Public Perception of the Oil and Gas Industry Gene L. Theodori

Transcription

1 Public Perception of the Oil and Gas Industry Gene L. Theodori Professor & Chair - Department of Sociology Director - Center for Rural Studies: Research & Outreach

2 Today s Presentation Public perception of: the natural gas industry potentially problematic issues associated with natural gas development Public paradox Implications so what? confronting the current social movement industry, agencies, and communities Conclusions / recommendations / policy

3 Public Perception The Thomas Theorem is alive and well in shale gas development. If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.

4 Reality Objective Subjective

5 Reality Objective Subjective

6 In 1993 a group of grassroots oil producers and royalty owners from Oklahoma, Texas and Kansas met to discuss their concerns about the image of their chosen profession -- and one specific concern resurfaced over and over: the public's negative perception of the oil and gas industry. Even more telling was the research gathered by the American Petroleum Institute, which concluded that the oil industry was second only to tobacco as the industry with the worst public image.

7 Public Perception Greider and Krannich (1985) on the importance of including subjective interpretations of possible social problems in rapid-growth, energy boomtown communities It seems clear that analysis which focuses solely or even predominately upon objective conditions within a community is likely to miss that which is most important in understanding social reality in that community.

8

9

10

11 Public Perception Paradox of the general public distrusts the intrusion of the gas industry and dislikes certain social and/or environmental problematic issues perceived to accompany it appreciates and welcomes the economic and/or service-related benefits which accompany the industry

12 Public Perception: So What?

13 Individual Civic Actions As defined by Wakefield et al. (2006:44): individual civic action refers to individual activities that attempt to change societal processes (e.g., by complaining to government or industry about environmental problems or by donating to an environmental group). These activities could lead to environmental change. They also can promote individual empowerment, both psychological and skills related. Wakefield, S.E.L., S.J. Elliot, J.D. Eyles, and D.C. Cole Taking Environmental Action: The Role of Local Composition, Context, and Collective. Environmental Management 37:40-53.

14 Mean Perception Scores Economic and service-related aspects In the long run, I m sure that people in this area will be better off if our natural gas resources are developed. Mean score 1.98 The natural gas industry is important to the local economy Overall mean factor

15 Mean Perception Scores Social and environmental aspects Natural gas operators MUST adopt and use more environmentally friendly drilling practices. Mean score 3.16 Natural gas companies will do only what s required by law Not enough information concerning the development of natural 2.81 gas is being made available to the general public. Natural gas industry operators in Texas are too politically 2.75 powerful. Natural gas operators are drilling and producing too close to 2.74 homes and businesses. Too little attention is being paid to the social costs of natural 2.64 gas development. The natural gas companies have no compassion for our natural 2.44 environment. Even when carefully controlled, natural gas development is 2.43 likely to upset the quality of life in a local area. Overall mean factor

16 So What? Public (Re)Action Actions taken Odds ratios Contacted a local elected official or governmental agency to complain about a natural gas drilling and/or production issue. Economic/service-related factor 0.71 Social/environmental factor 34.43** Voted FOR a political candidate because of his/her favorable position on the drilling and/or production of natural gas. Economic/service-related factor 0.35 Social/environmental factor 0.69 Voted AGAINST a political candidate because of his/her favorable position on the drilling and/or production of natural gas. Economic/service-related factor 1.75 Social/environmental factor 6.13*

17 So What? Public (Re)Action Actions that may be taken Odds ratios Contact a local elected official or governmental agency to complain about a natural gas drilling and/or production issue. Economic/service-related factor 0.94 Social/environmental factor 6.55*** Vote FOR a political candidate because of his/her favorable position on the drilling and/or production of natural gas. Economic/service-related factor 0.65 Social/environmental factor 0.82 Vote AGAINST a political candidate because of his/her favorable position on the drilling and/or production of natural gas. Economic/service-related factor 2.31 Social/environmental factor 3.37*

18 So What? Public (Re)Action

19 So What? Public (Re)Action Actions taken Odds ratios Contacted a local elected official or governmental agency to complain about a natural gas drilling and/or production issue. Opposition/Support 7.96*** Voted FOR a political candidate because of his/her favorable position on the drilling and/or production of natural gas. Opposition/Support 0.26*** Voted AGAINST a political candidate because of his/her favorable position on the drilling and/or production of natural gas. Opposition/Support 9.36*** Opposition/Support was coded as: 1 = strongly oppose/somewhat oppose; 0 = strongly support/somewhat support/ neither support nor oppose. *** p < level.

20 So What? Public (Re)Action Actions taken Odds ratios Contacted a local elected official or governmental agency to complain about a natural gas drilling and/or production issue. Opposition/Support 7.96*** Voted FOR a political candidate because of his/her favorable position on the drilling and/or production of natural gas. Opposition/Support 0.26*** Voted AGAINST a political candidate because of his/her favorable position on the drilling and/or production of natural gas. Opposition/Support 9.36*** Opposition/Support was coded as: 1 = strongly oppose/somewhat oppose; 0 = strongly support/somewhat support/ neither support nor oppose. *** p < level.

21 License to Operate

22

23

24

25

26 Social Movements Activists Attentive public Sympathetic public Neutrals Dunlap (1989) Opponents

27

28 Contribution Made by Eight Sources of Information to Knowledge about Hydraulic Fracturing Sources of Information Overall Respondents Respondents Respondents from Low Well- from High Well- Density Density Counties Counties Mean Values Newspapers Natural gas industry ** 1.42 Conservation/environmental groups Landowner groups/coalitions Regulatory agencies * 1.05 Cooperative Extension University professors Gasland (the film by Josh Fox) Contribution of source of information was coded as: 0 = none; 1 = very little; 2 = some; and, 3 = a great deal. * p < 0.05 level; ** p < 0.01 level.

29 Trust in Eight Sources to Deliver Unbiased, Factual Knowledge on Hydraulic Fracturing Sources of Information Overall Respondents Respondents Respondents from Low Well- from High Well- Density Density Counties Counties Mean Values University professors Conservation/environmental groups Newspapers Landowner groups/coalitions Regulatory agencies * 1.51 Cooperative Extension Natural gas industry ** 1.42 Gasland (the film by Josh Fox) Contribution of source of information was coded as: 0 = none; 1 = very little; 2 = some; and, 3 = a great deal. * p < 0.05 level; ** p < 0.01 level.

30

31

32 Conclusions / Recommendations 1. Transparent communication between/ among all stakeholders is paramount a) Potentially positive aspects and negative consequences b) Minimize the gap between objective and subjective

33 Conclusions / Recommendations 2. Industry share more information about shale gas technologies with government and regulatory officials and the general citizenry a) Specify what current technology CAN and CANNOT do

34 Conclusions / Recommendations 3. Industry organize outreach educational programs and field demonstration site visits

35 Trust in Five Groups Related to Natural Gas Development Groups Overall Respondents Respondents Respondents from Low Well- from High Well- Density Density Counties Counties Mean Values Scientists/researchers Environmental groups/ organizations * 1.66 Natural gas industry *** 1.79 Local officials/organizations State officials/organizations Contribution of source of information was coded as: 0 = none; 1 = very little; 2 = some; and, 3 = a great deal. * p < 0.05 level; *** p < level.

36 Conclusions / Recommendations 4. Encourage the creation / advancement of transdisciplinary research and outreach educational programs to address all phases of shale gas development

37 The EFD Team - TIP Co-funded by RPSEA, US Fish and Wildlife, Industry, Environmental Organizations SPONSORS MANAGEMENT TEAM ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS COLLABORATORS ALLIANCE MEMBERS

38 Thank You Gene L. Theodori Department of Sociology Center for Rural Studies Sam Houston State University Phone: