Unnecessary Hyperbole: Shale Gas Extraction the “Final Solution”

In a business & stakeholders panel entitled Addressing Community Engagement: Lessons Learnt at the Unconventional Gas & Oil Summit in Warsaw, Poland, panel speakers wrestled with questions like “How should companies work with local communities, regulators to address the potential impact of fracking and seismic activity and what measures should be taken to manage risks?” and “Where does the responsibility lie of community engagement: with the concession owners or service providers?”

“There’s a lot of opposition in Europe at the moment, it’s gaining momentum,” noted Dr. Photini Pappas, Intercultural Strategy Consultant, WisdomInAction International, who moderated the discussion. “A lot of people think that the American film Gasland is responsible for the very strong oppositional sentiment in Europe right now. And it’s clear that this sentiment seems to get in the way of any reasonable dialogue, any sober discussion as several operators have realized.”

She showed quotes from a Cuadrilla town hall meeting in Balcombe, West Sussex in the UK: “Go away! Frack ‘em and forget ‘em, isn’t it? It’s all about the money.”

Ms. Pappas also provided anti fracking quotes from France, saying “The movement there is primarily being led by the European MP, the famous Jose Bove, who’s actually publicizing a rally, calling it a ‘Trafalgar’ for shale gas in France. Shale gas extraction has also been associated with the Holocaust, calling it the ‘final solution’ in calling people to resistance,” she explained, saying that this tone of opposition was actually influencing political decision making right now in Europe.

Political decision-making, she said, was presently ambivalent; “Governments want to keep the prospect of unconventional gas alive but are also appearing responsive to the opposition’s agenda and the public outcry.

“For some people in Europe shale gas is a political question,” she added.

Ms. Pappas summarized what she saw as the challenges: concern or fear of hydraulic fracturing; contradictory accounts about the true risks from exploration and extraction methods; distrust and even moral condemnation of petroleum companies; and growing confidence in the potential of renewable energy sources to secure plentiful energy, a clean environment and economic growth/employment.

The industry’s reaction, she noted, was probably more reactive than proactive.

“There’s also some kind of defensiveness, like Shell Chief Executive Peter Voser’s comment that Europe was very emotional. There’s the temptation to do nothing and wait for things to be resolved politically.”

She said this called for a new attitude by the industry and asked how the industry could create a shale gas constituency?

Ms. Pappas’ slide showed a two-way flow of communication between the petroleum industry and society/public opinion, where the industry explained its operations and their purpose, while society communicated values, attitude and behavior.

“It’s important for the industry to understand the thinking and perceptions of itself and on the basis of this understanding creating a basis for communication,” she said, adding that learning about political dynamics was also important.

“For local economies, what will be the payoffs be for local populations?” she asked.

How could operators integrate their operations into local communities? Ms. Pappas’ final slide suggested building bridges with communities and cultures through strategies like explaining scientific and technical processes in a direct, accessible and transparent manner, or communicating accurately and effectively the benefits of shale gas at every level: social, economic, environmental and national energy policy.

A distinguished panel of industry representatives proceeded to offer their insights.

Dr. Aviezer Tucker, Assistant Director, The Energy Institute at the University of Texas,  spoke about different methods of assessing technology, like when elites made decisions behind the scenes; if mistakes were made concerning those technologies, public trust was lost.

He said, “What we’ve seen in France with hydraulic fracturing is that the elite is fairly united in wanting to do it, but there is such distrust between the elite and the populace that the elite just can’t do it. What they will try to do is go around, try to present it as something else, another technology and whether that will work, we will see in the future.”

“As a lawyer, I believe that besides educating the society about the technical, environmental and other aspects of the shale gas revolution, there’s a need to increase stakeholders’ awareness of the legal regulations that are in place to protect their interests,” said Wojciech Bagiński, Attorney & Counsellor At Law.

“The legal debate in Poland is unfortunately very limited,” he said.

He said Poland had a new law since the beginning of the year which had created a lot of uncertainty. “This is bad for the oil & gas people and also bad for the lawyers who are working on these issues and would like to give proper legal advice.”

Mr. Bagiński added, “When we look at the environmental regulations in Poland, for an oil and gas company wanting to drill here, they must consider 130 regulations, which creates a lot of problems, mainly for the lawyers.”