Articles | Volume 4, issue 2
https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-4-303-2021
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-4-303-2021
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| Highlight paper
| 
11 Jun 2021
Research article | Highlight paper |
| 11 Jun 2021
| 11 Jun 2021
Fracking bad language – hydraulic fracturing and earthquake risks
Jennifer J. Roberts
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, James Weir Building, University of Strathclyde, 75 Montrose Street, Glasgow G1 1XJ, Scotland, UK
Clare E. Bond
Department of Geology and Petroleum Geology, School of Geosciences,
Meston Building, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB24 3UE, Scotland, UK
Zoe K. Shipton
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, James Weir Building, University of Strathclyde, 75 Montrose Street, Glasgow G1 1XJ, Scotland, UK
Related authors
Billy J. Andrews, Jennifer J. Roberts, Zoe K. Shipton, Sabina Bigi, M. Chiara Tartarello, and Gareth Johnson
Solid Earth, 10, 487–516, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-10-487-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-10-487-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
Rocks often contain fracture networks, which can strongly affect subsurface fluid flow and the strength of a rock mass. Through fieldwork and workshops we show that people report a different number of fractures from the same sample area of a fracture network. This variability results in significant differences in derived fracture statistics, which are often used as inputs for geological models. We suggest protocols to recognise, understand, and limit this effect on fracture data collection.
Jackie E. Kendrick, Anthony Lamur, Julien Mouli-Castillo, Andrew P. Fraser-Harris, Alexander Lightbody, Katriona Edlmann, Christopher McDermott, and Zoe Shipton
Adv. Geosci., 62, 11–19, https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-62-11-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-62-11-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
By testing the strength of granite in compression and tension at a range of deformation rates, we found that the strength increases with faster deformation. This observation highlights that at these rates, relevant for example to geothermal exploration, we have to consider how the rate of deformation impacts the energy released when rocks crack. The results are promising for developing safe procedures for extracting resources from the subsurface.
Adam J. Cawood, Hannah Watkins, Clare E. Bond, Marian J. Warren, and Mark A. Cooper
Solid Earth, 14, 1005–1030, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-14-1005-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-14-1005-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Here we test conceptual models of fracture development by investigating fractures across multiple scales. We find that most fractures increase in abundance towards the fold hinge, and we interpret these as being fold related. Other fractures at the site show inconsistent orientations and are unrelated to fold formation. Our results show that predicting fracture patterns requires the consideration of multiple geologic variables.
Clare E. Bond, Jessica H. Pugsley, Lauren Kedar, Sarah R. Ledingham, Marianna Z. Skupinska, Tomasz K. Gluzinski, and Megan L. Boath
Geosci. Commun., 5, 307–323, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-5-307-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-5-307-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Virtual field trips are used to engage students who are unable to go into the field with geological field work. Here, we investigate the perceptions of staff and students before and after a virtual field trip, including the investigation of the success of mitigation measures designed to decrease barriers to engagement and inclusion. We conclude that negative and positive perceptions exist and that effective mitigation measures can be used to improve the student experience.
Lauren Kedar, Clare E. Bond, and David K. Muirhead
Solid Earth, 13, 1495–1511, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-13-1495-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-13-1495-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Raman spectroscopy of carbon-bearing rocks is often used to calculate peak temperatures and therefore burial history. However, strain is known to affect Raman spectral parameters. We investigate a series of deformed rocks that have been subjected to varying degrees of strain and find that there is a consistent change in some parameters in the most strained rocks, while other parameters are not affected by strain. We apply temperature calculations and find that strain affects them differently.
Alexander Schaaf, Miguel de la Varga, Florian Wellmann, and Clare E. Bond
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3899–3913, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3899-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3899-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Uncertainty is an inherent property of any model of the subsurface. We show how geological topology information – how different regions of rocks in the subsurface are connected – can be used to train uncertain geological models to reduce uncertainty. More widely, the method demonstrates the use of probabilistic machine learning (Bayesian inference) to train structural geological models on auxiliary geological knowledge that can be encoded in graph structures.
Clare E. Bond and Adam J. Cawood
Geosci. Commun., 4, 233–244, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-4-233-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-4-233-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Virtual outcrop models are increasingly used in geoscience teaching, but their efficacy as a training tool for 3D thinking has been little tested. We find that using a virtual outcrop increases the participants' ability to choose the correct geological block model. That virtual outcrops are viewed positively, but only in a blended learning environment and not as a replacement for fieldwork, and virtual outcrop use could improve equality, diversity and inclusivity in geoscience.
Billy James Andrews, Zoe Kai Shipton, Richard Lord, and Lucy McKay
Solid Earth, 11, 2119–2140, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-11-2119-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-11-2119-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Through geological mapping we find that fault zone internal structure depends on whether or not the fault cuts multiple lithologies, the presence of shale layers, and the orientation of joints and coal cleats at the time of faulting. During faulting, cementation of fractures (i.e. vein formation) is highest where the fractures are most connected. This leads to the counter-intuitive result that the highest-fracture-density part of the network often has the lowest open-fracture connectivity.
Lucía Pérez-Díaz, Juan Alcalde, and Clare E. Bond
Solid Earth, 11, 889–897, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-11-889-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-11-889-2020, 2020
Juan Alcalde, Clare E. Bond, Gareth Johnson, Armelle Kloppenburg, Oriol Ferrer, Rebecca Bell, and Puy Ayarza
Solid Earth, 10, 1651–1662, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-10-1651-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-10-1651-2019, 2019
Cristina G. Wilson, Clare E. Bond, and Thomas F. Shipley
Solid Earth, 10, 1469–1488, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-10-1469-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-10-1469-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
In this paper, we outline the key insights from decision-making research about how, when faced with uncertainty, humans constrain decisions through the use of heuristics (rules of thumb), making them vulnerable to systematic and suboptimal decision biases. We also review existing strategies to debias decision-making that have applicability in the geosciences, giving special attention to strategies that make use of information technology and artificial intelligence.
Alexander Schaaf and Clare E. Bond
Solid Earth, 10, 1049–1061, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-10-1049-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-10-1049-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
Seismic reflection data allow us to infer subsurface structures such as horizon and fault surfaces. The interpretation of this indirect data source is inherently uncertainty, and our work takes a first look at the scope of uncertainties involved in the interpretation of 3-D seismic data. We show how uncertainties of fault interpretations can be related to data quality and discuss the implications for the 3-D modeling of subsurface structures derived from 3-D seismic data.
Johannes M. Miocic, Gareth Johnson, and Clare E. Bond
Solid Earth, 10, 951–967, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-10-951-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-10-951-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
When carbon dioxide is introduced into the subsurface it will migrate upwards and can encounter faults, which, depending on their hydrogeological properties and composition, can form barriers or pathways for the migrating fluid. We analyse uncertainties associated with these properties in order to better understand the implications for the retention of CO2 in the subsurface. We show that faults that form seals for other fluids may not be seals for CO2, which has implications for storage sites.
Billy J. Andrews, Jennifer J. Roberts, Zoe K. Shipton, Sabina Bigi, M. Chiara Tartarello, and Gareth Johnson
Solid Earth, 10, 487–516, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-10-487-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-10-487-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
Rocks often contain fracture networks, which can strongly affect subsurface fluid flow and the strength of a rock mass. Through fieldwork and workshops we show that people report a different number of fractures from the same sample area of a fracture network. This variability results in significant differences in derived fracture statistics, which are often used as inputs for geological models. We suggest protocols to recognise, understand, and limit this effect on fracture data collection.
Related subject area
Subject: Geoscience policy | Keyword: Risk communication
Telling the boiling frog what he needs to know: why climate change risks should be plotted as probability over time
Simon Sharpe
Geosci. Commun., 2, 95–100, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2-95-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2-95-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
Humanity's situation with respect to climate change is sometimes likened to that of a frog in a slow-boiling pot of water. But are we telling the frog what he needs to know? Most climate science is communicated to governments in the form of predictions of what is most likely to happen. I argue it should instead answer the following questions: what is the worst that could happen, and how likely will that become as time goes by? The risks and need to act will then become much clearer to see.
Cited articles
Adgate, J. L., Goldstein, B. D., and McKenzie, L. M.: Potential Public
Health Hazards, Exposures and Health Effects from Unconventional Natural Gas
Development, Environ. Sci. Technol., 48, 8307–8320, https://doi.org/10.1021/es404621d, 2014.
AEA: Climate impact of potential shale gas production in the EU: Final
Report, Report for the European Commission DG CLIMA, Didcot, Oxfordshire,
UK, 2012.
Alcalde, J., Bond, C. E., and Randle, C. H.: Framing bias: The effect of
figure presentation on seismic interpretation, Interpretation, 5, T591–T605, https://doi.org/10.1190/INT-2017-0083.1, 2017.
Alcalde, J., Bond, C. E., Johnson, G., Kloppenburg, A., Ferrer, O., Bell, R., and Ayarza, P.: Fault interpretation in seismic reflection data: an experiment analysing the impact of conceptual model anchoring and vertical exaggeration, Solid Earth, 10, 1651–1662, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-10-1651-2019, 2019.
Alessi, R. J. and Kuhn, J. D.: British government lifts year-old fracking
moratorium, Energy alert, available at:
https://www.dlapiper.com/en/uk/insights/publications/2012/12/british-government-lifts-yearold-fracking-morato__/ (last access: November 2019), 2012.
Andersson-Hudson, J., Knight, W., Humphrey, M., and O'Hara, S.: Exploring
support for shale gas extraction in the United Kingdom, Energ. Policy, 98,
582–589, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.09.042, 2016.
Andersson-Hudson, J., Rose, J., Humphrey, M., Knight, W., and O'Hara, S.:
The structure of attitudes towards shale gas extraction in the United
Kingdom, Energ. Policy, 129, 693–697,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.02.056, 2019.
Baptie, B., Segou, M., Ellen, R., and Monaghan, A.: Unconventional Oil and
Gas Development: Understanding and Monitoring Induced Seismic Activity, 92, available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/unconventional-oil-gas- understanding-monitoring-induced-seismic-activity/ (last access: November 2019), 2016.
Barclay, E. J., Renshaw, C. E., Taylor, H. A., and Bilge, A. R.: Improving
Decision Making Skill Using an Online Volcanic Crisis Simulation: Impact of
Data Presentation Format, Journal of Geoscience Education, 59, 85–92, https://doi.org/10.5408/1.3543933, 2011.
BEIS: Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy Press release:
Government ends support for fracking (2 November 2019), available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-ends-support-for-fracking,
last access: November 2019a.
BEIS: Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy Guidance on
fracking: developing shale gas in the UK, available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/about-shale-gas-and-hydraulic-fracturing-fracking/developing-shale-oil-and-gas-in-the-uk,
last access: September 2019b.
Bohnhoff, M., Dresen, G., Ellsworth, W. L., and Ito, H.: Passive Seismic Monitoring of Natural and Induced Earthquakes: Case Studies, Future Directions and Socio-Economic Relevance, in: New Frontiers in Integrated Solid Earth Sciences, edited by: Cloetingh, S. and Negendank, J., Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, 261–285, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2737-5_7, 2010.
Bond, C. E.: Uncertainty in Structural Interpretation: Lessons to be
learnt, J. Struct. Geol., 74, 185–200, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2015.03.003, 2015.
Boudet, H., Clarke, C., Bugden, D., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., and
Leiserowitz, A.: “Fracking” controversy and communication: Using national
survey data to understand public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing, Energ. Policy, 65, 57–67, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.017, 2014.
Bradshaw, M. and Waite, C.: Learning from Lancashire: Exploring the contours
of the shale gas conflict in England, Global Environ. Chang., 47,
28–36, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.08.005, 2017.
Breede, K., Dzebisashvili, K., Liu, X., and Falcone, G.: A systematic review of enhanced (or engineered) geothermal systems: past, present and future, Geothermal Energy, 1, 4, https://doi.org/10.1186/2195-9706-1-4, 2013.
Brown, R., Clancy, S., Roberts, J., and Gibson, H.: What are the research gaps around induced seismicity and shale gas? A summary of the findings of the first UKUH Integration Event, 9 May 2019, London, UK, 2020.
Bryant, P.: Fracking: A Citizens Deliberation (Preston, Lancashire), Shared
Futures CIC, availale at: https://sharedfuturecic.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/FRACKING-CD-FINAL-REPORT.web_.pdf (last access: November 2019), 2016.
Butcher, A., Luckett, R., Verdon, J. P., Kendall, J. M., Baptie, B., and
Wookey, J.: Local Magnitude Discrepancies for Near-Event Receivers:
Implications for the U.K. Traffic-Light Scheme, B.
Seismol. Soc. Am., 107, 532–541, https://doi.org/10.1785/0120160225, 2017.
Clarke, H., Eisner, L., Styles, P., and Turner, P.: Felt seismicity
associated with shale gas hydraulic fracturing: The first documented example
in Europe, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 2014GL062047, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL062047, 2014.
Clarke, H., Verdon, J. P., Kettlety, T., Baird, A. F., and Kendall, J. M.:
Real-Time Imaging, Forecasting, and Management of Human-Induced Seismicity
at Preston New Road, Lancashire, England, Seismol. Res. Lett.,
90, 1902–1915, https://doi.org/10.1785/0220190110, 2019.
Cobbing, J., and Ó Dochartaigh, B. É.: Hydrofracturing water
boreholes in hard rock aquifers in Scotland, Q. J.
Eng. Geol. Hydroge., 40, 181–186, 2007.
Collins, H.: Language and practice, Soc. Stud. Sci., 41,
271–300, https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312711399665, 2011.
Cook, P., Beck, V., Brereton, D., Clark, R., Fisher, B., Kentish, S.,
Toomey, J., and Williams, J.: Engineering Energy: Unconventional Gas
Production: A study of shale gas in Australia, Australian Council of
Learned Academies (ACOLA) for PMSEIC, Melbourne, Australia, 2013.
Craig, K., Evensen, D., and Van Der Horst, D.: How distance influences
dislike: Responses to proposed fracking in Fermanagh, Northern Ireland,
Morav. Geogr. Rep., 27, 92–107, https://doi.org/10.2478/mgr-2019-0008, 2019.
Cremonese, L., Ferrari, M., Flynn, M. P., and Gusev, A.: Shale Gas and Fracking in Europe, Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS) Potsdam Fact Sheet 1/2015, Potsdam, Germany, 2015.
DECC: Written Ministerial Statement by Edward Davey: Exploration for shale gas, available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/written-ministerial- statement-by-edward-davey-exploration-for-shale-gas (last access: November 2019), 2013a.
DECC: Guidance: Traffic light monitoring system (shale gas and
fracking), 9 September 2013, available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/traffic-light-monitoring-system-shale-gas-and-fracking (last access: November 2019), 2013b.
DECC: About shale gas and hydraulic fracturing (fracking), available at:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/268017/About_shale_gas_and_hydraulic_fracturing_Dec_2013.pdf (last access: November 2019), 2013c.
Delebarre, J., Ares, E., Smith, L., and Priestley, S.: Shale gas and
fracking: Briefing paper CBP 6073, House of Commons, London, UK, 2018.
Dietz, T.: Bringing values and deliberation to science communication,
P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 110, 14081, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212740110, 2013.
Doust, H.: The exploration play: What do we mean by it?, AAPG
Bull., 94, 1657–1672, 2010.
Eaton, D. W., van der Baan, M., and Ingelson, A.: Terminology for
fluid-injection induced seismicity in oil and gas operations, CSEG Recorder
41:04, Vancouver, Canada, 2016.
Ellsworth, W. L.: Injection-Induced Earthquakes, Science, 341, 1225942, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1225942, 2013.
Engelder, T. and Lacazette, A.: Natural hydraulic fracturing, in: Rock Joints, edited by: Barton, N. and Stephansson, O., A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, 35–44, 1990.
European Commission: Commission Recommendation of 22 January 2014 on minimum
principles for the exploration and production of hydrocarbons (such as shale
gas) using high-volume hydraulic fracturing (2014/70/EU), available at:
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/85528c58-90a5-11e3-a916-01aa75ed71a1
(last access: November 2019), 2014.
Evensen, D.: If they only knew what i know': Attitude change from education
about fracking, Environmental Practice, 19, 68–79, https://doi.org/10.1080/14660466.2017.1309884, 2017.
Evensen, D.: Review of shale gas social science in the United Kingdom,
2013–2018, The Extractive Industries and Society, 5, 691–698,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2018.09.005, 2018.
Evensen, D., Devine-Wright, P., and Whitmarsh, L.: UK National Survey of
Public Attitudes Towards Shale Gas, Unconventional Hydrocarbons in the UK
Energy System (UKUH) Research Brief 1, available at: https://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/documents/ASSIST_policy_brief-July-29-2019.pdf, last access: November 2019.
Fall, A., Eichhubl, P., Bodnar, R. J., Laubach, S. E., and Davis, J. S.:
Natural hydraulic fracturing of tight-gas sandstone reservoirs, Piceance
Basin, Colorado, GSA Bulletin, 127, 61–75, https://doi.org/10.1130/B31021.1, 2015.
Fischer, F.: Citizens, Experts, and the Environment: The Politics of Local
Knowledge, Duke University Press, London, UK, 2000.
Fischhoff, B.: The sciences of science communication, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 110, 14033, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1213273110, 2013.
Forster, D. and Perks, J.: Climate impact of potential shale gas production in the EU, Final Report, AEA Technology Inc. for EC DG Climate Action, Final Report, Review Issue 2, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/eccp/docs/120815_final_report_en.pdf (last access: November 2019), 2012.
Gaskell, G., Hohl, K., and Gerber, M. M.: Do closed survey questions
overestimate public perceptions of food risks?, J. Risk Res.,
20, 1038–1052, https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2016.1147492, 2017.
Gibson, H., Stewart, I. S., Pahl, S., and Stokes, A.: A “mental models” approach to the communication of subsurface hydrology and hazards, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 1737–1749, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-1737-2016, 2016.
Graham, J. D., Rupp, J. A., and Schenk, O.: Unconventional Gas Development
in the USA: Exploring the Risk Perception Issues, Risk Anal., 35,
1770–1788, https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12512, 2015.
Green, C. A., Styles, P., and Baptie, B. J.: Preese Hall shale gas
fracturing review and recommendations for induced seismic mitigation,
Department of Energy and Climate Change, London, UK, 2012.
Hilson, C.: Framing Fracking: Which Frames Are Heard in English Planning and
Environmental Policy and Practice?, J. Environ. Law, 27,
177–202, https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/equ036, 2015.
Howell, R. A.: UK public beliefs about fracking and effects of knowledge on
beliefs and support: A problem for shale gas policy, Energ. Policy, 113,
721–730, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.11.061, 2018.
Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., Rowe, G., Pidgeon, N., Poortinga, W., Murdock,
G., and O'Riordan, T.: The GM debate: Risk, politics and public engagement, Genetics and Society, Routledge, London, UK, 2007.
Jalali, M., Gischig, V., Doetsch, J., Näf, R., Krietsch, H., Klepikova,
M., Amann, F., and Giardini, D.: Transmissivity Changes and Microseismicity
Induced by Small-Scale Hydraulic Fracturing Tests in Crystalline Rock,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 2265–2273,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL076781, 2018.
Jaspal, R. and Nerlich, B.: Fracking in the UK press: Threat dynamics in an unfolding debate, Public Underst. Sci., 23, 348–363, 2014.
Johnston, A. C.: An earthquake strength scale for the media and the public,
Earthquakes & Volcanoes (USGS), 22, 214–216, 1990.
Kavalov, B. and Pelletier, N.: Shale Gas for Europe – Main Environmental
and Social Considerations A Literature Review European Commission Joint
Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability EUR 25498 EN,
https://doi.org/10.2788/48370, 2012.
Kendall, J. M., Butcher, A., Stork, A., Verdon, J., Luckett, R., and
Baptie, B.: How big is a small earthquake? Challenges in determining
microseismic magnitudes, First Break, 37, 51–56, 2019.
King, G. E.: Hydraulic Fracturing 101: What Every Representative, Environmentalist, Regulator, Reporter, Investor, University Researcher, Neighbor and Engineer Should Know About Estimating Frac Risk and Improving Frac Performance in Unconventional Gas and Oil Wells, SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 1 January 2012, https://doi.org/10.2118/152596-MS, 2012.
Knoblauch, T. A. K., Stauffacher, M., and Trutnevyte, E.: Communicating
Low-Probability High-Consequence Risk, Uncertainty and Expert Confidence:
Induced Seismicity of Deep Geothermal Energy and Shale Gas, Risk Anal.,
38, 694–709, https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12872, 2018.
Kwiatek, G., Plenkers, K., Dresen, G., and Group, J. R.: Source Parameters
of Picoseismicity Recorded at Mponeng Deep Gold Mine, South Africa:
Implications for Scaling Relations, B. Seismol. Soc.
Am., 101, 2592–2608, https://doi.org/10.1785/0120110094, 2011.
Lampkin, J. A.: Will Unconventional, Horizontal, Hydraulic Fracturing for Shale Gas Production Purposes Create Environmental Harm in the United Kingdom? PhD thesis, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK, 2019.
Landström, C., Hauxwell-Baldwin, R., Lorenzoni, I., and Rogers-Hayden,
T.: The (Mis)understanding of Scientific Uncertainty? How Experts View
Policy-Makers, the Media and Publics, Sci. Cult., 24, 276–298, https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2014.992333, 2015.
Lark, R. M., Thorpe, S., Kessler, H., and Mathers, S. J.: Interpretative modelling of a geological cross section from boreholes: sources of uncertainty and their quantification, Solid Earth, 5, 1189–1203, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-5-1189-2014, 2014.
Leach, G.: The energy transition, Energ. Policy, 20, 116–123, 1992.
Leggett, M. and Finlay, M.: Science, story, and image: a new approach to
crossing the communication barrier posed by scientific jargon, Public
Underst. Sci., 10, 157–171, 2001.
Lightbody, R. and Roberts, J. J.: Experts: The Politics of Evidence and
Expertise in Democratic Innovation, in: The Handbook of Democratic
Innovation and Governance, edited by: Elstub, S. and Escobar, O., Edward
Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK, 2019.
Lis, A., Braendle, C., Fleischer, T., Thomas, M., Evensen, D., and Mastop, J.: Existing European Data on Public Perceptions of Shale Gas, available at: http://www.m4shalegas.eu/reportsp4.html (last access: November 2019), 2015.
Lowry, D.: Nuclear waste: The protracted debate in the UK, in: Nuclear or Not?, Palgrave Macmillan, London, UK, 115–131, 2007.
Mair, R., Bickle, M., Goodman, D., Koppelman, B., Roberts, J., Selley, R.,
Shipton, Z., Thomas, H., Walker, A., and Woods, E.: Shale gas extraction in
the UK: a review of hydraulic fracturing, Royal Society and Royal Academy of
Engineering, London, UK, 2012.
Marker, B. R.: Urban planning: the geoscience input. Geological Society,
London, Eng. Geol. SP, 27, 35, https://doi.org/10.1144/EGSP27.3, 2016.
Matthews, J. and Hansen, A.: Fracturing Debate? A Review of Research on Media Coverage of “Fracking”, Frontiers in Communication, 3, https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2018.00041, 2018.
Mazzini, A.: 10 years of Lusi eruption: Lessons learned from
multidisciplinary studies (LUSI LAB), Mar. Petrol. Geol., 90, 1–9,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2017.12.025, 2018.
McMahon, R., Stauffacher, M., and Knutti, R. The unseen uncertainties in
climate change: reviewing comprehension of an IPCC scenario graph, Climatic
Change, 133, 141–154, 2015.
McNally, H., Howley, P., and Cotton, M.: Public perceptions of shale gas in
the UK: framing effects and decision heuristics, Energy, Ecology and
Environment, 3, 305–316, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40974-018-0102-2, 2018.
Montgomery, S. L.: The cult of jargon: Reflections on language in
science, Sci. Cult., 1, 42–77, 1989.
NASEM: Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) National Academies
Press, PMID: 28406600, Washington, D.C., USA, 2017.
National Research Council: Induced Seismicity Potential in Energy
Technologies, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., USA,
https://doi.org/10.17226/13355, 2013.
Nisbet, M. C.: Framing science: A new paradigm in public engagement, in: Communicating science, Routledge, New York, UK, 54–81, 2009.
OGA: Interim report of the scientific analysis of data gathered from
Cuadrilla's operations at Preston New Road, available at:
https://www.ogauthority.co.uk/media/6149/summary-of-pnr1z-interim-reports.pdf, last access: November 2019.
O'Hara, S., Humphrey, M., Andersson, J., Jaspal, R., Nerlich, B., and Knight, W.: Public perception of shale gas extraction in the UK: Is the Balcombe effect taking hold?, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK, 2014.
O'Hara, S., Humphrey, M., Andersson-Hudson, J., and Knight, W.: Public
Perception of Shale Gas Extraction in the UK: From Positive to Negative,
University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK, 2016.
Parkins, J. R. and Mitchell, R. E.: Public participation as public debate: a
deliberative turn in natural resource management, Society and natural
resources, 18, 529–540, 2005.
Partridge, T., Thomas, M., Harthorn, B. H., Pidgeon, N., Hasell, A.,
Stevenson, L., and Enders, C.: Seeing futures now: Emergent US and UK views
on shale development, climate change and energy systems, Global
Environ. Chang., 42, 1–12,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.11.002, 2017.
Pidgeon, N.: Engaging publics about environmental and technology risks:
frames, values and deliberation, J. Risk Res., 24, 1–19, https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2020.1749118, 2020.
Pollyea, R. M., Chapman, M. C., Jayne, R. S., and Wu, H.: High density
oilfield wastewater disposal causes deeper, stronger, and more persistent
earthquakes, Nat. Commun., 10, 3077, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-11029-8,
2019.
Roberts, J. J., Lightbody, R., Low, R., and Elstub, S.: Experts and evidence
in deliberation: scrutinising the role of witnesses and evidence in
mini-publics, a case study, Policy Sci., 53, 3–32, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-019-09367-x, 2020.
Roberts, J. J., Bond, C. E., and Shipton, Z. K.: Survey data on the perceptions of shale gas in the UK, [data set], University of Strathclyde, https://doi.org/10.15129/a7a906c5-a77e-4a1c-b495-a2d441458d1d, 2021.
Rowe, G., Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., and Pidgeon, N.: Difficulties in
evaluating public engagement initiatives: reflections on an evaluation of
the UK GM Nation? public debate about transgenic crops, Public Underst. Sci., 14, 331–352, 2005.
Schuman, H. and Scott, J.: Problems in the Use of Survey Questions to Measure
Public Opinion, Science, 236, 957–959, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.236.4804.957, 1987.
Schultz, R., Skoumal, R. J., Brudzinski, M. R., Eaton, D., Baptie, B., and
Ellsworth, W.: Hydraulic Fracturing-Induced Seismicity, Rev.
Geophys., 58, e2019RG000695, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019RG000695, 2020.
Scottish Government: Expert Scientific Panel on Unconventional Oil and Gas
report, Edinburgh, UK, ISBN 9781784126834, 2014.
Scottish Government: Unconventional oil and gas policy: SEA, Edinburgh, UK, ISBN 9781787813014, 2018.
Selley, R. C.: UK shale gas: The story so far, Mar. Petrol. Geol.,
31, 100–109, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2011.08.017, 2012.
Sharon, A. J. and Baram-Tsabari, A.: Measuring mumbo jumbo: A preliminary
quantification of the use of jargon in science communication, Public
Underst. Sci., 23, 528–546, https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512469916, 2014.
Shelly, D., Beroza, G., and Ide, S.: Non-volcanic tremor and low-frequency
earthquake swarms, Nature, 446, 305–307, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05666, 2007.
Shipton, Z. K., Roberts, J. J., Comrie, E. L., Kremer, Y., Lunn, R. J., and
Caine, J. S.: Fault fictions: systematic biases in the conceptualization of
fault-zone architecture, Geol. Soc. SP,
496, SP496-2018-2161, https://doi.org/10.1144/SP496-2018-161, 2019.
Simis, M. J., Madden, H., Cacciatore, M. A., and Yeo, S. K. The lure of
rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication?
Public Underst. Sci., 25, 400–414, https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516629749, 2016.
Stephenson, M. H., Ringrose, P., Geiger, S., Bridden, M., and Schofield, D.:
Geoscience and decarbonization: current status and future directions,
Petrol. Geosci., 25, 501, https://doi.org/10.1144/petgeo2019-084, 2019.
Stern, P. C. and Fineberg, H. C.: US National Research Council Understanding
Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society, edited by: Stern, P. C. and Fineberg, H. C., National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., USA, 1996.
Stewart, S. and Allen, P.: A 20-km-diameter multi-ringed impact structure in the North Sea, Nature, 418, 520–523, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature00914, 2002.
Stewart, S. and Allen, P.: An alternative origin for the “Silverpit crater”
(reply), Nature, 428, p. 2, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02480,
2004.
Szolucha, A.: A social take on unconventional resources: Materiality,
alienation and the making of shale gas in Poland and the United Kingdom,
Energy Research & Social Science, 57, 101254,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.101254, 2019.
Tang, C. A. and Kaiser P. K.: Numerical simulation of cumulative damage and
seismic energy release during brittle rock failure – Part I: fundamentals,
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min., 35, 113–121,
1998.
Task Force on Shale Gas (TFSG): Assessing the Impact of Shale Gas on
the Local Environment and Health, Second Interim Report, London, UK, 2015.
Taylor, A. L., Dessai, S., and Bruine de Bruin, W.: Public perception of
climate risk and adaptation in the UK: A review of the literature, Climate
Risk Management, 4–5, 1–16, 2014.
Thomas, M., Partridge, T., Harthorn, B. H., and Pidgeon, N.: Deliberating
the perceived risks, benefits, and societal implications of shale gas and
oil extraction by hydraulic fracturing in the US and UK, Nature Energy, 2,
17054, https://doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2017.54,
2017a.
Thomas, M., Pidgeon, N., Evensen, D., Partridge, T., Hasell, A., Enders, C., and Bradshaw, M.: Public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing for shale gas
and oil in the United States and Canada, Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim.
Change, 8, e450, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.450, 2017b.
Tingay, M., Manga, M., Rudolph, M. L., and Davies, R.: An alternative review
of facts, coincidences and past and future studies of the Lusi eruption,
Mar. Petrol. Geol., 95, 345–361,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2017.12.031, 2018.
Trutnevyte, E. and Ejderyan, O.: Managing geoenergy-induced seismicity with
society, J. Risk Res., 21, 1287–1294, https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2017.1304979, 2018.
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D.: The framing of decisions and the psychology of
choice, Science, 211, 453–458, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683, 1981.
Underhill, J. An alternative origin for the “Silverpit crater”, Nature, 428,
1–2, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02476, 2004.
Van de Graaf, T., Haesebrouck, T., and Debaere, P.: Fractured politics? The
comparative regulation of shale gas in Europe, J. Eur. Public
Policy, 25, 1276–1293, https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1301985, 2018.
Vander Beken, T., Dorn, N., and Van Daele, S.: Security risks in nuclear waste management: Exceptionalism, opaqueness and vulnerability, J.
Environ. Manage., 91, 940–948, 2010.
van Loon, A. J.: The stolen sequence, Earth-Sci. Rev., 52,
237–244, 2000.
Venhuizen, G. J., Hut, R., Albers, C., Stoof, C. R., and Smeets, I.: Flooded by jargon: how the interpretation of water-related terms differs between hydrology experts and the general audience, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 393–403, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-393-2019, 2019.
Verdon, J. P. and Bommer, J. J.: Green, yellow, red, or out of the blue? An
assessment of Traffic Light Schemes to mitigate the impact of hydraulic
fracturing-induced seismicity, J Seismol., 25, 301–326,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-020-09966-9, 2021.
Vergara, W., Rios, A. R., Paliza, L. M. G., Gutman, P., Isbell, P., Suding,
P. H., and Samaniego, J.: The climate and development challenge for Latin
America and the Caribbean: options for climate-resilient, low-carbon
development, Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, D.C., USA, 2013.
Walker, C. and Baxter, J.: Method Sequence and Dominance in Mixed Methods
Research: A Case Study of the Social Acceptance of Wind Energy Literature,
Int. J. Qual. Meth., 18, https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919834379,
2019.
Warpinski, N. R., Du, J., and Zimmer, U.: Measurements of
hydraulic-fracture-induced seismicity in gas shales, SPE Prod. Oper.,
27, 240–252, 2012.
Westaway, R. and Younger, P. L.: Quantification of potential macroseismic
effects of the induced seismicity that might result from hydraulic
fracturing for shale gas exploitation in the UK, Q. J.
Eng. Geol. Hydroge., 47, 333–350, https://doi.org/10.1144/qjegh2014-011,
2014.
Whitmarsh, L., Nash, N., Lloyd, A., and Upham, P.: UK Public Perceptions of
Shale Gas, Carbon Capture & Storage and Other Energy Sources &
Technologies: Summary Findings of a Deliberative Interview Study and
Experimental Survey, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK, 2014.
Whitmarsh, L., Nash, N., Upham, P., Lloyd, A., Verdon, J. P., and Kendall,
J. M.: UK public perceptions of shale gas hydraulic fracturing: The role of
audience, message and contextual factors on risk perceptions and policy
support, Appl. Energ., 160, 419–430,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.09.004, 2015.
Williams, L., Macnaghten, P., Davies, R., and Curtis, S.: Framing
“fracking”: Exploring public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing in the
United Kingdom, Public Underst. Sci., 26, 89–104, https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515595159, 2017.
Short summary
The potential for hydraulic fracturing (fracking) to induce seismicity is a topic of widespread interest. We find that terms used to describe induced seismicity are poorly defined and ambiguous and do not translate into everyday language. Such bad language has led to challenges in understanding, perceiving, and communicating risks around seismicity and fracking. Our findings and recommendations are relevant to other geoenergy topics that are potentially associated with induced seismicity.
The potential for hydraulic fracturing (fracking) to induce seismicity is a topic of widespread...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint