West Virginia waterscapes: Surface and mineral owners’ perspectives on groundwater contamination due to natural gas extraction

Fighting Science with Science: Counter-Expertise Production in Anti-Shale Gas Mobilizations in France and Poland

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About