Public Acceptance: How to Get the "Buy-in" for Natural Gas
In his intro to an interactive session on public acceptance at the World Gas Conference in Paris France, Dimitri Schildmeijer, Partner in WPNT Communications Europe, pointed out that while the topic is important to the gas industry, it is not always the center of attention.
Citing Qatar Gas' estimate of $45 trillion worth of investment from the gas industry, he offered, “We know that a lot of that money is going to go to building new infrastructure, whether it's LNG terminals or gas pipelines, a compressor station or maybe a CO2 storage facility – that's really what's going to help the gas industry grow.
“But we also know that wherever we build there's going to be neighbors,” he continued, “there's going to be communities and worry and anxiety, maybe some anger or high expectations. There's going to be stakeholders that we need to engage with as an industry.”
It is a question, Mr. Schildmeijer said, of how to get “buy-in” from those stakeholders.
In the start to his talk, Chris Glerum, Communications Manager, Gasunie, opined that public acceptance is all about people. He explained: “The gas industry is a technical business and, depending on the country or region you are from, it is developing into a more human and value-driven business.
Citing the statistic that 73% of 190 costly, important projects in the gas business experienced big delays. “And these were 'non-technical', as they call them,” he added. “It was the human factor – the stakeholders. It is about people.”
The industry, he said, tends to send out technical messages, the values behind which should be sought.
“It is important to reach people and connect with them.”
With that in mind, Mr. Glerum said he had sought cooperation with the University of Groningen on researching the topic of public acceptance.
When establishing a product image, for example, the industry states that it is the cleanest fossil fuel. “A few minutes later we say 'we are a pretty green fuel'. So, what are we? What do people believe?” he queried.
Communicating in policy terms, the gas industry says gas is affordable – a value that is important for people. He continued, “We are available – we give security of supply.
“And we say it is sustainable or clean, or cleaner. There's a bit of a problem: Are you clean or cleaner than coal?”
According to him, what the gas industry is communicating is generally accepted, but is under pressure in places like the Netherlands and various other places for different reasons. “In Holland, for instance, because of earthquakes in the famous Groningen field,” he recalled.
Meanwhile, in the US shale gas has huge acceptability issues.
Should the industry offer, ask for, or impose something? He commented, “Here lies an area of development. We mostly provide a rationale why we're doing a project – we tell why. Mostly, this rationale is at a very high level. We say, at the highest level, 'it's good for the climate.'”
But if one uses such an argument with a local affected by a gas project, he explained, that person likely won't feel secure.
The industry, he explained, is judged by how it does things, how it behaves and how it gives back, like building a swimming pool for a community. But companies may also immunize communities with the polio vaccine or provide education. Of the latter options, Mr. Glerum offered, “Think about the difference in value that they communicate by doing that; it's not just giving money. They are showing what is important for them as a company and, in doing that, they are showing leadership, an identity: corporate values, leadership.”
An oil and gas CEO expressing his reservations, though process and how he came to the realization that drilling in the arctic is acceptable can also help form perceptions.
The three dimensions of communicating about natural gas, he said, are sustainable/clean, available, affordable.
“Our claim in the gas industry is that we're somewhere in the middle – we give it all. Herein lies our claim,” said Mr. Glerum.
In the research conducted at the University of Groningen, researchers grouped around 50 values into four different categories, the classical values the gas industry uses in its communications: altruistic, egoistic, biospheric and hedonistic.
For hedonistic value, he explained the comfort involved: “It's easy to handle, it's warm and nice.”
Now, however, people have developed altruistic values (“Is gas good for the world?”).
According to him, more emphasis is being placed upon such altruistic values by the industry, but it is a question whether or not such a strategy will work.
“One of the results of the research is, if you claim that natural gas is biospheric – is green – because we develop green gas, or power-to-gas, people tend to say 'I like that initiative on green gas,' but the findings say it doesn't change their general idea of natural gas. It's acceptable, not too expensive.”
He concluded that the human factor is gaining importance and can no longer be ignored by the gas industry. “It's posing a challenge on us, and is placing limits on our business.”
Secondly, it's important to understand people's values, which determine the acceptability of gas or any other energy alternative.
“When it comes to projects, it's not the talk – it's how we do things and how much time we spend together with people at their kitchen tables – that is the message.”
Finally, Mr. Glerum said trust is everything, but belief in what someone says is only as good as belief in the messenger.
The perception of gas is really just like a “bag of potatoes” when it is positioned as a green or relatively green source of energy, according to the University of Groningen's Dr. Goda Perlaviciute. She explained: “At least in the Netherlands, gas has been a bag of potatoes for a long time – people use it for heating, for cooking their meals. They perceive it as a convenient energy source, while now the image is being changed from just a convenient bag of potatoes to something green.”
Public perceptions connected with shale gas, she reported, is an emerging field of study and a very controversial topic. “It seems that the evaluations of it are rooted in values. We already see that there is a strong group of opponents and a strong group of supporters. Opponents highlight the environmental risks, health risks and hazards, while the supporters emphasize the economic benefits and energy security.
“The fact that these evaluations seem to be rooted in values can make it very difficult to communicate about costs and benefits,” said Dr. Perlaviciute, who added that communicating the benefit to energy security to someone rooted in biospheric values often results in a disconnect.
One participant in the session asked whether it would be prudent for the natural gas industry, as a very rational, technical industry, to learn to communicate in a new way, to build trust.
Mr. Glerum replied, “I think the gas industry did a good job in developing itself in the technical skills of communication: speak in short sentences, make nice presentations, to make comprehensible messages. But the next step to really gain something in the social license to operate is to see communication as just a dimension of relations.
“We have to bring ourselves into the ring. You can send messages, but you don't control the credibility that people have about you as a messenger. You can only change that by engaging with people,” he said.
The next step, he concluded, might be in trying to make entire companies more communicative, to deal with people and enter relationships with local communities.
-Drew Leifheit