What 'drivers' and 'resistors' influence the Legislation and Policies implemented to inform the...

What ‘drivers’ and ‘resistors’ influence theLegislation and Policies implementedto inform the Decision Making Processin awarding ‘Fracking Licences’ in the

UK?Module T847 – MSc Professional Project

Tutor: Dr Janet Cochrane

Date: 14 th April 2015

By Douglas T Chiwocha W5890286

Douglas T Chiwocha W5890286 1

A ‘Fracking’ rig belonging to Cuadrilla Ltd. UK (Photo by Cuadrilla Ltd., 2015)

Source: Google (09/04/2015)

Table of contents

Executive Summary

1 Introduction 6

2 Background 8

3 Project Evaluation and Specification 10

3.1 Personal and academic suitability 10 3.2 Stakeholder analysis 11

3.3 Feasibility 16

3.4 Risk 17

3.5 Project Specification 19

4 Research Design and Methods 21

4.1 The Research Process 21

4.2 Research Design and Methodology 23

4.3 Data Generation/Collection Methods 26


5 Analysis and presentation of findings28

5.1 A general assessment of data collection and analysis28

5.2 Analysis and findings 30

6 Conclusion 41

References 42

Appendices 45

Glossary of Terms

CCC - Committee on Climate Change

CEO - Chief Executive Officer

DECC - Department of Energy and Climate Change

EA - Environmental Agency

EIA - Environmental Impact Assessment

HSE - Health & Safety Executive

IEMA - Institute of Environmental Management &Assessment

MPA - Mining and Planning Authority


NPPG - National Planning Policy Guidance

PEDL - Petroleum Exploration and Development License

SEPA - Scottish Environmental Protection Agency

SDWA- Safe Drinking Water Act

UK - United Kingdom

UKOOG- United Kingdom Onshore Operators Group

USA - United States of America

Acknowledgements

I would firstly like to thank my Module Tutor, Dr Janet

Cochrane for her support and guidance throughout this MSc


Project. Your constructive comments and advice have been

a positive driving force throughout this experience.

I would also like to express my deepest gratitude to my

dearest sister Dr Sheila D S Chiwocha and my dear niece

Miss Simone R Chiwocha for their unwavering support

throughout this amazing journey called life. Thank you

for believing in me. You two are my ‘rocks’.

Finally I would like to thank all my friends who have

been instrumental and supportive in this whole process.

You know who you are. Thank You.

Executive SummaryDouglas T Chiwocha W5890286 5

‘Fracking’, as a method of extracting shale oil and gasfrom the ground has come under serious public oppositionin the UK. The discovery of large shale deposits in theNorth West of England and parts of Scotland has createdhuge media coverage. The prospects of vast amounts of thegas resource being exploited potentially making the UKself sufficient in its energy requirements whilstcreating thousands of jobs has kick-started what theonshore oil and gas industry hopes to be another oil andgas ‘revolution’. The government, as a key stakeholderhas made efforts to enable exploration companies to frackby lifting a countrywide moratorium in 2012. There hashowever been very little progress in the awarding offracking licenses in the form of an acceleratedexploration programme due to complex legislation/policyin the licensing regime.

This report explores the different driving forces andresisting forces that influence legislation and policiesand how this ultimately shapes the decision makingprocess of awarding these licenses. The structure of thereport is a design process exploring the choice ofeffective research methods opted for in order to get abetter understanding of the situation.

A mixed method research approach was opted for whichenabled the researcher to gather various types of datathrough the use of national and online qualitative datasource, a research survey/questionnaire and an interview.The research details ways in which this data wascollected, collated and analysed to come up withfindings.

The collection of both qualitative and quantitative datahighlighted many areas of contention between the publicand the direction the government’s policies are taking.The government’s stance on fracking is that the countrycould be rid of relying on Russian gas imports, createjobs, and improve the balance of payment through taxrevenue thus promoting economic prosperity. On the otherhand we see fierce public opposition throughDouglas T Chiwocha W5890286 6

demonstrations by the mobilising of the communities inquestion. This opposition is driven by fear of thepotential environmental impacts, the feeling of beingleft out in the decision making process resulting in lackof trust and to a large extent a lack of knowledge on thesubject matter.

The research goes further into analysing all the datacollected through the use of a force field analysis whichseeks to identify the key driving or resisting forces atplay.

The research findings indicate an imbalance betweengovernment’s sustainable energy strategy and the socialbenefits. This is due to the inability of the decisionmakers to address public concerns and perceptions of thepotential damage fracking is perceived to cause on theenvironment. The recommendations therefore are for aframework and strategy that closely looks at all thesustainable dimensions paying close attention to thesocial aspect as this is where all the resistorsinfluencing the decision making process in awardingfracking licenses in the UK lie.

1 Introduction

The focus of this project is to investigate the driversand resistors that influence legislation and policiesimplemented to inform the decision making process inawarding fracking licenses in the UK.

Hydraulic fracturing or ‘Fracking’ is a drillingtechnique used to increase resource production. Speciallyblended liquid mixtures are pumped into oil and gas wellsunder high pressure causing underground rock formation tocrack and open up (Craven, 2014). Since its introductionin the 1970’s, fracking has become a widely usedtechnique for accessing unconventional sources of oil andgas, consequently producing a surge in domestic naturalresource production in the USA (Craven, 2014). Douglas T Chiwocha W5890286 7

The You Tube Video 'Animation of Hydraulic Fracturing,’fracking’'(2013) provides a clear technical and scientificexplanation of how modern horizontal drilling techniquesare used to extract the trapped reserves of oil and gasin shale deposits. The link for the video is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VY34PQUiwOQ

At a national level, fracking operations have started upagain due to the lifting by the UK government of themoratorium against fracking in 2014. The policy andlegislation framework that the UK adopts determines thepace at which fracking licenses are awarded. This isbound to be influenced by the strength of driving forces(drivers) or restraining forces (resistors). Therefore anin-depth investigation into the policy and legislativeregime seeks to identify how these drivers and resistorsplay a part in the decision making process and how thisultimately shapes the energy landscape in the UK.

1.1 Why research is timely and important The development and widespread adoption of fracking hasdrastically changed the US energy landscape, withincreasing efficient processes and new methods ofdrilling driving the natural gas boom (Craven, 2014).Fracking at a large scale is relatively new in the UK. Itis foreseen that in the absence of shale gas development,imports will rise, with DECC forecasting that the UKcould be importing three quarters of its gas by 2030 (UKParliament, 2014). The Institute of Directors estimatesthe cost of such imports at £15 billion per annum couldbe reduced by 37% in 2030, reducing import cost by £7.5billion if shale gas production commences (UK Parliament,2014). This dependency on foreign gas presents an issueon security of supply.

The Bowland Shale is estimated to contain 37.6 trillion m3

deposits of shale oil and gas, making it the largest inthe UK and stretches across much of northern England



(Barwise, 2014). According to the DECC (2013), littledrilling or testing has taken place in Britain’s shaledeposits, so it is not yet possible to estimate how muchshale gas or oil may be practically and commerciallyrecoverable. There is however, a potential to attract anannual investment of £3.7 billion and support up to75,000 jobs directly and indirectly through broadereconomic stimulus (DECC, 2014). Large energy companiessuch as Centrica and Total, although showing interest,have been cautious in investing in the UK energy marketdue to the political situation.

Despite the opportunities for growth, there has beenwidespread public outcry because of fracking’s potentialharm to health and the environment. This is mainlyattributed to perceptions of harm caused by chemicaladditives injected in the wells during the frackingprocess.


2 Background

2.1 Hydraulic fracturing policy landscape in the USA

Countries like the USA and Australia adopted ‘fracking’very early on resulting in tremendous expansion of theirenergy industries. The political environment isfavourable in the USA allowing large investments and asystem of regulation which permits many sites to beopened in a relatively small period of time. Federalregulation is limited and companies have been given waysto avoid certain environmental protection actsnotoriously known as the ‘Halliburton loop hole’(MarketLine, 2014). This is a provision contained in TheFederal Energy Policy Act of 2005 that exempts gasdrilling and extraction from requirements in theunderground injection control (UIC) programme of the SafeDrinking Water Act (SDWA) (Clean Water Act, 2015).MarketLine (2014)stated that, "Regulation varies fromstate to state and county to county but certain areasdeemed to have a low population have little to no


regulation in what is described as a "self-regulationsystem" (MarketLine, 2014).

Furthermore, according to MarketLine (2014), it isestimated that currently there are 1.1 million active oiland gas sites in the USA and 500,000 of these arespecifically for gas. As more data becomes available fromthe USA, environmental concerns are growing in strengthhere in the UK. These mainly include the contents offracking fluid, leaking wells, the release of radio-active material, air pollution, health concerns andenvironmental destruction. On the other hand, theChancellor George Osborne told MP's that, "shale gas ispart of the future and we will make it happen" (TheEnvironmentalist, 2014).

2.2 How and why I identified the problem

The environmentalist (2011) published an article titled,‘Yes to UK shale gas’ and highlighted how MP’s on theEnergy Climate Change Committee backed shale and gasdrilling in the UK. Subsequent publications demonstratedthe government’s move to convince the public on shale oiland gas exploration, citing benefits such as greaterenergy security, economic growth, job creation andincreased tax revenue. These proposals have come underpublic opposition expressing great concern about thepotential adverse impacts on the environment.

The nature of the problems arises from contentionsbetween emphasis on economic development vs. publicknowledge and safety. An approach that provides a properbalance between knowledge and awareness in an attemptingto this imbalance will provide a framework shaping theway the policy and legislative regime operates. Thecomplexities associated with the economic, social andenvironmental domains relate to paradigms embedded in theconcept of sustainability. Fracking proponents see it asDouglas T Chiwocha W5890286 11

an opportunity to boost jobs, cheaper energy prices andenergy security for the country. On the other hand,opponents’ worldviews are in contention citing lack ofpublic involvement and knowledge and a lack of publictrust in the legislative and licensing regime.

DECC, Environmental Agency (EA), Mining and PlanningAuthority (MAP) and Heath & Safety Executive (HSE) shapethe licensing process. The process must be perceived tobe in the public’s interest through involvement andparticipation. Central to the debate is the way politicsand ‘powers’ are played out. The political dimensions aredriven by the government’s interest on potentialopportunities the shale oil and gas ‘revolution’ couldbring. Locally, the community benefit schemes would pay£100,000.00 for each well that is hydraulicallyfractured. Local businesses could benefit through theprovision of services to projects such as materials andtransportation.


3 Project evaluation and specification

3.1 Personal and academic suitability

Project evaluation was carried out to measure thesuitability, practicality and risks associated with theproject choice. The suitability analysis matrix shown inTable 1 below provides a systematic way of scoring keypersonal and academic aspects of the project proposal.This aided in providing a project topic amenable toadditional feasibility and risk checks. The project had ahigh suitability score owing to great interest in thesubject topic that matched personal career objectives andthe opportunity to enhance the understanding oflegislation and policy and the licensing regime in theUK.

Table 1 : Suitability analysis

Project proposal : Suitability analysis

Project/ Personal Scor Organizati Scor Subject Scor Tot Total


topic Suitability

e onal suitability

e suitability

e al +

-

What are the driver and resistorsthat the legislation and policies implemented to inform the decision making process in awarding ‘fracking’ Licences in the UK

1)I have alot of interest in the topic of shale oil & gas exploration

2) Matchesmy career objective

3)I can explore the subject area usingsecondary research and surveyquestionnaire and interviewing

+++

++

++

1) No direct link to myorganisation

2) Very little chance of conflict of interest arising

--

++

1)‘Fracking’ is verytopical and controversial therefore provides agood challenge for creativityand originality

2) There is scope to enhance/contribute to the academic subject area (through better understanding the legislation and licensing regime.

++

++

13+ 2-

3.2 Stakeholder analysis

A stakeholder analysis was carried out to ascertain thesuitability of the project for the researcher and forother stakeholders. In any decision making situation,stakeholders’ views, values and perspectives are vital.


Grimble and Wellard (1997) define stakeholders as "anygroup of people organised or unorganised, who share acommon interest or stake in a particular problem orsystem". Stakeholders can be identified as those whoaffect (determine) a decision or an action (activestakeholders) and those affected by these decisions(passive stakeholders).

The list of stakeholders relevant to the policy andlegislation and licensing regime in the UK can be groupedunder ‘customers’ (C), ‘actors’(A) and ‘owners’ (O).Table 2 shows the stakeholder group, the stakeholding andtheir respective roles in the system of interest.

Table 2: Stakeholders and their role in the policy, legislation and licensing regime in the UK

Stakeholder Group type

Stakeholders Role

Licensing Authorities

Environmental Agency O,A

Mining and Planning Authority O,ADECC O,AUK Onshore Operation Group (UKOOG)

A

Health & Safety Executive O,AOperators Engineers O

Geophysicists OEIA assessors OHydrologists OSeismologists ONoise assessors O

Policy Makers UK Government AEU Directives A

Local Communities Active community members CPassive community members C

Researcher Me C,A


The process of iteration and evaluation of stakeholderroles within the system aided the mapping of the systemsboundaries shown in Figure 3 below. It shows a snapshotof the situation at the moment of stakeholding at alocal, national to international level. There is adistinctive overlap of the environment, licensingauthorities, and the operators’ sub-sub-systems,highlighting shared components within the UK government’ssub-system. UKOOG are within the UK fracking industry andlicensing system as they play a major role in promotingthe industry across all stakeholding interest.

Figure 3: Systems map showing interaction of stakeholders in the UK fracking Industry

3.2.1 Environmental Agency (EA) – (O, A)

The EA are a major stakeholder in ownership of the waythe licensing regime is shaped and actioned through its


relevant bodies. Relevant Environmental Agency bodies inEngland, Scotland and Wales require:

Notice to be served on the regulator under section

199 of the Water Resources Act 1991 ‘to construct a

boring for the purpose of searching for or

extracting minerals'

Environmental permits for groundwater activity,

mining waste management, Industrial Emissions

Directive, radioactive substance activity and water

discharge activity

A ground water investigation consent

A waste abstraction licence

A flood defence consent (UKOOG, 2013).

3.2.2 Mining and Planning Authority (MPA) – (O, A)

MPA as part of local councils grant permission for welland well pad location. They impose conditions ensuringthat impacts and land use acceptable. They address allissues relating to negative impacts on the environmentsuch as noise and soil contamination. They also have akey role in managing activities with local communities,facilitating events that explain engagement & theplanning process. (TNS, 2014)

3.2.3 DECC – (O, A)

DECC issue ‘Petroleum Exploration and DevelopmentLicences (PEDLs)' giving exploration companies exclusiverights to explore and develop the resource in a specificgeographical area. They assess the technical and


financial competence of the operator (UKOOG, 2013). DECCas a department is viewed as knowledgeable. They providequick and efficient access to data and are expected toprovide information and respond to public questioningconcerns through national debates. (TNS, 2014)

3.2.4 UK Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG) – (A)

UKOOG is the representative body for the UK onshore oiland gas industry including exploration and production.The organisation’s objectives are to:

enhance the profile of the whole onshore industry(both conventional and unconventional);

promote better and more open dialogue with keystakeholders;

deliver industry wide initiatives and programmes;and

ensure the highest possible standards in safety,environment management and operations.

UKOOG play a vital role in promoting the onshore shaleoil and gas industry through an associate membershipscheme. They are a key stakeholder in forgingrelationships amongst multiple stakeholders (UKOOG,2015).

3.2.5 Health & safety Executive (HSE) – (O, A)

The HSE has expertise and interest in enforcingcompliance with the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act1974 (Heath and Safety Executive, 2015). Their major roleis to monitor the oil and gas operations from a wellintegrity and safety point of view. They scrutinise thewell design and monitor progress as the well developsmaking sure that the operators are conducting operationsas planned. (UKOOG, 2013)


3.2.6 Operators – (O)

Engineers

Geophysicists

EIA assessors

Hydrologists

Seismologists

Noise assessors

Operators conduct fracking operations within a specifiedgeographical area. There are various legislativeobligations they need to fulfil before this can happen.Operators must demonstrate technical and scientificunderstanding of issues and impacts of operations. Theycarry out the relevant impacts assessments and implementeffective mitigation and control measures. Theiroperations should also adhere to industry standards(British Standards System), UK legislation, UK Policy &Guidance and UK planning policy.

3.2.7 Policy makers – (A)

UK Government

EU Directives

The European Commission enforces a legislative frameworkthat all member states should follow. The legislativeframework includes the Environmental Impact AssessmentDirective (2012) and the EnvironmentalDirective/Initiative for unconventional hydrocarbonextraction.

The UK government’s role as a stakeholder is multi-functional, influenced by political, economic, social andenvironmental aspect of the system. Other stakeholdersDouglas T Chiwocha W5890286 19

expect the government to take leadership in matterspertinent to fulfilling their personal agendas. Whilstcommunities would like to see tougher regulation oroutright bans on fracking in the UK, operators on theother hand would like to see the government takeconcerted action in shaping legislation that promoteswidespread fracking operations.

3.2.8 Local Communities – (C)

Active community members

Inactive community members

The local communities play a major role as stakeholdersin this ‘system’. Their views and actions are determinedby their roles within these communities. Active communitymembers will be at the forefront of any social actionsthat evokes significant media coverage. Barton Moss inSalford, England was identified by protestors as anexploration site and has been camped at since November,2013 (MarketLine, 2014). Local communities asstakeholders are a powerful voice for the people and canwhip up media frenzy and attention thus putting pressureon decision makers. It is therefore vital that communityrelations and winning public 'buy-in' is dealt withthrough effective engagement and adopting a consultativeapproach to decision making to avoid conflicts andtensions between stakeholders.

3.2.9 The Researcher

The researcher herein explores the controversiessurrounding fracking technology and how it will affectthe UK energy industry landscape. The subject matterprovides a good challenge for creativity and originalityin the research process. There is scope to enhance andcontribute to the subject area and industry through


better understanding of how the different drivers andresistors function in this system.

3.2.10 What is at stake?

The ‘stake’ is the real material interest from theperspective of the stakeholders. These stakes can beformed in a number of ways, for example as a resident, aresource user, a government official or as an operator.They can be actively constructed, promoted and defended.The opponents of fracking identify environmental impactssuch as water contamination, noise and pollution. Hence‘environmental justices’ pertaining to the perceivedimpacts of fracking is at ‘stake’ for opponents.

Proponents of fracking see opportunities for jobcreation, lower energy bills and economic growth iffracking operations commence. This is the view that thegovernment, operators, and politicians share and wheretheir ‘stakes’ lie.

3.2.11 Key Issues

Controversies surrounding Fracking

Community and public engagement

Fracking policy/ legislation

How powers are played out (political)

3.3 Feasibility


Secondary research is conducted with cognisance of thetime constraints associated with T847 module. KurtLewin's force field theory is used to analyse how drivingforces and restraining forces influence the licensingregime in the UK. At the same time, the concept ofsustainable development which looks at the three pillarsnamely economic, social and environmental and how theyinterconnect, will also be tested to see how the ‘needs’of the UK’s energy industry are met. These differentdimensions are explored to ascertain their respectiveinfluences on the decision making process.

3.3.1 Aims

The overall aim is to investigate how legislation andlicensing policies shape and influence the decisionmaking process in awarding fracking licences.

3.3.2 Objectives

1. To identify the legislation that shapes the frackinglicensing regime in the UK

2. To map the relationships between legislation/policyand licensing

3. To identify the levels (local, national,international) at which these policies andlegislation are implemented and in-turn influencethe decision making process

4. To identify the tensions surrounding policy and thesustainable development of onshore oil and gasindustry in the UK


3.4 Risk

A project risk assessment was carried out to identify anypotential areas of challenge/failure in advance ofcommencing the project. Potential reasons for failure andtheir potential effects are populated in the differentstages of the project. These are scored on a SeverityRanking, Likelihood Ranking, ultimately providing aResidual Risk Factor. A prevention plan is also put inplace so that the possible eventualities can beaddressed, thus making the project a success. Table 4below highlights these features.

Table 4: Project Risk Assessment

T847- Risk analysis SR-Severity RankingLR-Likelihood RankingPRN-Priority Risk FactorPEN-Plan Effectively NumberRRF-Residual Risk Factor

0. General 1. Preliminary reading 2. Problematic topic definition 3. Detailed problematic/topic investigation 4. Research design 5. Undertake research 6. Analysis 7. Findings and recommendations 8. Writing upProject

Potential failure

Potential effects

SR Potential causes

LR

PRN Prevention plan

PEN

RRF


stage/ process

of failure

Stage1

Lack of info

Scale and scope misjudged

8 Not getting good basics of T847 requirements

6 48 Good Literature review +reading as project develops

0.3

14.4

Stage2

Ideas not ideal

Failure tomeet aims and objectives

9 Not definingthe aimsand objectives

3 27 Define researchquestionearly and tweak asrequired

0.3

8.1

Stage3

Lack of definite forms and limits

Lack of focus depth and quality

7 Confusion over scope and scale tomatch quality

7 49 Refer tomodule guide and makesure researchcomplieswith T847 requirements

0.1

4.9

Stage4

Opting for the wrong research methodology

Misappropriation of concept, theories and approaches

8 Focus and effort will be wrongly placed

5 40 Ascertain correct/effective researchmethodology

0.1

4.0

Stage5

Not readingwider a field on the research subject area

Lack of depth andscope required by T847

8 Lack of knowledge on useof OU library

3 24 Use OU library as well as up todate sources of info

0 0

Stage6

Lack of clarity andconciseness

Unable to focus argument in order to producea good paper

7 Skills in writing a reportand analysismay be limited

1 7 Choosingan effective methodof interpreting project analysis

0.3

2.1

Stage Unsubstanti Project 7 Poor 3 21 Back up 0. 2.


7 ated findings/ inappropriate recommendations

lacking rigor, credibility and goodexecution

researchskills

all findingswith evidence

1 1

Stage8

Lack of structure and inappropriate writing style

Inability to presentargument and communicate effectively to substantiate findings

7 Poorly presented information thatdoes notmeet MScrequirements

1 7 Constantly referring to theassessment guideto make sure that theMSc level expectations aremet

0.1

0.7

All stages

Unable for fulfil any of stage 1-8 processes

Delays andstress associatedwith meeting TMA/EMA submissiondate

7 Illness and lackof time

7 49 Keep up to date and maintainhealthy/Dedicating time for writing up

0.7

34.3


3.5 Project Specification

3.5.1 Proposed project title

‘’What drivers or resistors influence the legislation and policies

implemented to inform the decision making process in awarding

‘fracking’ licenses in the UK?’’

The project proposal feasibility analysis shown below inTable 5 provides a detailed timetable of each projectstage. It incorporates at which stage each major activityis to be undertaken, an estimate of costs associated witheach activity and the time taken to complete it. Datesfor handing in the TMAs and the EMA have also been markedclearly to allow for proper planning.

Table 5: Project proposal feasibility analysis

T847 Project Proposal: feasibility Analysis

Project stage

Major activities Estimate/Actual Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

April

E/A

Cost

Hrs.

Duration

Stage 1

1) Detailed investigation ofchosen topic- conceptual and theoretical dimension

2)Problem definition and project specification

E £30 20 3 weeks

X

A £40 30 3 weeks

E £0 20 3 weeks

X

A £0 30 4 weeks (ill)

X


Key Tasks-Literature review-Brainstorming-Iteration-Linking concepts and theories-Divergent thinking

TMA 01

X

Stage 2

1)Research and methodology design

2)Undertaking research and investigation

Key Tasks-Use OU library-Use Internet for relevant documents-Develop knowledge on fracking licensing regimein UK-

TMA 02

E £20 20 2 weeks

A £30 25 2 weeks

E £20 20 2 weeks

A £0 30 2 weeks

XStage 3

1)Outline a set of draft conclusions

Key Tasks

E £20 50 10 weeks

A £20 56 12 weeks


-Gathering all papers and research data-Order in cohesive manner-design questionnaire/ survey-conduct interview

TMA 03 XStage 4

PREPARE EMA

Hand in EMA

E £0 84 2 weeks

A £0 2 weeks

X

4 Research Design and Methods

4.1 The research process

The primary activity was to gather data/information in away most appropriate to answer the research question. Inframing the research methodology, the aim was todetermine the information needed and how to get it.

The notion underpinning the naturalistic researchmethodology is that human beings live in their own worlds


and create their own understanding of reality (Horrocksand Fowles, 2012). The key aim is to interpret the socialworld, hence an interpretivist perspective predominatesthis process. The naturalistic research paradigm assumesa multitude of realities, often subjective. This ischaracteristic of a system where multiple perspectivesamongst stakeholders differ resulting in tensions. On onehand we have the economic and political arena in favourof lifting the fracking moratorium, whilst on the otherhand opposition from the general public grows.

The use of a survey/questionnaire is key for cross-sectional questioning enabling the researcher to explorethe extent to which characteristic phenomena occur in asystem. Using a questionnaire assures anonymity andeffectiveness in distribution, collection and collationof responses for analyses. The questioning structureincorporates open-ended questions and closed questions.Some elements of positivist study were incorporated inthe research methodology in order to gather empiricaldata analysed in section 5.2.

Framing the research using the naturalistic paradigm withthe interpretive role as a researcher provides theopportunity to interpret the subjective social world. Arepresentation of findings will be relative to manycoexisting accounts of reality. The positivist elementsprovide a systematic approach in investigating whether ornot the qualitative data gathered supports thetheory(ies).

The method of data collection includes action research.Progressive problem solving of the research questionlinks to the aims and objectives emically. This iscongruent to the qualitative approach of the datagathering process adopted. The naturalistic paradigmfulfils all elements of a social inquirer by capturingsocial phenomenon where beliefs, values, attitudes and awide range of contextual factors exist (Horrocks andFowles, 2012). This sensitises people to aspect ofcertain phenomenon they were not aware of, therefore


encouraging participants to assess the usefulness ofinsights derived from the research to their ownprofessional experience or practice (Horrocks and Fowles,2012).

The naturalistic research paradigm alone has somedrawbacks. Its inability to incorporate empirical data isresolved by the use of cross-sectional survey questioningwith a positivistic approach to the research. Althoughnaturalistic research is viewed as of lower value by thepositivists, approaching the research using mixed methodsincluding an interview facilitates triangulation toverify emerging trends and patterns. The complimentaryuse of the positivist approach enhances authenticity andvalidity of the naturalistic research method.


4.2 Research design and methodology

4.2.1 My research paradigm: Mixed method design Naturalistic / positivist)

The naturalistic research paradigm aims to discovermeaning for the population being studied. It is vital toidentify the subjects that are involved within thisphenomenon (Horrocks and Fowles, 2012). In the frackingindustry, opposition from the general public and thepolitical stance taken in the decision making process,although in contention, super-imposes on political,economic, social values and attitudes within the system.Political figures may be influenced by the prospects ofwinning votes and economic prosperity. The decisions madewith ‘the people’s interest’ at the centre at a local,national and international level may come into directconflict and tension with other stakeholders as shown inthe force field analysis in section 5.2.7.


The positivist approach is reductionist within aninquiry, reducing data to numbers as measures of outcomesand correlations. The empirical data gathered from thesurvey/questionnaire can be represented in graph form.Incorporating the interview process with these approachesaids triangulation shifting the research method to a moremixed-method design. This capitalising on the strengthsof both strategies with each helping in compensation forthe weakness of the other (Horrocks and Fowles, 2012).Therefore the research method adopted here is a mixedmethod by design.

4.2.2 Key features of research approach

The methods used to conduct the research are mixedmethods. This research approach is most effective incollecting various data from a social context. The aim isto organise knowledge in a new way relevant to theresearch question drawing conclusions from trends, focus,biases, relationships and values. There is a requirementfor assessment, interpretation, analysis and summarisingof this original material. Complexities may arise due toan inability to reduce data into numbers without loss ofmeaning, compromising on an holistic approach. Theresearcher also interacts with participants, sometimesseeing them as co-researcher and the findings are createdthrough this interaction process (emic inquiry) (Horrocksand Fowles, 2012).

The quantitative approach is a positivist and assumes areality that exists empirically. It is reductionistwithin an inquiry reducing data to numbers to measureoutcomes and support correlations. It includes cause andeffect relationships that explain how variables interact.The researcher aims to remain independent from thosebeing researched (etic inquiry) whilst controlling valuesand biases (Horrocks and Fowles, 2012). The researchquestionnaire/survey is thus an effective approach ofgathering empirical data.


The interview aids in triangulation by enabling for theresearcher to evaluate data from different conceptual andtheoretical frameworks. This addresses the limitationsthat the qualitative and the quantitative approaches mayhave.

4.2.3 Critical evaluation and practicality of research approach/ method and design

Whilst focusing on the perspective of the interpretivist,as a researcher the intention is to explore aspects ofpolicy and legislation. Who actually makes the decisions?Why are these decisions made in the way that they are?What tensions, if any, exist between the stakeholders andhow are these tensions handled in the context of awardingfracking licences? The naturalistic approach alone lacksthe empirical data required to enhance the researchprocess. Documents may capture certain aspect of thephenomenon of interest. They are however, not written forthe researcher and may only represent a record ofprocess, values and attitudes current at that time in aparticular context. It is therefore vital to be aware ofthe audiences for which they were/are written.Approximately 6 national and online documents are to beused as part of the secondary research. A pod cast fromIEMA will also be incorporated in the research to capturedata from industry professionals.

Survey/questionnaires allow the researcher to gatheranonymous data from respondents. The challenge thispresents is the design of the questionnaire which mustaddress what type of data is sought and how it isanalysed. A suitable format and realistic questioning atan appropriate level of detail providing enough data richenough to answer the research question is required. Thequestioning must be sensitive, neutral and as unbiased aspossible. One has to avoid ambiguity, vagueness,complexity and negative or leading questions. Tworespondents tested the questionnaire and highlighted someDouglas T Chiwocha W5890286 33

complexities in the questions. Relevant adjustments weremade to improve understanding. This positivist approachoffers a research route that is systematic and objectiveobservation in areas where there is an assumption thatknowledge is truth. Open ended questions provide aspectrum of responses coded according to emerging themesand categories. The challenge of using the questionnaireis the response rate. The target was to get at least 200responses; only 49 responses were received. A total of 34respondents skipped the 2 open ended questions, reducingthe richness of the data.

In due course the research approach evolved into a mixed/multiple method approach. There was a need to address thelimitations that positivist and the naturalistic researchparadigms each presented. Conducting an interview helpedclarify the data gathered, however choosing anappropriate candidate for the interview proved to bechallenging.

4.2.4 Alternatives to the naturalistic paradigm

Critical theory assumes realities shaped by the powerful.Powerful stakeholders manipulate others. It is thereforethe duty of the researcher to explore these trends. Thisresearch paradigm examines why society is structured andorganised the way it is at any specific point in time. Itfocuses on the close associations between knowledge andpower and the motives of the ‘powerful’. Critical-theoryas a paradigm is a realistic alternative in relation tothe research question since contextually politics plays amajor role in the decision making process of awardingfracking licences

4.2.5 Methodology


Secondary qualitative method of research interprets andanalyses events of a period based on primary events. Itis vital for the researcher to capture aspects of thephenomenon of interest whilst taking into account thetarget audiences for whom they are written. The datacollection methods include documents, questionnaires andan interview. This approach is contingent in view,closing the gap between qualitative and quantitativemethods. The naturalistic paradigm approach alone uses anethnographic method to follow documents. This isconcerned with how documents are used in a certaincontext and what clues they give us about the meaningsand functions of human activities. Documents as agentscan take the shape of visual, audio and digital records.Target audiences for these materials include investorsand local communities. Documents must therefore not beviewed as repositories of evidence, but as agents for thepurpose of research.

The research questionnaire captures rich qualitative datafrom the open ended questioning and empirical data fromclosed questions. The interview process is flexibility,allowing the researcher and the interviewee to interactallowing both parties to explore and clarify mutualunderstanding of questions and responses. Itspracticalities are determined by availability ofrespondents. Using the interview process to triangulateimproves the internal validity of the research study byallowing the researcher to take another perspective onthe data gathered. A detailed record of structuredquestioning and the responses allows the recording ofevents and activities. These set of data are thencombined allowing the cumulative view drawn from thedifferent context to triangulate the true state ofaffairs.


4.3 Data Generation/Collection Methods

4.3.1 Documents

The naturalistic research paradigm is congruent with aqualitative research approach and methodology. The aimsand objectives to the research question are listed insection 3.3.1 and 3.3.2. The locations of information tomeet these requirements are online nationally. Thecontent of data sought includes:

Specialist and professional press Policy papers, political party reports and pressure

groups Government department and professional bodies( DECC,

Environmental Agency EU policy on fracking E-journals and databases relevant to fracking UK government and the EU

Table 11 in the Appendix is a Gant sheet of the datacollection phase of the research and lists the method ofresearch, sources and information sought. Dates tocompletion of each method of research have also beenprovided so as to tie in with the project proposalfeasibility analysis.

4.3.2 Ethnographic analysis

Ethnographic analysis explores culture and the ways inwhich groups create and sustain a common identity andshared experiences (Open University, 2014).The task athand was to engage with relevant informants, in this casean interviewee and questionnaire respondents. More thanone type of data was gathered so that combined analysisprovided a rich description of social interaction andculture (political, legislative and social). These dataDouglas T Chiwocha W5890286 36

enabled considerations of what each different data setactually meant thus informing on processes of groupinteraction within the system (‘What’,’ When’ and to someextent ‘How’). This aided the research whilst askingwhether additional information was required. The inquiryis iterative with incremental insights being taken intoaccount. In order to capture the essence of thesechanges, some form of audit trail was required to enabletracking back to see how the research findings haddeveloped. A diary log of observations and reflections onprogress compliments the ethnographic analysis of thedata collection method.

The effectiveness of ethnographic analysis for thisresearch was determined by access to the specific clientgroup. These included different professionals withintheir own rights, such as geophysicists,environmentalists, politicians and pressure groups. Thehighly politicised tensions between policy/ legislationand the public brought their own challenges. Thepolitical influences exerted by proponents of frackingadvocating benefits such as energy security and economicgrowth were identified as strong drivers. On the otherhand local pressure groups and active community members‘taking over’ fracking sites created disruptions todemonstrate their opposition. These were identified asvery strong resistors affecting the decision makingprocess.

4.3.3 Questionnaires

After ascertaining the target population of intendedcontacts, the design and structure of the questioningconsisted of 2 open ended questions and 8 closedquestions. The single survey was estimated to run for 3weeks before data analysis. The questioning techniqueswere clear, unambiguous and possible to answer. Thedistribution media used were via email, Facebook, freeinternet access and phone calls to industryprofessionals, pressure groups and policy makers. TheDouglas T Chiwocha W5890286 37

media were chosen for volume of responses and populationdiversity. Gaining access to organisations was achallenge due to organisational procedures of dealingwith such inquiries. In many occasions a generic e-mailaddress was given.

4.3.4 Rejected methods and reasons

Interviews as a primary method of gathering data wasinitially rejected due to time constraints associatedwith the T847 module. It became apparent thattriangulation of the data was necessary. One interviewwas conducted to aid this process. The challenge wasidentifying a suitable person who had enough time to gothrough the process. A decision was made to interview 1professional person. This individual was a goodrepresentation of the target population. Mr Charles Roseis a Marine Engineer and has vested interest and anawareness of the ‘messes’ surrounding the controversialsubject of fracking. Validating the data required adefined structure of briefing Mr Rose and then using atargeted questioning approach pertaining to those areasof the data that required clarity/Validation.

Observation as a method was rejected because it requiresthe study of the behaviour of people that is thenappraised through interviews. Covert observation isexpensive and time consuming and has lengthy trainingperiods. This method was not suited for a short termresearch project.


5 Analysing and presentation of findings

5.1 A general assessment of data collection and analysis

The data collection method chosen for this research was amixed approach incorporating secondary research, researchsurvey/questionnaire and interview.

5.1.1 Documents

After establishing the type of information required,documents were used to collect the data. Table 11 inAppendix shows a list of the documents that wereaccessed. The main task was to analyse and reduce largeamounts of text to manageable proportions whilstretaining the essence of the content. Through use of anote and diary system the data was categorised reflectingemerging themes and concepts.

5.1.2 Survey/questionnaire

Section 4.2.3 describes the process undertaken to designthe research survey/questionnaire. The research paradigmcharacteristic of this method of data gathering is a mixof naturalistic and positivist paradigms because of thestructures of the questioning technique. Figure 12 is asample of the survey/questionnaire. The data responseswere collected and collated using Survey Monkey.

5.1.3 An interview with Mr Charles Rose (Marine Engineer, Glasgow)

The other data collection method used was through aninterview process with Mr Charles Rose (Marine Engineer,Glasgow). This came about because a need was identified


to triangulate data for verification/clarificationpurposes.

5.1.4 Problems and issues

The main issue with this research was the low responserate from the survey/questionnaire. The target responseswere 200. Only 49 responses were received giving a 25%response rate. There was also a sense of insufficientdata within the confines of the chosen demographic group.This is an assumption based on the type of responsesreceived from the respondents. They lacked theprofessional and scientific content expected as well asstrong views from key players such Cuadrilla Ltd,Environmental Agency, The Green Party, Big Think, andIEMA. An assessment of responses to the open endedquestion showed that a majority of the sample populationwere strictly against ‘fracking’ all together. Themajority of the respondents also passed on theopportunity to expand on their responses through the useof unlimited text. The root cause of this situation maybe the anonymous nature of using a survey/questionnaireas a research tool.

Collecting secondary data presented its own challenges.The quantity of text that one has to go through isenormous. The challenge was to reduce this text intomanageable and meaningful data. This is time consumingand requires a systematic approach of classifying textinto categories that fit in with the phenomenon beingstudied.

The interview process presented some problems. The mainissue was identifying an appropriate candidate. Once MrCharles Rose was identified as the ideal candidate, ittook almost 2 weeks to arrange an appropriate time toconduct the interview, causing further delays.

In contrast, listening to the IEMA pod cast and analysingthe power-point presentation that came with it was a verytechnical and scientific experience that shed betterDouglas T Chiwocha W5890286 40

light on the perspectives of industry professionals. Thedata provided detailed insights of what role theEnvironmental Impact Assessment (EIA’s) plays inassessing ‘fracking’ proposals by exploring major areaslinked to licensing and planning requirements. They alsostated how the application process had implications onthe speed at which these licenses were awarded due to thenumber of bodies involved as shown in Figures 8 and 9.This was seen as causing lengthy delays and thereforesought a speedier and less dauntingly complex regulatoryregime.

5.1.5 Successes

Drafting the questionnaire was a success. The initialdraft was complex and too technical. The layout wastested by questioning 2 participants to gain clarity andeliminate ambiguity. ‘Survey Monkey’ was used becauseit’s free and effective in the design of questionnaires.It was easy to capture numerical data and extrapolatepercentages on responses. The ‘rich’ data was coded intoemerging categories and themes. High frequency responseswere considered whilst low insignificant frequencies weredismissed.

5.2 Analysis and findings Douglas T Chiwocha W5890286 41

5.2.1 Tools and techniques - Survey Monkey

Survey Monkey was used for designing the researchquestionnaire. The aim was to gather data on people’sperspectives on fracking, starting from basic know-how ofaccess to information, through to their deeper views onfracking. The conventions of designing an effectivesurvey/questionnaire require the identification ofinformation required. The questioning technique wasselective and practical to answer, whilst exercisingsensitivity, neutrality and no bias. Thesurvey/questionnaire contained 10 questions. Two open-ended questions sought the respondents’ open views aboutspecific areas of inquiry. The remaining 8 were closedquestions with a specific response options. Survey Monkeyis effective as it reassures anonymity and provideseffective means of distribution, collection and collationof data.

5.2.2 Coding

Coding is used to find accurate and succinct ways ofdescribing data. Open coding was used to find categoriesfrom both data sources. The categories were mainly publicconcerns, gaps in scientific and factual knowledge.Additionally, axial coding was used to find links betweenthemes and categories, providing insights into thecomplex interconnectedness of the social, economic,environmental and political dimensions.

For example, Question 5 (Hydraulic fracturing 'Fracking'in the UK, 2015) in the survey read, ‘In your opinion, are theresignificant environmental risks associated with ‘fracking’ operation? If yes,what are they?’ Out of 49 respondents, 40 responded. Theresponses are shown in Table 13 in the Appendix. Themajor categories that emerged, the frequency of each riskcategory and the percentage distribution for each risk


are shown in Table 6 below.

Table 6: Major coding categories emerging from significant environmental risks associated with fracking operations

Coding of riskCategory

Frequency of each riskcategory

%distribution

Water Contamination 16 26Earthquakes 14 22Pollution 7 11Climate change 7 11No effects if properly legislated

5 9

Destruction ofecosystems

4 7

Fugitive methane 2 3Reduced propertyvalues

2 3

Sinkholes 2 3Death 1 2Silicosis 1 2Total 61 99%

This forms the coding frame for this particular question.The percentage of respondents who felt that watercontamination was a significant environmental risk infracking operations is 26%. 22% felt that earthquakeswere a major risk. The data has been presentedgraphically below in Figure 7 as well.

Figure 7: Bar graph showing distribution of emerging categories from perceived significant environmental risksassociated with fracking operations


5.2.3 Emerging trends from the survey/questionnaire data analysis

A large number (50%) of respondents were not aware ifthey live in an area earmarked for fracking; 48% did notknow how to find this information, as shown in Figure 14in Appendix. The majority of respondents (63%) wanted toget involved at the 'individual opinion' level. This isshown in Figure 15 in Appendix. This suggests a desire topass personal judgements, viewpoints, perspectives,current understanding and their interpretation of facts.This may be driven by particular feelings, emotions andbeliefs. Other responses; community committee memberships(14%); pressure groups (12%) scored less. This may beattributed to the fact that group stakeholding implies ashared interest amongst group members. This usually meansnegotiations, dialogue and joint research undertaken in asocial space. As identified in the stakeholder analysisin section 3.2.8, inactive community members will tend totake a back seat when concerted action is the order ofthe day. The figures therefore show that only 28% of therespondents would participate as active communitymembers. On the other hand, 18% of the respondents didnot want to get involved in the decision making process.


This is due to limited knowledge on the subject matter.An ‘I don’t care, it’s not in my backyard’ (NIMBYism)attitude towards the issue may also prevail but is notdemonstrated in Figure 15. Forty-nine percent of therespondents shared the view that they would not benefitfrom lower bills, jobs or revenue from fracking ventures.

5.2.4 Examples of Survey/Questionnaire questions and responses

The structure and quality of the questioning in thesurvey/questionnaire and their responses are shown belowin Question 7 and 10 (Hydraulic fracking ‘Fracturing’ inthe UK, 2015).

Question7 read, ‘In your opinion who should make thedecision on how ‘fracking’ licenses are awarded? Theresponse from Respondent #34 was:

‘’Having worked in local government, and knowing that politicians who areessentially lay people (often with commercial interests) make the decisions, itis not wise for them to make a decision such as this. I think that theEnvironmental Agency only should make the decision or at least have theoption to veto. This is important as although one could argue without energygeneration there would be no economy, irreversible damage would make theplanet inhospitable anyway so the economy would be irrelevant’’.

The insights from this response are that thisrespondent’s view of the government's knowledge onfracking is limited and that decisions pertaining toawarding fracking licenses should be made entirely by theEnvironmental Agency. Referring to the stakeholderanalysis in section 3.2.1 we can see that theEnvironmental Agency take ownership in the way thelicensing regime is shaped in the UK through its agencybodies in England, Scotland and Wales. There is also asense of acceptance that energy generation is vital tothe economy even though the effects are seen to be thecause of potential irreversible damage.


Question 10) read, ‘Do you have any other thoughts thatyou would like to share regarding ‘fracking’policies/legislation in the UK? Respondent #49 had thefollowing statement to make:

'It is this government’s firm belief that UK shale development is compatiblewith our goal to cut greenhouse gas emissions and does not detract from oursupport for renewables. Shale gas can create a bridge while we developrenewable energy, improve energy efficiency and build new nuclear……. Tomake absolutely sure, the government has included in the Infrastructure Act arequirement to seek advice from the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) onthe implications of shale gas for our legally binding carbon targets. The CCCis an independent, statutory body, whose purpose is to advise the UKGovernment and Devolved Administrations on emissions targets and report toParliament on progress made in reducing greenhouse gas emissions andpreparing for climate change………’’

The insights from this response were a display of a deepunderstanding of the UK Government’s energy policy andways in which use of fossil fuels may be addressed whilsttransitioning towards greater use of renewables energy.According to Mr Ken Cronin of UKOOG, some 80% of our heatcomes from gas (UK Parliament, 2014). The UK has madesome progress against the 15% target introduced in the2009 EU Renewable Energy Directive. In 2012, 4.1% of UKenergy consumption came from renewable sources, up from3.8% in 2011 (DECC, 2013). Therefore renewables cannotmeet demands currently met by gas. Gas also produces 28%fewer emissions per unit of electricity produced than oiland 45% less than coal (UK Parliament, 2014). There ishowever a need for more analysis on what the effects ofwidespread fracking in the UK will have on the country’sCO2 emission targets. Targets were established in the 2008Climate Change Act, a legally binding climate changetarget which aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by80% (from 1990 baseline) by 2050 (UK Government, 2014).

5.2.5 Triangulation Interview with Mr Charles Rose (Marine Engineer, Glasgow)


The interview was conducted to address problems andissues highlighted in section 5.1.4. These were a lack ofviewpoints from key industry players. A meeting wasarranged with Mr Charles Rose, a Marine Engineer fromGlasgow. Mr Rose was chosen because he is a professionalin his own right and is representative of the targetsample population.

The semi-structured interview consisted of a briefdetailing the energy and fracking landscape in the UKfollowed by specific questioning pertaining to the brief.This method was decided upon for better control of theresponses in order to fill in the gaps. The drawback ofusing such a method is that it could unintentionallycreate biases.

Question1 (Triangulation question, 2015) is an example ofone of the questions and responses used in the interview.The question was, ‘What are your thoughts about frackingas a means of meeting the energy demands in the UK? MrRose’s response was "I think it is an excellent resource and should beexploited. All safety concerns must be addressed in their entirety throughgovernment departments before the licence is issued……. and all communityissues addressed. Only then would I consider taking a polluting fossil fuelfrom the ground underneath the UK…. I believe this to be very different oftenfrom the type of fracking elsewhere in the world.’

Mr Rose’s response came as no surprise. Being aprofessional vested in energy requirements in hisindustry, some elements of bias could have informed hisresponses and outcome of the interview. The professionalrelationship between Mr Rose and the researcher may havehad some influence potentially creating biases. Theechoes of concern over the use of fossil fuels howevercould not be understated.

What resonates from the interview is the need for arobust regulatory system. Mr Rose was in favour of atightly-regulatory regime within government. On theother hand grave concerns were highlighted aboutenvironmental impacts, safety concerns and communityDouglas T Chiwocha W5890286 47

concerns. Both Mr Rose and Respondent #49 sought thisaddressed. The continued use of fossil fuels and theircontribution to climate change is seen as a negative,however there seems to be an element of acceptance of aneed and place for use of shale oil and gas in the UKtoday, as an affordable bridging fuel towards renewableenergy generation. This is supported by the responsesfrom Question 6 in the survey where 11% of therespondents felt that ‘Fracking’ was a proven technologyand licenses should be awarded to exploration companies.Another 40% felt that although ‘Fracking’ has adverseimpacts on the environment, careful management of theplanning process via policy and legislation could make ita potentially viable means of meeting the country’senergy demands. This is shown in Figure 15 in Appendix.These data point to a close divide between therespondents’ views on fracking as a viable means ofmeeting the UK’s energy demands. Further analysis of thedriving and restraining forces is conducted in section5.2.7.

5.2.6 Pod cast analysis and relationships between planning policy/legislation and timescales


Figure 8: A systems diagram showing the legislative system with integrated timescales and operator mitigationcontrol

The industry professionals’ perspective was analysed inEIA’s role in assessing Fracking Proposals (2014), a pod cast withpower point presentations through the Institute ofEnvironmental Management & Assessment (IEMA). The titleswere:

EIA’s role in assessing Fracking proposal by ATKINS

(2014),


Unconventional Oil & Gas by Turley (2014) and

Legislation, Guidance and assessment of Noise and

Vibration Effects from Shale Gas Drill Sites by

AECOM (2014).

The data generated from the pod cast is shown in Figure 8above as a systems diagram. It integrates the roles ofthe legislative bodies, operators and processes involvedin seeking exploration and drilling consent. The processtimescales from each relevant legislative body are alsoshown. It takes a minimum of 48 weeks to award a frackinglicense excluding timescales shown as ‘no indication’,DECC in particular. The dauntingly lengthy processdescribed as ‘The snail pace of exploration (UKParliament, 2014) has frustrated operators. Mr FrancisEgan, CEO of Cuadrilla Ltd. stated, "We do need tostart….from 2008 to probably the end of this year, wehave drilled a grand total of 3 wells in the Bowlandshale and probably fractured 1……I would not call that anaccelerated exploration programme" (UK Parliament, 2014,pg 35). He also added, ‘Physically we could drilltomorrow…the thing that takes the longest time is theplanning and permitting processes’.

This suggests a dauntingly complex legislative and policyregime that results in lengthy delay and frustrations foroperators in the industry. The UK Parliament (2014, pg77) states "The regulatory framework is unnecessarilycomplicated; with responsibilities shared between variousdepartments and agencies….Bureaucratic complexity anddiffusion of authority are not the best basis for clearand effective regulation of a new and fast evolvingindustry".

The data has been presented in the form of a spraydiagram in Figure 9 showing connections between relatedelements and concepts thus giving an overview andunderstanding of the different drivers and resistors atplay. The drivers and resistors are analysed using aDouglas T Chiwocha W5890286 50

force field diagram in Figure 10 to gain an understandingof how they influence the decision making process inawarding fracking licenses in the UK.

Figure 9: Spray diagram showing the ‘Fracking’ landscape in the UK


5.2.7 Analysing the drivers and resistors

An analysis of the drivers and resistors is done using aforce field analysis (Kurt Lewin, 1951). As well as adecision making tool, the force field analysis helps incommunicating the reasoning behind the decisions.

The following are the assumptions for the analysis:

1. Before any forces act, the system is in a quasi-stationary social equilibrium state, and

2. in order for change to happen, the equilibrium mustbe upset - either by adding conditions favourable tochange or by reducing resisting forces.

The different categories and themes arising from the datacollected were scored between 1(weak) and 5(strong)


within economic, social, environmental and politicaldomains of the system. Figure 10 shows the differentdrivers and resistors within each of these domains.

Figure 10: Force field diagram showing elements of drivers and resistors that influence decision making in awarding fracking licenses in the UK

The economic drivers are very strong in the system. Sixdrivers scored between 2-3 on the scale with a total of15, suggesting a stronger argument for the economicinfluences. The economic resistors, although scoringrelatively higher on the scale, have fewer resisting


forces. This means that in the economic domain there arestronger economic drivers in favour of awarding frackinglicenses.

The social domain shows fewer driving forces in thesystem. This is likely because the only perceivedbenefits are the community benefit scheme of £100,000.00and the injection into the local economy through theprovision of services. The resistors on the other handare very strong, scoring 15 on the scale. This isattributed to the perceived environmental impactshighlighted in Table 6 in section 5.2.2. Other attributesinclude public opposition, lack of knowledge and minimalengagement with local communities.

The environmental drivers and resistors are in a state ofequilibrium in the system. This could be attributed tothe lack of knowledge on the true effects of fracking asa process in the UK as highlighted by the questionnaireresponses and data in section 5.2.3 of the report. Thedriving forces include a robust system and world renownedbest practices as well as scientific knowledge of thetechnical process involved. Potential impact andassociation with climate change are predominant in therestraining forces within the system.

The political domain has many drivers and resistors.Politics is seen as a major player in shapingpolicy/legislation and ultimately the licensing regime.Figure 9 shows the different factors linked to thegovernment’s energy policy influencing the politicaldrivers. The driving forces are the UK government’sdecision to lift the fracking moratorium in 2012, thevested interest of developers in accessing frackingsites, reduction in dependency on Russian fuel importsdue to the current political situation, and potentialbenefits of widespread fracking in the UK. There arehowever highly scoring restraining forces mainlyattributed to the public perceptions of the politicalarena in the UK. We find that local communities feel leftout of the decision making processes especially because


of the lifting of the moratorium. This has resulted inlack of trust in government. Each political resistorscored very highly on the scale resulting in a totalscore of 16, highlighting the high level of oppositionwithin this domain.

The total number of drivers in all the domains is 42whilst the total number of resistors is 50. There are 8more resisting forces that are pushing against theproposals to award fracking licenses. The main areas ofcontention lie within the social sector of the system. Atotal of 15 resistors vs. 3 drivers give rise to animbalance in that domain against fracking licensing. Thissituation is also apparent in the spray diagram in Figure9. This is mainly attributed to the lack of perceivedbenefits to communities. On the other hand the perceivedenvironmental impacts, public opposition, lack ofknowledge and minimal engagement create a strong argumentand resistance for fracking. Therefore the best way toreverse these restraining forces in theory, is by eithercreating more benefits for communities thus enhancing thesocial drivers or an enhancement of the other drivers inthe other domains with higher scores so that the forcesshift to the right, hence reducing the number ofresistors in the process.

6 Conclusions


Hydraulic Fracturing in the UK as a means of meeting thecountry’s energy demands will continue to face publicopposition in the foreseeable future due to the badreputation the technology has received through experiencefrom other countries. The research and analysis of thedrivers and the resistors suggest that the greatrestraining forces in the social domain need to beaddressed. Issues pertaining to perceived environmentalimpact, lack of knowledge and minimal engagement with thepublic have to be addressed in order to strengthen thedrivers therefore pushing the forces towards ‘awardingfracking licenses. On the other hand thelegislative/policy and licensing regime has to move fromthe current ‘snail pace’ of dealing with planning andlicensing application if the exploitation of the resourceis to become a viable source of the country’s energyneeds. The key issue here is to enhance all elements ofthe sustainable development of the energy industry, andthat means effective frameworks and policies that enhancethe economic, social and environmental domains in theUnited Kingdom energy industry.

Word count: 10256


REFERENCES

Animation of Hydraulic Fracturing (fracking) (2013) [online], https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VY34PQUiwOQ (Accessed 16 March 2015).

Barwise, J. (2014), ‘Gearing up for the shale revolution’, The Environmentalist, Nov 2014 edition: Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment.

Clean Water Action (2015) Fracking: Laws and Loopholes [online] http://cleanwater.org/page/fracking-laws-and-loopholes(Accessed on 7 April 2015)

Craven, J. (2014), ‘Fracking Secrets: The Limitations of Trade Secrets Protection in Hydraulic Fracturing’, Vanderbilt Journal Of Entertainment & Technology Law, 16,2, pp 395-424, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 27 November 2014.

Cuadrilla Ltd. (2014) Cuadrilla Ltd. Preston New Road [online]


http://cleanwater.org/page/fracking-laws-and-loopholes

http://cleanwater.org/page/fracking-laws-and-loopholes


http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/our-sites/locations/preston-new-road/ (Accessed 4 December 2014)

Department for Communities & Local Government (2015)Planning Practice Guidance, Environmental Impact Assessment, ScreeningSchedule 2 projects [online]http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/environmental-impact-assessment/screening-schedule-2-projects/ (Accessed on 25 March 2015)

Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) (2013)Developing Onshore Shale Gas and Oil – Facts about‘Fracking’ [online]https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/265972/Developing_Onshore_Shale_Gas_and_Oil__Facts_about_Fracking_131213.pdf (Accessed on 13 November 2014)

Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) (2013) UK Renewable Energy Roadmap Update 2013 [online] https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/255182/UK_Renewable_Energy_Roadmap_-_5_November_-_FINAL_DOCUMENT_FOR_PUBLICATIO___.pdf .Accessed on 25/03/15 (Accessed on 25 March 2015)

EIA’s role in assessing Fracking proposal (2014), pod cast online presentations, Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment (IEMA) [online] http://www.iema.net/event-reports/eia%E2%80%99s-role-assessing-fracking-proposals-%E2%80%93-uk-experiences (Accessed on 18 December 2014)

The Environmentalist (2014) Government moves to convincepublic on shale gas regulation, [online]http://www.environmentalistonline.com/article/2014-%2012-03/government-moves-to-convince-public-on-shale-gas-regulation (Accessed 4 December 2014).Douglas T Chiwocha W5890286 58

http://www.environmentalistonline.com/article/2014-%2012-03/government-moves-to-convince-public-on-shale-gas-regulation



http://www.iema.net/event-reports/eia%E2%80%99s-role-assessing-fracking-proposals-%E2%80%93-uk-experiences



https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/255182/UK_Renewable_Energy_Roadmap_-_5_November_-_FINAL_DOCUMENT_FOR_PUBLICATIO___.pdf%20.Accesed%20on%2025/03/15



https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/265972/Developing_Onshore_Shale_Gas_and_Oil__Facts_about_Fracking_131213.pdf



http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/environmental-impact-assessment/screening-schedule-2-projects/



http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/our-sites/locations/preston-new-road/

http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/our-sites/locations/preston-new-road/

The Environmentalist (2011) ‘Yes to UK shale gas’, [online] http://www.environmentalistonline.com/article/2011-06-12/yes-to-uk-shale-gas (Accessed 4 December 2014)

Grimble and Wellard (1997) T863 Techniques for environmental decision making, Milton Keynes, The Open University.

Heath and Safety Executive (HSE) (2015) Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 – HSE Policy [online] http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/opalert.htm (Accessed on 28March 2015).

Horrocks, I. and Fowles, M. (2012) Designing and doing your research, Block 2, Milton Keynes, The Open University.

Lewin, K. & Gold, M (1999) Group decision and social change’, The complete social scientist: A Kurt Lewin reader pp. 265-284Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association PschBOOKS, EBSCOhost, viewed 12 April 2015

MarketLine (2014) Hydraulic Fracturing, The UK moratorium is lifted, but opposition grows: Case Study, Reference Code: ML00017-006

The Open University (2014) T847, Supplementary documents for Designing and doing your research, Block 2, Milton Keynes, The Open University.

Rose, C. (2015) Unpublished interview conducted by Douglas Chiwocha, 23 March 2015.

TNS BMRB (2014) Public engagement with shale gas and oil, URN 14D/262, pp 19-23.Douglas T Chiwocha W5890286 59

http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/opalert.htm

http://www.environmentalistonline.com/article/2011-06-12/yes-to-uk-shale-gas

http://www.environmentalistonline.com/article/2011-06-12/yes-to-uk-shale-gas

United Kingdom Onshore Operators Groups (UGOOG) (2013) Who is responsible for what? [Online] http://www.ukoog.org.uk/knowledge-base/regulation/who-is-responsible-for-what (Accessed on 13 March 2015).

UK Parliament (2014) The Economic Impact on UK Energy Policy of Shale Gas and Oil, 3rd Report of Session 2013-2014 [online] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldselect/ldeconaf/172/17202.htm (Accessed on 7 March 2015).


http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldselect/ldeconaf/172/17202.htm

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldselect/ldeconaf/172/17202.htm

http://www.ukoog.org.uk/knowledge-base/regulation/who-is-responsible-for-what

http://www.ukoog.org.uk/knowledge-base/regulation/who-is-responsible-for-what

Appendix and appendices

Table 11: Gant sheet of the data collection phase of research

Method anddate

Source What info is sought

Documentary research/Ongoing research

Quadrilla Ltd http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/our-sites/

Conducting secondary research. Gather data on ERA, EIA, ES, Planning statement in order to map relationships between policy/legislation and licensing.

Documentary research/Visual andaudio

Institute of Environmental Assessment (IEMA)

Webinar; EIA role in assessing fracking proposals

1. legislation, Guidance and assessment of noise and vibration effects from shale gas drill sites

2. UnconventionalDocumentary research/ research

House of Lords The economic Impact on UK Energy policy of Shale Gas and Oil

Documentary research/

DECC 1)Strategic Environmental Assessment for further onshore oil and gas licensing2)Developing onshore shale gas and oil- facts about fracking3)Underground drilling access4)Fracking UK shale: regulation andmonitoring https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/283834/Regulation_v3.pdf

DocumentaryResearch/15 March2015

European Unionhttps://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/articles/news/eu-fracking-regulation-fundamentally-weak

An analysis of the EU policy/ regulations on fracking and how this fundamentally influences the licensing process.


https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/articles/news/eu-fracking-regulation-fundamentally-weak



https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/283834/Regulation_v3.pdf



http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/our-sites/

http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/our-sites/

Questionnaire Design /1st February2014

Use if survey monkey to design the questionnaire

- 200 response target- 10 question survey- 8 scaling with box tick- 2 open ended questions

Ethnographic analysis/ 1st

March 2014

Analyse results of survey in order to start analysing the data.

Anticipated responses are 20 completed surveys. Once all received, data is ready fro analysis.

Triangulation interview with achosen interviewee23rd

March 2015

Data brief of preliminary research findings

- Interview used to validate preliminary data- a structure questioning approach that addresses areas needing clarity -

Ethnographic analysis, continued 20th March 2015

Comparison of content against interview

Comparison between my log and the content to check for ambiguity and inconsistencies.

Final data analysisfor EMA report25th March 2015

A comprehensive analysis of data from mixed/multiple methodsresearch approach

Seeking to identify trends and themes merging from the research inorder to answer the research question. Ascertain recommendations and areasfor continued study in order to enhance knowledge within the industry and area of interest.

Figure 12: Sample of research survey/questionnaire (17/02/2015-10/03/2015)


What is hydraulic fracturing (Fracking)?

'Fracking' is a drilling technique used to increase oil and gas resource production. Specially blended liquid mixtures are pumped into oil and gas wells under pressure causing undergroundrock formation to crack and open up.

My research question is ' What drivers or resistors influence the legislation and policies implemented to inform the decision making process in awarding 'fracking' licences in the UK'.

This short survey/questionnaire seeks to gather feedback on yourviews regarding the proposed 'fracking' operations in the UK. The results of the findings will be published as part of the MScproject report which is due out this spring. I thank you for taking the time to complete the survey.

1. Do you live in an area that is earmarked for 'fracking'?

Yes

No

I don't know2. Do you know how to find out whether you live in an area earmarked for 'fracking'?

Yes

No

I don't know3. Would you like to be involved in the decision making process? If 'yes’, in what capacity do you want to be involved?

Individual opinion

Community committee member

Pressure groups

No. I don't want to be involved in the decision making process.

4. How do you think members of the public/communities should beinformed if 'fracking' operations are to be commissioned in an area?

By post

Local community meetings and consultations

Face to face at home

Other (please specify)


5. In your opinion, are there significant environmental risks associated with 'fracking' operations? If yes, what are they?

6. What do you think about 'fracking' as a means of meeting theenergy demands in the UK?

'Fracking' is bad for the environment and licences should not be awarded to any exploration company.

Although 'fracking' has adverse impact of the environment, careful management of the planning process via policy and legislation could make it a potentially viable means of meetingthe country's energy demands.

'Fracking' is a proven technology and licences should be awarded to exploration companies that abide by policy and legislation regime in the UK.

Other (please specify)7. In your opinion who should make the decisions on how 'fracking' licences are awarded?

The stakeholding communities where 'fracking' operations will take place

A consultative process should be put in place so that a joint decision making process prevails.

The Government and relevant agencies (DECC, Environmental Protection Agency, UKOOG) should make these decisions.

Other (please specify)8. In 2014, the UK Government lifted the moratorium (ban) on 'fracking'. In your opinion, do you think the Government made the right choice?

Yes. The Government should take leadership on the country'senergy policy and should take no notice of any opposition from anti-fracking pressure groups.

The Government should have taken a consultative route in order to address local communities/stakeholder concerns on 'fracking' operations.

No. The decision to 'frack' should be made by the communities in question.9. The perceived benefits of 'fracking' include jobs, lower energy bills and revenues from taxes. Do you think that you


will benefit from this oil and gas 'revolution' in the foreseeable future?

Yes

No

Neutral

Other (please specify)10. Do you have any other thoughts that you would like to shareregarding 'fracking' policies/ legislation in the UK?

Table 13: Forty responses for Question 5 of the survey/questionnaire aiding coding of risk categories in Table 6 of the report

1 I am off the opinion that there are not significant risks - and certainly the benefits outweigh the risks

2yes - climate change and local pollution

3 Risk to water table contamination- risk of earth tremors

4Pollution

5 Yes. Water course pollution; continued reliance on fossil fuels with associated carbon issues;Potential seismic disturbances of ground, water, flora and fauna. And probably many others.

6No

7Yes: water contamination, land slides

8 The ground could swallow us in sinkholes and stuff. We've taken enough gas out the earth maybe some of its meant to stay there.

9Depletion and pollution of aquifers

10 It appears that Fracking can cause seismic movements and could result inan earthquake

11 Excessive use of water resulting in aquifers loosing their water capacities. - Impact on the Earth crust that could or does cause Earthquakes- Pollution of the environment with chemicals


12 I am not sure, but I think fracking could have an adverse impact on the environment. Putting pressure on earth's crust could cause natural calamities like earth quake.

13 Yes, I don't know a significant amount about the subject area but I would say damage to the localEnvironment such as, wildlife displacement, pollution from vehicles, contamination of the land and I think also the risk of earthquake/destabilising the land?

14I've been told there are risks. But I don't know which ones.

15 Pollution, air, water and noise. Potential increase in tectonic activity.

16Pollution

17Watch gas lands

18potential water pollution

19 I have not done enough research on the subject to be able to give an educated opinion. However, to my knowledge, "fracking" does not pose anysignificant risks to water supplies or cause other environmental damage.

20 Signs of combustible characteristic development in the underground watertable.

21No

22Yes, I'd have to research what they are

23Water tables, roads crumble, sink holes.

24No

25 I am not educated enough to give an informed answer though I do believe that we should be focussing our efforts in finding new renewable energy sources instead of spending millions extracting resources that are undeniably going to run out in the near future.

26No - not if the engineering is sorted out properly.

27I don't know3

28 Absolutely and no-one knows entirely what they will be... but using equal and opposite force all that hydraulic fracturing will have a kick back of unintended consequence somewhere and each time...

29 Yes mainly to water quality in the short term and possibly structural geology in the longer term.

30 Pumping poison into the earth to then extract a fossil fuel which we then sell to China, who in turn burns it for energy and thus pumps greenhouse gas into the atmosphere is the definition of idiocy. especially given that there are plenty of renewable energy resources available.

21 "Concerns about the possible localised environmental impacts of fracking, such as earth tremors, aquifer contamination, and surface leaks. As the report concludes, these need constant and tightly-regulated assessment if extraction is to get under way on a commercial scale. But this is a side salad compared to the unanswered questions that still hang over fracking when it comes to its possible contribution


to climate change."32 Presumably there are environmental consequences and risks to the process

but I don't know enough to have an opinion on the risks or the degree towhich they can be managed.

33Silicosis

34Sink holes

35 Yes. I believe the damage to the environment is substantial and we should be doing the opposite.

36Death

37 Uncontrolled /unregulated chemical and gas leaks. Reduction in value of property.

38 Destruction of ecosystems for plants & animals, contamination of underground water tables,

39Don't know

40Water contamination, earthquakes, noise, vista

Figure 14: Table and pie chart of showing response distribution to Question 1 of the survey/questionnaire

Do you live in an area that is earmarked for 'fracking'?

Answer Options ResponsePercent Response Count

Yes 2.1% 1No 47.9% 23I don't know 50.0% 24

answered question 48skipped question 1


D o you live in an area that is earm arked for 'fracking'?

YesNoI don't know

Figure 15: A table, bar chart and responses to Question 3 of Survey showing level of involvement desired

Would you like to be involved in the decision making process? If 'yes’, in what capacity do you want to be involved?Answer Options Response Response Count


PercentIndividual opinion 63.3% 31Community committee member 14.3% 7Pressure groups 12.2% 6No. I don't want to be involved in thedecision making process. 18.4% 9

answered question 49skipped question 0

W ould you like to be involved in the decision m aking process? If 'yes',in what capacity do you want to be involved?

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Individual opinion Com m unitycom m ittee m em ber

Pressure groups No. I don't want tobe involved in thedecision m aking

process.

1 I do not have enough data either way2 I don't believe I know enough on the issue.3 I don't know enough about it.4 Non5 Should be the community as a whole6 N/a7 Decisions about highly technical issues are best made by panels

of qualified experts,Ideally with neutral political motivation, but more practicallyrepresenting a spread of political interests.

8 How much money can I get9 I don't have enough information to be involved in the decision

making process


Figure 16: A table, bar chart and responses to Question 6 of survey/questionnaire

What do you think about 'fracking' as a means of meeting the energydemands in the UK?

Answer Options ResponsePercent Response Count

Fracking' is bad for the environment and licences should not be awarded to any exploration company.

47.7% 21

Although 'fracking' has adverse impactof the environment, careful managementof the planning process via policy andlegislation could make it a potentially viable means of meeting the country's energy demands.

40.9% 18

Fracking' is a proven technology and licences should be awarded to exploration companies that abide by policy and legislation regime in the UK.

11.4% 5

Other (please specify) 7answered question 44

skipped question 5

W hat do you think about 'fracking' as a m eans of m eeting the energy dem ands in the U K?

Fracking' is bad for theenvironm ent and licencesshould not be awarded toany exploration com pany.

Although 'fracking' hasadverse im pact of theenvironm ent, carefulm anagem ent of the planningprocess via policy andlegislation could m ake it apotentially viable m eans ofm eeting the country's energyFracking' is a proventechnology and licencesshould be awarded toexploration com panies thatabide by policy andlegislation regim e in the UK.

1 I would prefer investment in renewable energy2 Fracking maintains our reliance on fossil fuels. So is bad for


the environment and stops us investigating other energy sources.3 I would argue that other energy solutions should be more

incentivised to make fracking and other less sustainable forms of energy generation even less appealing

4 It could play a role when better understanding and acceptance ofimpacts known; greed will almost certainly lead to inappropriateimplementation.

5 Not sure it makes commercial sense in the next decade.6 I don't understand the risks or consequences well enough to have

a solid opinion on this7 Don't know


What 'drivers' and 'resistors' influence the Legislation and Policies implemented to inform the...

Documents

Transcript of What 'drivers' and 'resistors' influence the Legislation and Policies implemented to inform the...