**Abstract**

[7] Department for Manufacturing, Innovation, Trade, Resources and Energy. Petrole‐ um: Administrative Arrangements. http://www.petroleum.dmitre.sa.gov.au/environ‐

[8] Department for Manufacturing, Innovation, Trade, Resources and Energy. Petrole‐ um: SEO, EIR and ESA Reports. http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/petroleum/environment/

[9] Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Environmental Assessments. http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/assessments/ [10] Malavazos, M. The South Australian Petroleum Act 2000- principles and philosophy

[11] Department for Manufacturing, Innovation, Trade, Resources and Energy. Petroleum and Geothermal Energy Act Compliance Policy; (2012). https://sarigba‐

[12] Department for Manufacturing, Innovation, Trade, Resources and Energy. Petrole‐ um: Petroleum and Geothermal Energy Act Annual Compliance Reporting. http://

[13] Department for Manufacturing, Innovation, Trade, Resources and Energy. Petrole‐ um: Annual Reports. www.pir.sa.gov.au/petroleum/legislation/company\_annu‐

[14] International Energy Agency Golden Rules for a Golden Age of Gas, World Energy Outlook Special Report on Unconventional Gas; (2012). www.worldenergyout‐ look.org/media/weowebsite/2012/goldenrules/WEO2012\_ GoldenRulesReport.pdf [15] Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE)Petroleum Resources Management System;

[16] DMITRE Roadmap for Unconventional Gas Projects in South Australia, Appendix 1; (2012). http://www.misa.net.au/\_\_data/assets/pdf\_file/0009/178344/Appen‐

sis.pir.sa.gov.au/WebtopEw/ws/samref/sarig1/image/DDD/RB201000013.pdf

www.pir.sa.gov.au/petroleum/legislation/compliance/petroleum\_act\_annu‐

of best practice regulation. MESA Journal April (2001). , 21

ment/regulation/admin\_arrangements

register/seo,\_eir\_and\_esa\_reports

256 Effective and Sustainable Hydraulic Fracturing

al\_compliance\_report

dix\_1\_Rpundtable\_Members.pdf

al\_reports

(2007).

Hydraulic fracturing has been the focal point of widespread and global public debate. While the resources sector typically sees hydraulic fracturing as a low-risk method for accessing the coal seam and shale gas reserves required to meet growing public demand for energy, some in the community perceive it as an unmanageable and unacceptable risk. Concerns about hydraulic fracturing and the coal seam gas (CSG) industry include the health impacts of chemicals used, contamination of water supplies from fugitive gas after hydraulic fracturing, equity of land and water access, long term impacts on groundwater, and the full life cycle emission of greenhouse gases from CSG compared to that of coal. This paper highlights the main psychological drivers behind some of these concerns and a possible approach to effectively address them.

### **1. Introduction**

Hydraulic fracturing has been used to increase the rate and total amount of oil and gas extracted from reservoirs for many decades, so why has it now sparked community concern and global public debate? Part of the answer is gas consumption, particularly unconventional gas consumption.

Gas is the third largest global energy source, currently accounting for around 21 per cent of global primary energy consumption. Global gas consumption has increased at an average annual rate of 2.8 per cent since 2000, to reach 128 166 petajoules (PJ) in 2010. It is a relatively flexible and clean fuel and is projected to be the fastest growing non-renewable energy source over the next 20 years[1].

© 2013 Cham and Stone; licensee InTech. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2013 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Over the past decade Australia's gas consumption grew by 4 per cent per year. In 2009–10 gas accounted for 23 per cent of Australia's primary energy consumption and 15 per cent of the energy used for electricity generation. Gas consumption in Australia is projected to increase by 2.9 per cent per year over the next 20 years[1].

In February 2012, *The Australian* published the results of a poll that gauged the top-of-mind issues for Queensland voters during the State election campaign. While health and the economy remain the priority for Queensland voters, 40 per cent of respondents opposed and 27 per cent were undecided about the \$60 billion CSG industry, far outnumbering the 33 per

How Can Understanding Community Concerns About Hydraulic Fracturing Help to Address Them?

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/56442

259

The reasons why members of the general public, such as environmental groups, Aboriginal groups, suburbanites in Brisbane and Sydney, directly affected farmers/landowners and their

**•** equity of land and water access, this extends to questions of 'who benefits?' and 'is any

**•** the full life cycle emission of greenhouse gases from CSG compared to that of black (and

**•** robustness of environmental regulation and perceived regulatory complicity motivated by

There is also general uncertainty of the scale of the industry, as well as the uncertainty of environmental and social impacts across the landscape and over time. Such uncertainty may contribute to and/or reflect existing public anxiety about the ability to personally and collec‐ tively exert control over their interests, environment and well-being. These are deep human

Furthermore, public anxiety is buttressed by a host of specific issues about the practice of

**•** mobilisation of native contaminants that have previously been confined within coal seams;

emotional needs, perturbation of which can prompt highly emotional responses.

**•** health impacts of chemicals used and those mobilised by hydraulic fracturing;

**•** contamination of water supplies from fugitive gas after hydraulic fracturing;

**•** seismic activity and tremors associated with the drilling and fracturing process;

cent of supporters[3].

brown) coal;

revenue goals.

communities oppose the CSG industry include:

**•** impact on agricultural land and food security;

**•** long term impacts on groundwater;

hydraulic fracturing that include the:

**•** fate of chemicals used;

**•** introduction of harmful chemicals via direct injection;

**•** degree of control over the fracturing process; and

**•** capacity to prevent and/or remediate accidents.

**•** the legitimacy of new fossil fuels in a carbon-constrained world;

**•** pure emotional reactions (of individuals and groups) to the industry;

benefit worth the disruption to established community ways of life?';

**•** management and disposal of treated CSG wastewater and salt; and

Gas is Australia's third largest energy resource after coal and uranium[1]. Australia has both conventional and unconventional gas resources such as coal seam gas (CSG), tight gas and shale gas. In 2011, Australia's economic demonstrated resources (EDR) and subeconomic demonstrated resources (SDR) of conventional gas were estimated at 173 000 PJ[1]. There are significant CSG resources in eastern Australia that are being developed for domestic use and liquefied natural gas (LNG) export. The EDR and SDR of CSG were estimated to be around 101 434 PJ, in 2011[1]. According to the Australian Gas Resource Assessment (2012), Australia is likely to possess significant shale gas and tight gas resources, although as yet these are poorly quantified as exploration for these commodi‐ ties within Australia has only recently commenced.

In 2009–10 the amount of gas produced in Australia was 2005 PJ, 10 per cent of which was from CSG production. Around 48 per cent of Australia's gas production that year was exported as LNG. Gas production in Australia is projected to reach 8274 PJ over the next 20 years, with production from both conventional gas and CSG to rise[1].

Over the last five or so years there has been an increase in CSG production in eastern Australia and in some cases this has occurred in locations that previously had no gas or oil production. The rapid growth in CSG production coupled with the use of hydraulic fracturing has raised community concerns about the technology. While the resources sector typically sees hydraulic fracturing as a low-risk method for accessing the coal seam and shale gas reserves required to meet growing public demand for energy, some in the community perceive it as an unman‐ ageable and unacceptable risk. This is an underlying reason why hydraulic fracturing is causing concern and debate.

Why do these opposed perceptions exist, and is it possible to reconcile them? This paper outlines the main concerns the general public have about CSG and hydraulic fracturing based on the observations of public discourse in the media, social media and direct involvement in researching and communicating environmental and social impacts of CSG developments. It also highlights the main psychological drivers behind these concerns and a possible approach to effectively address them.

### **2. Public concern about CSG extraction and hydraulic fracturing**

The CSG industry has the potential to provide substantial economic benefit to Australia. The Hon Martin Ferguson, Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism, has said "In Queensland alone, if the industry reaches its forecast potential, it will be responsible for more than 20,000 jobs, provide \$243 billion in tax to the Australian Government and result in real incomes in Queensland rising by \$28,300 per person over the period from 2015 to 2035"[2]. In February 2012, *The Australian* published the results of a poll that gauged the top-of-mind issues for Queensland voters during the State election campaign. While health and the economy remain the priority for Queensland voters, 40 per cent of respondents opposed and 27 per cent were undecided about the \$60 billion CSG industry, far outnumbering the 33 per cent of supporters[3].

The reasons why members of the general public, such as environmental groups, Aboriginal groups, suburbanites in Brisbane and Sydney, directly affected farmers/landowners and their communities oppose the CSG industry include:


Over the past decade Australia's gas consumption grew by 4 per cent per year. In 2009–10 gas accounted for 23 per cent of Australia's primary energy consumption and 15 per cent of the energy used for electricity generation. Gas consumption in Australia is projected to increase

Gas is Australia's third largest energy resource after coal and uranium[1]. Australia has both conventional and unconventional gas resources such as coal seam gas (CSG), tight gas and shale gas. In 2011, Australia's economic demonstrated resources (EDR) and subeconomic demonstrated resources (SDR) of conventional gas were estimated at 173 000 PJ[1]. There are significant CSG resources in eastern Australia that are being developed for domestic use and liquefied natural gas (LNG) export. The EDR and SDR of CSG were estimated to be around 101 434 PJ, in 2011[1]. According to the Australian Gas Resource Assessment (2012), Australia is likely to possess significant shale gas and tight gas resources, although as yet these are poorly quantified as exploration for these commodi‐

In 2009–10 the amount of gas produced in Australia was 2005 PJ, 10 per cent of which was from CSG production. Around 48 per cent of Australia's gas production that year was exported as LNG. Gas production in Australia is projected to reach 8274 PJ over the next 20 years, with

Over the last five or so years there has been an increase in CSG production in eastern Australia and in some cases this has occurred in locations that previously had no gas or oil production. The rapid growth in CSG production coupled with the use of hydraulic fracturing has raised community concerns about the technology. While the resources sector typically sees hydraulic fracturing as a low-risk method for accessing the coal seam and shale gas reserves required to meet growing public demand for energy, some in the community perceive it as an unman‐ ageable and unacceptable risk. This is an underlying reason why hydraulic fracturing is

Why do these opposed perceptions exist, and is it possible to reconcile them? This paper outlines the main concerns the general public have about CSG and hydraulic fracturing based on the observations of public discourse in the media, social media and direct involvement in researching and communicating environmental and social impacts of CSG developments. It also highlights the main psychological drivers behind these concerns and a possible approach

The CSG industry has the potential to provide substantial economic benefit to Australia. The Hon Martin Ferguson, Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism, has said "In Queensland alone, if the industry reaches its forecast potential, it will be responsible for more than 20,000 jobs, provide \$243 billion in tax to the Australian Government and result in real incomes in Queensland rising by \$28,300 per person over the period from 2015 to 2035"[2].

**2. Public concern about CSG extraction and hydraulic fracturing**

by 2.9 per cent per year over the next 20 years[1].

258 Effective and Sustainable Hydraulic Fracturing

ties within Australia has only recently commenced.

causing concern and debate.

to effectively address them.

production from both conventional gas and CSG to rise[1].


There is also general uncertainty of the scale of the industry, as well as the uncertainty of environmental and social impacts across the landscape and over time. Such uncertainty may contribute to and/or reflect existing public anxiety about the ability to personally and collec‐ tively exert control over their interests, environment and well-being. These are deep human emotional needs, perturbation of which can prompt highly emotional responses.

Furthermore, public anxiety is buttressed by a host of specific issues about the practice of hydraulic fracturing that include the:


The unconventional gas industry, scientists and regulators tend to believe the above men‐ tioned risks are generally understood and manageable. However, some in the community, such as environmental groups, suburbanites and farmers, perceive these risks to be not well understood.

Technical experts and the general community often have different attitudes towards and understandings of the risks and benefits associated with hazards[21-23]. This can create dissonance between technical and public discourse. Notwithstanding that, the general community tends to reference the judgement of experts and authorities when making risk assessments. In the absence of specific knowledge, risk assessments made by the general community may be primarily informed by the trustworthiness of the responsible authority

How Can Understanding Community Concerns About Hydraulic Fracturing Help to Address Them?

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/56442

261

Trust is another factor that is of great importance in understanding public acceptance and adoption of new technologies. The general public's trust in regulatory institutions and the motives of scientists or in information about the risks and benefits of particular technological

If a source is distrusted, it matters little how full or persuasive their information is. Hazard acceptability has been linked empirically with both risk perception and level of trust[25].

In terms of the unconventional gas industry, there is a general lack of trust in gas developers and lack of confidence in government to properly regulate the industry. Information provided by gas developers and/or government agencies about techniques, processes, regulation and risk management used in exploration and production of unconventional gas in Australia is

An added challenge is the perception of credibility: expertise relevant to the gas industry frequently resides in or is partially dependent upon the gas industry; and technical experts rarely personally inhabit the geography of perceived risk. Such are the foundations upon

It is important to understand how people's attitudes and values influence their acceptance or rejection of the CSG industry, hydraulic fracturing and more generally the unconventional gas

Science is of course always uncertain, particularly in highly complex, politically charged issues such as CSG, and it cannot dictate what action to take. Deciding what to do occurs through a political process of bargaining, negotiation, and compromise[26]. The degree to which society or a community has a sense of shared values about desirable outcomes and the means to achieve those outcomes is important in the decision-making process. Where value conflicts exist, science has little capacity to reconcile these differences. What science can do in such situations is contribute to the development of new and innovative policy options that might

applications of science and technology play an important role.

which attempts to address general public concerns must be built.

generally treated with suspicion and distrust.

**5. The role of a trusted advisor**

and its sources of information[24].

**4. The role of trust**

industry.

The general tenor of public concerns regarding hydraulic fracturing is not unique, and its proponents may be able to learn from the experience of other technical advances that have challenged community acceptance. Genetic modification of foods[4-6] and the purifica‐ tion of treated sewerage for drinking water[7, 8], for example, have each aroused concert‐ ed community campaigns against their introduction. A range of studies have been conducted to understand the underlying (psychological/sociological) concerns about each technology[4, 9, 10].
