9
What's the 'fracking' problem? May be its name
A Consol Energy Horizontal Gas Drilling Rig explores the Marcellus Shale outside the town of Waynesburg, Penn. A new survey suggests “fracking” terminology may need an image overhaul.
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
Louisiana State University researcher Michael Climek found that state residents were significantly more likely to think hydraulic fracturing is safe if they didn't hear the word “fracking” in the questions.
Kai Ryssdal: It used to be that if you wanted to drill for natural gas, you went out and did some surveying, found yourself a big underground resevoir, put up a drilling rig, and you were in business. That's what people in the energy industry call conventional drilling. Which kind of implies there's unconventional drilling too, right? There is. It's called hydraulic fracturing -- or fracking. And as it becomes more popular, it's pretty clear fracking's gonna need a makeover.
From Red River Radio, Kate Archer Kent reports.
Kate Archer Kent: Researchers at Louisiana State University found that the Bayou State is more likely to support drilling if certain words aren't used.
Michael Climek: Fracking has an undeniable similarity to a certain other four-letter word that starts with "F" that we won't specify.
Michael Climek developed the questions for the LSU study.
Climek: We thought, would residents be more supportive of fracking or be more likely to think fracking is safe if we described the process without actually using the word fracking?
Climek took the scientific approach. But I wanted to test his theory on the streets of Shreveport, La.
Gary Bachert: Whoever came up with it came up with a good word. But most people don't really understand what it means.
Heather Crask: I've never heard of that word. Ever! So I just learned something, so thank you.
Sara Hebert: It sounds a little dirty and nasty and impolite for mixed company. And it sounds really aggressive.
You just heard from Gary Bachert, Heather Crask and Sara Hebert. The LSU survey went out to 731 Louisiana residents. Researchers specifically used the word "fracking" with about half of the sample group. For the other half, Climek says, they described the drilling process like this:
Climek: A way to extract natural gas that involves using a high-pressure injection of water, sand and chemicals to remove natural gas from rocks deep in the earth's surface.
When study participants did not hear "fracking" in the question, they were far more likely to feel the process is safe and that the state should encourage drilling. So what does a marketing guru think about this image dilemma? David Placek created names for household products like Swiffer and Febreze as the CEO of Lexicon Branding. Placek thinks the term "fracking" is problematic for the natural gas industry.
David Placek: The root of it is fracture, and that's just not a very positive thing. Whether there's a fracture in a political party, or you fracture your arm, it's just nothing but negative connotations.
Placek calls to mind some "frak" history. It's found on another galaxy in the TV series "Battlestar Galactica." Turns out "Battlestar Galactica" characters use the word "frak" as an expletive. It's caught on with sci-fi fans. You can order "frak" T-shirts online, and download "frak" ringtones to your phone. Placek says this presents a PR challenge when it comes to the drilling process, especially in the media.
Placek: The press is just picking up on something that was used years ago. It's easy to say. It's quick. And I think in the right situations might even be used playfully, right? "What the frak is that?"
Michael Climek at LSU hopes to run this survey nationwide. David Placek says the natural gas industry should call the process by its given name, "hydraulic fracturing," and then come up with a new term once the drilling technology evolves.
In Shreveport, La., I'm Kate Archer Kent for Marketplace.
Connotations aside, the effluent from "fracking" speaks for itself. I think we all know that even "safe fracking" can have unintended consequences. Therefore, I recommend taking a page from the hydrosciences and focus on how much "head" (the hydraulic type) is required to initiate "fracking".
As a long time supporter of multiple NPR stations I am very disappointed with the lack of integrity reflected in this story. I don't know if the source of the issue is in the science itself or if the blame is more accurately levied on the reporting. Whichever it is, this story is a poster child for the failings of science reporting; If the scientist doesn't know better, let us hope that the reporter does.
For people that have any knowledge of the fracking process itself, it's not a question of whether the term "fracking" is itself a scary word. It's certainly not a question of whether the word fracking happens to sound like, or have been used in some pop culture context in place of, a word that most of us would be loath to repeat in front of our granny. It's not a question of whether "chemicals" are involved in the process. It's a matter of *which* chemicals are used. It's a matter of the impact that those specific chemicals will have if, or perhaps when, they leach into the water supply upon which our children and other loved ones, upon which our brethren rely for nourishment.
"Chemicals" are neither necessarily good nor bad. We are surrounded by "chemicals," some of which are beneficial if not necessary and and some of which can kill us on contact. The fact that the public has been routinely and, seemingly, intentionally denied access to the basic facts surrounding the fracking process is problematic in and of itself. To the extent that we know some of the specifics and to the extent that those specifics warrant concern, that should be the story.
If you desire to emulate the Weekly World News then by all means continue with this sensationalistic reporting but be warned that my subscriber dollars are hanging in the balance. If you, on the other hand, have the desire to present newsworthy facts to your paying listeners then I appeal to your intelligence, your journalistic training, your better judgment, your honor, to do justice to the occupation of science reporting. We want facts, not fluff.
The people of Louisiana (and other states) have FAR MORE to consider than whether the word "fracking" sounds like an obscenity. Ms. Kent's report served no public good -- a far better story would be about the nuances of life for those who have already leased their lands to the energy companies.
The residents of Louisiana must be told the scientific truth about what hydraulic fracturing, petrolysis, fracking -- whatever label you want to give it -- will do to their underground water resources, their health, their land and resulting property values, etc. If these people believe the spin and are successfully bought off by the energy companies with a few thousand dollars and fancy words that suggest fracturing the earth is an eco-friendly process, then they and all their future generations all are truly fu....er, I mean fracked.
I disagree, Canoe. The point of the story was that the connotations of the word significantly impact the reaction to the activity. If the process of extricating natural gas were called "fluffing" it would be less likely to have a negative response in the minds of people who do not know what it is. People who already have a position will respond according to their viewpoint, regardless of the words used.
This article was about the power of words, not the the dangers or benefits of this way of extricating natural gas. That is the subject of other articles and has nothing to do with this short presentation. Proponents of a particular position are usually very savvy and select words that will have a higher probability of gathering the support they seek because only the most knowledgeable respondents will have prior knowledge of the issues. This study supports the value of doing that.
@Frankie. I, for one, understand that to be the point of the story. However, that's exactly where my disappointment lies. I can't and don't want to discuss whether the marketing of fracking will win any business school awards. I'm much more interested in the effects that fracking may have on us. That's what counts, at least for those of us with any true sense of right and wrong.
Ditto canoe's comment. Then there's this: "International Energy Agency Finds ‘Safe’ Gas Fracking Would Destroy A Livable Climate". One more time, that says "International Energy Agency Finds ‘Safe’ Gas Fracking Would DESTROY A LIVABLE CLIMATE". For details read the article at thinkprogress.org with the title in the quotes above.
The article quotes form the IEA report stating:
"The Golden Rules Case puts CO2 emissions on a long-term trajectory consistent with stabilising the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse-gas emissions at around 650 parts per million, a trajectory consistent with a probable temperature rise of more than 3.5 degrees Celsius (°C) in the long term, well above the widely accepted 2°C target. This finding reinforces a central conclusion from the WEO special report on a Golden Age of Gas (IEA, 2011b), that, while a greater role for natural gas in the global energy mix does bring environmental benefits where it substitutes for other fossil fuels, natural gas cannot on its own provide the answer to the challenge of climate change."
IEA’s “Golden Age of Gas Scenario” Leads to More Than 6°F Warming and Out-of-Control Climate Change. The UK Guardian‘s story put it :
"At such a level, global warming could run out of control, deserts would take over in southern Africa, Australia and the western US, and sea level rises could engulf small island states."
So come on Marketplace, this little what's in a name story is a sideshow, a distraction, a waste of time. I'd think a discussion of fracking destroying a livable climate would warrant a discussion on the economic consequences.
This is easy. The term for the process should be PETROLYSIS. Petrolysis, petrolytic, petrolyse, etc. Not only is it etymologically correct, it sounds clinical enough to provide some distance between itself and the most unfortunate term, 'fracking' which is unpleasant both spoken and in print. How is it that a multi-billion dollar industry doesn't have anyone clever enough to think of this? Maybe they should start teaching fluid dynamics in Ancient Greek.
I was really disappointed in the attempt to "humor" us with the 'problem' for the image of gas drilling companies. There is nothing funny about fracking. Check out NPR's recent stories about this controversial process. Ask the city councils in Longmont, Loveland, and Fort Collins-Colorado about moratoriums to keep this endeavor out of our neighborhoods. Ask the parents of students in Erie, Colorado about the well to be drilled between two elementary schools. Ask yourselves about the real harm this story may do to the people and the planet.
Bill
You are missing the elephant in the room with this story.... "Fracking" causes water and air pollution, destroys property values, and poisons people. So let the industry change the name to fool people into thinking it's an eco-friendly process. "This message brought to you by the Natural Gas Alliance and your local NPR stations".
