Hydraulic Fracturing In Coal Seam Gas Mining - Dissertation Example

Hydraulic Fracturing in Coal Seam Gas Mining: Evaluating the Communication Strategies of the Industry in Addressing Environmental Concerns Name Name of University Note: please delete this section in final paper Guide questions used in the Literature Review I. As there are potential environmental, health and safety risks associated with hydraulic fracturing (for gas extraction) activities, I would like a literature review of the communication strategies/plans of the major oil and gas companies around the world. (How do the major oil and gas companies around the world communicate their plans to the public? Knowing the potential environmental, health and safety risks associated with hydraulic fracturing (for gas extraction) activities, what are their communication strategies towards the public?) II. Has the coal seam gas (CSG) industry used a scientific approach to investigate the potential adverse impact of hydraulic fracturing on the environment? III. Overall, the public attitude towards CSG is overwhelmingly negative. There is a lot of misinformation in the public debate - most due to a lack of scientific understanding about the issue. (Provide literature about this) IV. What is the industry doing to address public concerns over coal seam gas (CSG) mining and are they planning to fill in the major gaps in our knowledge over its future impacts? V. To inform the debate about the expansion of the CSG sector, companies need to be transparent and make their information publicly available. (Is the CSG sector, with all its companies, being transparent and make their information publicly available?) VI. I am interested in exploring the range of scientific community, industry and general community perspectives, as well as the level of trust, in the CSG sector as it is a key factor in public support. (What are the perspectives of the scientific community, industry and general community, and their level of trust in the CSG sector? Do they support it or not?) Literature Review The process of hydraulic fracturing originated in the United States in 1947 to stimulate the flow of natural gas from the Hugoton field in Kansas (Halliburton 2012). After six decades, more than 1.1 million fracturing activities have been conducted that delivered more than 600 trillion cubic feet of natural gas to American consumers. Halliburton (2012) elaborated that there are currently 9 out of 10 onshore wells that need fracture stimulation to remain or become viable. The technology behind the shale gas development is very promising that it offers massive monetary revenue increases, aside from the clean energy potentials that can be tapped (EPA 2012). However, the actual methods of hydraulic fracturing to stimulate gas wells have been observed to pose both environmental and humanitarian risks that it aroused public concerns which led to a worldwide questioning of the legality of its procedures and operations. To address the concerns of the general public towards the negative impacts of hydraulic fracturing, several information campaigns have been conducted recently by various groups led by the media and stakeholders and, supported by energy companies. It appears that most of the information awareness drives of the energy companies involved were in response to the initiatives of the government and stakeholders. The Media and Stakeholder Relations Hydraulic Fracturing Initiative 2011 organized by American Business Conferences is a good example of such cause (American Business Conferences 2012). It is an information campaign that sought unity and understanding among energy companies and stakeholders across North America to overcome concerns on hydraulic fracturing. Furthermore, most oil and gas production companies have set up websites that contain general information regarding the activities and hydraulic fracturing operations of their companies. Talisman Energy (2012), a premier Canadian-based upstream oil and gas company that is active in North America, the North Sea, Southeast Asia, North Africa, South and Central America, made available several information about its management, operations, investors, corporate responsibility, environment and work opportunities. Information on corporate responsibility is displayed comprehensively. It advocates its belief that “an important first step in establishing greater economic transparency can be achieved through the public disclosure of revenue payments to host governments” (Talisman Energy 2012). Its corporate responsibility reports are also available for the year 2000 until 2011 as online version and for downloading. The website also promotes encouragement to the reader to send a feedback to their company. Talisman must have initiated its quality website information campaign in account of its worldwide and substantial operations not only in hydraulic fracturing but also in related energy operations. Significant information on governance, specifically about the policy on business conducts and ethics that they implement are also provided. In the case of Shell company, they call hydraulic fracturing as a component of the “natural gas revolution that is a secure and abundant force for good” (Shell.com 2012). As an element of their communication strategy to these projects, they conduct regular conferences and press releases as part of information dissemination of their operations. Last year, they have announced the five operating principles for their onshore tight oil and gas operations. This is to prove their point that Shell provides a plan to protect water, air, wildlife and the communities in which they operate. As part of their campaign, they also released a brochure specifically designed to answer questions on Hydraulic Fracturing. The information material contains actual images and illustrations on how they manage hydraulic fracturing in North America. All of these information are also available in their website. Shell delivers its communication plans by providing documents on the safety operating principles that they implement in all global projects of gas extraction. They call this procedure as “Goal Zero” (Shell.com 2012). These materials can be downloaded as electronic files in Shell’s websites. In support of hydraulic fracturing as a method of gas extraction, other authorities related to its operations also embarked to a detailed study to understand the process and its probable cascading effects. This is in response to the growing apprehension of the public about its possible destructive impacts. The Carbo company is a global company that provides quality proppant, fracture stimulation software and fracture design, engineering and consulting services to oil and gas companies (Carbo 2011). The Carbo company initiated the study on Diagnostic Techniques to Understand Hydraulic Fracturing that has been published by the Society of Petroleum Engineers (Cipolla et al. 2002). This served as an important communication to the people about the technologies behind hydraulic fracturing and how treatment designs can be improved. It described the application and limitations of diagnostic tools and methods that are commonly used, such as well testing, net pressure analysis (fracture modeling), techniques that employ open- and cased-hole logs, surface- and downhole-tilt fracture mapping, microseismic fracture mapping, and production-data analysis (Cipolla et al. 2002). The authors focused on case histories which illustrate the application of these fracture-diagnostic technologies and included examples of how several fracture diagnostics can be applied accordingly to gather more reliable estimates of fracture dimensions and contribute to better economic decisions. Limited information is known about the actual impact of hydraulic fracturing on the environment. There are a few scientific approaches that the coal seam gas industry have implemented to explore this area. According to the results of the literature search for this study, these initiatives were carried out by relevant agencies such as the United States Environmental Protection Agency, United States Geological Survey, Environment and Human Rights Advisory, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and, other research and information centres. Beemster and Beemster (2011) only reported the precautions necessary should shale gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing be employed in Ireland. They demand a mandatory Life Cycle Analysis including Environmental Impact Analysis which can provide them a proper basis of judgment about individual mining projects. The Irish Fracking Research and Information Centre is careful about the hazardous environmental effects that can be brought by accidents on water and air quality. Especially that according to their surveys, many of the wells would be drilled under or very near to dwelling houses, farms, roads and rivers (Beemster and Beemster 2011). Sawyer (2011) mentioned that the United States Committee on Energy and Commerce investigated the practice of hydraulic fracturing in the country. The Committee gathered information on the types and volumes of hydraulic fracturing products used in their fluids between 2005 and 2009 and, their chemical contents. Results showed that of all the chemicals they have used, 29 are known or possible human carcinogens, regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act for their risks to human health, or listed as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. Also, the BTEX compounds (benzene, toluene, xylene and ethylbenzene) were found in 60 of the hydraulic fracturing products used between 2005 and 2009. These are regulated contaminant under the Safe Drinking Water Act and a hazardous air pollutant. Benzene is a known human carcinogen and the remaining BETX compounds are neurotoxic to humans. It is reported that the hydraulic fracturing companies injected 11.4 million gallons of products containing at least one BTEX chemical over a five year period (Blades 2011). The companies also consumed 94 million gallons of 279 products which contained at least one chemical component deemed proprietary or a “trade secret” between 2005 and 2009 (Sawyer 2011). These data are only in the areas of toxicological effects to humans. Reports from residents nearby these places suggest that multiple adverse health effects can result from well water contaminated with hydraulic fracturing related chemicals. This may include symptoms of burning eyes, nose bleeds, fatigue, headaches, hand numbness, bloody stools, rashes, welts, blisters attributed to contaminated water exposures and air emissions. Further on the environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing, the United States Ground Water Protection Council assessed only one complaint related to drinking water contamination (Wiseman 2009). It is further reported that according to Colorado residents coalbed methane development increased methane concentrations in their water wells, the water in their well “turned cloudy with grayish sediment a day or two after nearby fracturing events” that the water flow in their wells decreased after fracturing, and that after wells have been contaminated with methane, the people experienced increased levels of hydrogen sulfide and anaerobic bacteria (Wiseman 2009). Additionally, “areas where patches of grass and trees were turning brown and dying” were observed with the others that have old-growth trees, suggesting that “the area previously had prolonged normal soil conditions” (Wiseman 2009). Complaints on higher levels of methane in the soil and lower levels of air in the soil’s shallow root zone had been received. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) investigated the hydrologic connection between the fracking area and the underground source of drinking water. They concluded that “methane, fracturing fluid, and water with a naturally high . . . [total dissolved solids] content could possibly move” through “natural fractures” or “poorly constructed, sealed, or cemented manmade wells used for various purposes” however “no reports provide direct information regarding hydraulic fracturing” (Wiseman 2009). The report didn’t officially associate the claims of the drinking water contamination to hydraulic fracturing although similar cases have been complained in other sites where hydraulic fracturing had been occurring. Wiseman (2009) emphasized the weakness of the report produced by EPA because of this. The author stated that all the reports either sponsored by a government agency or a non-profit group, suggested that fracking has potential environmental effects at least in some regions, that is related to contamination of groundwater. This is through direct injection or migration to nearby formations, diminution of groundwater quantities, surface and groundwater contamination from disposal of fracing fluids, and contamination of the surface soil and vegetation. Lechtenbohmer et al. (2011) discussed the major possible impacts that included air emissions of pollutants, groundwater contamination in account of uncontrolled gas or fluid flows due to blowouts or spills, leaking fracturing fluid, and uncontrolled waste water discharge. They elaborated that fracturing fluids contain hazardous substances, and flow-back in addition contains heavy metals and radioactive materials from the deposit. The experiences encountered in United States indicated that many accidents happen, that can be harmful to the environment and to human health. The recorded violations of legal requirements amount to about 1-2 percent of all drilling permits. Many of these accidents occurred because of improper handling or leaking equipment. The groundwater contamination by methane where in extreme cases led to explosion of residential buildings, and potassium chloride led to salinization of drinking water were reported in the vicinity of gas wells. The authors also noted that fugitive methane emissions which escaped from hydraulic fracturing processes have a huge impact on the greenhouse gas balance. A range of 18 to 23 g CO2-equivalent per MJ from the development and production of unconventional natural gas was estimated from existing assessments. The overwhelming negative attitude of the public towards coal seam gas can be attributed to the earlier reports related to drinking water contamination and isolated extreme cases of explosion due to escape of methane gas that have happened. Noting that EPA’s report didn’t directly acknowledge that the various water supply contamination were caused by the hydraulic fracturing processes held in affected areas thereby leaving an impression that the truth is being kept from the public. This is supported by current appeal of United States House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Chairman Harris to EPA to be more transparent and responsive to its hydraulic fracturing activities (Energy for America 2012). It is stated that EPA doesn’t objectively pursue an improved understanding of the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water and is rather keen to find fault with the technology to be able to justify sweeping new regulations (Energy for America 2012). News like this drives more negative impression on hydraulic fracturing especially that findings by the authority is not made freely available. Moreover, positive engagement to information seeking campaigns had been the reaction of other concerned citizens. In Northern Ireland, an expanding network of people who intend to understand and share information about shale gas extraction using hydraulic fracturing have formed an information campaign through a website called Fermanagh Fracking Awareness Network (Fermanagh Fracking Awareness 2012). They are proactive about the possibilities that can happen on their plain that can directly affect their lives. They also produce regular newsletters useful for Fermanagh residents which contain updated information from the government or authorities about hydraulic fracturing. The recent monthly issue highlights the news that the United Kingdom Government has rejected the shale gas technology to solve Britain’s energy crisis because of the confirmed little reserves present in their territory that would make it uneconomical to extract (Fermanagh Fracking Awareness 2012). The coal seam gas (CSG) mining in Victoria, Australia has been called to a halt and being led by Greens Senators. They view coal seam gas mining as a liability to people’s health, prime agricultural land and climate (Gippsland Action Group 2012). Scientists also advocate its destructive effects due to the pollution caused by coal, oil and gas which drive extreme weather experienced in their area and, extreme impacts on health relating cancer and, heart and lung disease. The Gippsland Action Group (2012) is an action group that aims to ban coal seam gas mining in the Gippsland region in Victoria, Australia and instead protect the agricultural assets they have in the Latrobe Valley. People do not welcome coal seam gas mining in their area because they see that the appropriate regulatory frameworks are either not in-place or not sufficient. The lack of information about this new technology and its impacts on groundwater and aquifers, in addition of the negatively reported circumstances that have occurred in other places where CSG mining has been done such as the United States, all result to lack of trust of the people to the government’s perspective that such opportunity will yield them rightful economic advantages. Gippsland Action Group (2012) distrusts the lack of power to be protected from poor government decisions from their environmental agencies having the evidence from Queensland and NSW coal seam gas environmental disasters. These events enabled them to take their own actions and encourage more supporters from the residents to promote information campaigns through forums and united efforts to go against the adverse impacts of CSG mining (Community over Mining 2012). To better address these challenges of increasing tensions between the community and CSG developments, the State government together with the companies and industry bodies sought effective education strategies to the communities about the actual risks (Franklin 2011). They have identified that the existing conflicts is not actually about science but rather more time has to be allocated towards explaining the CSG industry to the immediate community (Bromby 2011). It is better communication that can resolve the lack of understanding or appropriate knowledge, thus calling for a wider social science research, to remove the hindrance to understanding produced by critical attention as social constructions are produced in political and cultural contexts with interests (Jasanoff, 1998; Davidson & Gismondi, 2011). They also consider that public participation has the potential to strengthen decision-making activities given the right opportunity and power for negotiation of the outcomes with the community, instead of it being irrelevant to appropriating the evidences. The coal seam gas operations exhibit similar patterns of occurrence in any country explaining why the issue has been a controversy. The Local Government of NSW (2011) attributes it to (1) a perception of a lack of communication between Government, industry and the community, (2) a sense of powerlessness among communities, councils and land owners over the decisions that are being made that affect them, (3) lack of strategic assessment of cumulative impacts of multiple developments (both mining and nonmining related), particularly the social, cultural and community impacts and (4) lack of coordinated strategic planning and identification of land for future activities (e.g. mining versus agriculture). These issues need to be addressed to establish trust among the people and harmonious long-term relationships between them, the government and the CSG industry. The CSG industry currently seeks a “social licence” to operate. In case of the Australian coal industry, they promote pro-active steps to address impacts on the environment and some local communities, and then they work with those communities and governments to address concerns as they arise. They intend to make sure that the responsible, long-term development of Australia’s coal resources is accepted and supported by the Australian community (Jones 2012). A part of this social license is allowing the community to recognize the benefits of the industry and accepting it by acting in a socially and environmentally responsible manner. Another part of that licence is led by the government through the permits issued on activities with an assurance that agreed conditions are met on behalf of the community (Jones 2012). Standard frameworks or policy statements have been set to CSG industry as an effort of the authorities towards safety reinforcements of such infrastructures to the environment and community. These standards are available to be verified by the public such that they are aware of the expectations to be imposed to the CSG operations. The Standing Council on Energy and Resources Policy Statement (2011) in Melbourne, Australia based its policy statement with CSG on water management, multiple land use framework, best practice standards and co-existence. They believe that this will boost public confidence in the effective regulation of the industry while providing support for the CSG industry. They are focused on maintaining a healthy CSG industry (Jones 2012). All these endeavours contribute optimistically to Australia’s economic wealth and energy security. The CSG sector can only continue to sustain this contribution if they adhere to operate at the very highest operational and environmental standards since they can gain permission and support from the community in land access to enable them to explore, develop, produce and transport products (Standing Council on Energy and Resources Policy Statement 2011). They call this strategy as a national harmonized framework that has been developed from consultation on policy statement, work program for harmonised framework, summary of activities in place or being progressed by jurisdictions and community engagement and communications strategy. In summary, the CSG sector in Melbourne, Australia has agreed on a workplan that is open for public consultation and evaluation so that a national harmonized work is done. Each component identifies the risks involved to achieve a balance between the rights and interests of different stakeholders. This enables them to properly communicate public concerns on CSG. The International Energy Agency (IEA) made a significant action last May 29, 2012 to fill the major gaps on CSG knowledge and its probable future impacts. A World Energy Outlook report about unconventional gas has been prepared and also a document called Golden Rules for a Golden Age of Gas that was released in London, UK (Wilkinson 2012). An excerpt of the press release stated that “The Golden Rules underline the importance of full transparency, measuring and monitoring of environmental impacts and engagement with local communities; careful choice of drilling sites and measures to prevent any leaks from wells into nearby aquifers; rigorous assessment and monitoring of water requirements and of waste water; measures to target zero venting and minimal flaring of gas; and improved project planning and regulatory control” (Wilkinson 2012). These new advocacies must be read and followed by the CSG industry and, also the concerned public on energy, environment and climate change. National Partnership Agreements have been made among the Large Coal Mining Developments, the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia to resolve the growing public concerns on the actual and potential impacts of coal seam gas and coal mining activities on water resources (Council of Australian Governments 2012). This Agreement will contribute significantly towards the advancement of scientific evidences that can better inform regulatory decisions, improve the transparency and openness of regulatory processes and ensure that there will be independent expert advice on all relevant project proposals to communities, governments and industry (Council of Australian Governments 2012). This is a new project initiated last 14th February 2012, with $200 million over five years to support this work. The project now involves all important sectors to address the CSG issue. It is expected that the public can be better informed and be aware of all the facts relating to CSG that can affect everybody in a national level. Information about the CSG sector available to the public is usually found incorporated in the reports and reviews of government agencies and stakeholders. This makes the National Partnership Agreement in Australia play a significant role in public awareness and involvement. The CSG sector is expected to execute information and awareness campaign initiatives and, transparency in the information they present to the general public. Their presence and coordination with the public’s information drives will be a good evidence of commitment towards the public good. The Media and Stakeholder Relations Hydraulic Fracturing Initiative 2011 organized by American Business Conferences is an event that aimed to “bring together senior communications professionals from leading unconventional oil & gas operators, including social media industry pioneers and media and stakeholder relations specialists to drive proactive media relations strategies, stakeholder engagement plans, employee and stakeholder advocacy and crisis communications strategy to determine best practices for engaging the public on a positive image for the shale gas industry” (American Business Conferences 2012). It is a useful way of informing the public by hearing directly from the CSG sector representatives about their operations and, the interactive communication achieved in the event can promote a positive relationship. BG Group (2012) is a large global energy company whose work is focused on understanding, building and supplying natural gas markets around the world. They operate in business sectors of exploration and production, liquefied natural gas and, transmission and distribution. As part of their Sustainability Performance Report in 2011, they make their operations’ information publicly available. The report states the key developments on water management plan, oil spill response, participation on biodiversity initiatives and reduction of air emissions. They created a public position statement that informed the public on their operations on risk management for the coal seam gas mining. They provided details on the steps taken to minimize the risks on major incidents or spills through (1) participation on the next phase of the industry response to the Deepwater Horizon incident, which made good progress on their own review of BG Group well risk, (2) revision and updating of oil spill response plans and development of new Group guidance on preparing oil spill contingency plans and, (3) working with a their operations worldwide to strengthen their approach to minimising blow-out risk. They also developed commitments related to their systems of developing resources of unconventional gas responsibly and with minimal impact on the environment. In 2011, the BG Group prioritized the understanding of specific concerns related to water safety, wastewater fracturing disposal and, long term impacts on the natural environment around the operations. They found out that in order to work sustainably, they need to communicate more effectively on managing the risks in these high profile operations. Kelly (2012) reports that CSG production is possible to achieve with minimum impact on adjacent groundwater systems, but like any of these complex operations there is always a risk of encountering accidents. Thus, it is important to know about the potential impacts should accidents happen. Water is required in CSG production. Significant water supplies will be required in the intended expansion of the CSG sector. It is also vital to acknowledge that CSG will produce a major impact on the water balance at a local scale whether it is surface water or groundwater. The cumulative impacts are currently not known. Kelly (2012) further explains that public support on CSG operations haven’t been fully gained because of the major gaps in knowledge about its future impacts. If it indeed impacts groundwater, this would be a long term effect, engaging in decades or more. The CSG producers, especially in Queensland, Australia, have failed to satisfactorily demonstrate their management strategy the big volumes of poor quality saline water that they will bring into the surface. This is a critical aspect and proper solutions must first be proposed. No background surveys have been conducted that can quantify the natural level of organics, that include methane, for the aquifers. Without such baseline information, the amount of levels that would be added due to CSG production will be left unknown. It is important to separate the impact of CSG production from the actual natural background levels. Osborn et al. (2011) reports of methane contamination of drinking water that accompanied gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing. This occurred in aquifers overlying the Marcellus and Utica shale formations in northeastern Pennsylvania and upstate New York. It showed that it can occur in up to one kilometre distance from gas production sites. Osborn et al. (2011) research showed that a more responsible stewardship, data and regulations are necessary to ascertain a sustainable future in shale-gas extraction and also to gain public confidence in its use. Again, the lack of good information to educate the public to help them understand and visualize the impacts of CSG production has produced doubts in their minds driving them to be against any CSG developments. Kelly (2012) suggests that 3D geological models and 3D flow simulation results must be made publicly available to inform the debate about the CSG sector expansion. To gain the support of the people, more information must be presented to them to provide clarity of how CSG affects the immediate environment. More information can only be acquired by conducting research. The research required here is complex and costly and will take long duration to be done correctly. It will involve costly activities such as installing of monitoring boreholes, running chemical tests and building 3D flow simulation models. And the pressure for these studies to be conducted is here now before the CSG sector expands. In Australia, they are yet on their way in collecting sound scientific information. They have yet to quantify the cumulative impacts of surface coal mining, underground coal mining, irrigation farming, dryland farming and, coal seam gas production. The opposition to coal seam gas mining is growing according to most references available. Citizens involved include the coalitions of farming communities, residents nearby mining sites and merely concerned individuals. They have opposed the exploratory phases of coal seam gas mining, writing submissions and responding to environmental impact assessments, parliamentary inquiries and public consultations (Stewart 2011). In Australia, communities have convened forums to share experiences on how the coal mining industry that include coal seam gas, shale gas and underground coal gasification has “torn apart lives, communities and the environment all with the complicit support of their governments” and to discuss the patterns on how the governments have undermined their citizen rights in order to meet the promised economic security of the CSG sector (Lock the Gate 2011). They believe that the federal and state level of their governments have ignored the citizen calls and empirical evidence of unregulated operations of the CSG industry because of more jobs claims, revenue and investment that the CSG sector can bring to the country. In this case, the people have lost their trust in their authorities as they have seen the preference on CSG sector visible by its pending expansion. In the United States, CSG has also grown concerns among its people. Brissenden (2012) reports about the hydraulic fracturing activities which have been so intensive in Dallas, Texas that residents complained of constant headaches and skin rashes. Some residents in some counties have pushed back against the crew who conduct the hydraulic fracturing process. People have risen up as activists after experiencing and witnessing the negative impacts which also include evidences from polluted aquifers and undrinkable well water, and in some cases flammable. While the industry admitted that mistakes can happen, they have lost the people’s vote on hydraulic fracturing. Overall, the CSG sector has failed to gain public support until this point as they also have failed to provide information on the potential impacts of CSG industry in the environment in the long term perspective and their exact plan of action for these impacts. The big companies behind the CSG sector may have given their word of commitments to acquire “social licence” in their operations, however it seems that these were insufficient for the public to be confident of their safety as they already have experienced some disastrous consequences of the CSG operations’ accidents and malfunctions. This poses a big endeavour for the CSG sector to actually gain public support. References American Business Conferences 2012, Media and Stakeholder Relations Hydraulic Fracturing Initiative, American Business Conferences Limited, viewed on 09 June 2012, . Beemster B and Beemster R 2011, Report on the effects of shale gas extraction by means of hydraulic fracturing in the Republic of Ireland, Sligo: Fracking Research and Information Centre, viewed on 09 June 2012, < http://www.frackingresearch.org/report.pdf>. BG Group 2012, BG Group Profile, BG Group plc, viewed on 09 June 2012, . Blades M 2011, Leaked Congressional Report: Even ‘fracking’ companies can’t identify all the chemicals they use, . In: Sawyer WR 2011, Scientific Evidence Regarding the Potential Environmental and Human Health Risks Attributed to Hydraulic Fracturing in Central New York Marcellus Shale Formations, Sanibel: Toxicology Consultants & Assessment Specialists, LLC, 12pp, viewed on 09 June 2012, . Brissenden M 2012, Coal seam gas concerns grow in the US, 28 Feb 2012, ABC News, ABC, viewed on 09 June 2012, . Bromby R 2011, An almighty clash of values above and below ground. The Australian, p. 6, 15 August 2011, In: International Association for Impact Assessment 2012, Coming apart at the seams? SIA and the coal seam gas controversy in Queensland, viewed on 09 June 2012, . Carbo 2011, A company built on commitment, CARBO Ceramics, viewed on 09 June 2012, . Cipolla CL, Wright CA, Pinnacle Technologies 2002, Diagnostic Techniques To Understand Hydraulic Fracturing: What? Why? and How?, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 17:1, DOI 10.2118/75359-PA, viewed on 09 June 2012, . Community over Mining 2012, viewed on 09 June 2012, . Council of Australian Governments 2012, Welcome to the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) website, viewed on 09 June 2012, . Davidson DJ and Gismondi M 2011, Challenging Legitimacy and the Precipice of Energy Calamity. New York: Springer. In: International Association for Impact Assessment 2012, Coming apart at the seams? SIA and the coal seam gas controversy in Queensland, viewed on 09 June 2012, . Energy for America 2012, House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Chairman and Harris Calls for Greater Transparency of EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Actions, Energy for America, viewed on 12 June 2012, . EPA 2012, Natural Gas Extraction – Hydraulic Fracturing, WCMS, viewed on 09 June 2012, . Fermanagh Fracking Awareness 2012, Latest newsletter, [blog] 31 May 2012, viewed on 09 June 2012, . Franklin M 2011, Coal-seam gas grew too quickly: Ferguson, The Australian. , viewed on 03 Nov 2011, . In: International Association for Impact Assessment 2012, Coming apart at the seams? SIA and the coal seam gas controversy in Queensland, viewed on 09 June 2012, . Gippsland Action Group 2012, Moratorium on Coal Seam Gas Mining in Victoria supported by Greens Senators, 02 May 2012, viewed on 09 June 2012, . Halliburton 2012, Hydraulic Fracturing 101, Halliburton, viewed on 09 June 2012, . Jasanoff S 1998, The political science of risk perception, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 59, 91–99. In: International Association for Impact Assessment 2012, Coming apart at the seams? SIA and the coal seam gas controversy in Queensland, viewed on 09 June 2012, . Jones R 2012, The pink surfboard conundrum: calculating risk v a social licence to operate, 21 Feb 2012, Understanding Climate Risk, viewed on 09 June 2012, . Kelly B 2012, Opinion: Coal seam gas - filling the knowledge gap, UNSW Connected Waters, viewed on 09 June 2012, . Lechtenbohmer S, Altmann M, Capito S, Matra Z, Weindrorf W and Zittel W 2011, Impacts of shale gas and shale oil extraction on the environment and human health, Brussels: European Parliament, viewed on 09 June 2012, . Local Government of NSW 2011, Submission to The Legislative Council Inquiry (General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5.) into Coal Seam Gas, viewed on 09 June 2012,. Lock the Gate 2011, Lock the Gate Alliance Background, Lock the Gate Alliance, viewed on 09 June 2012, . Osborn SG, Vengosh A, Warner NR and Jackson RB 2011, Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing, PNAS, doi:10.1073, viewed on 09 June 2012, . Sawyer WR 2011, Scientific Evidence Regarding the Potential Environmental and Human Health Risks Attributed to Hydraulic Fracturing in Central New York Marcellus Shale Formations, Sanibel: Toxicology Consultants & Assessment Specialists, LLC, 12pp, viewed on 09 June 2012, Shell.com 2012, The Natural Gas Revolution: A Secure, Abundant Source for Good, 07 March 2012, viewed on 09 June 2012, . Standing Council on Energy and Resources Policy Statement 2011, Coal Seam Gas Policy Statement, viewed on 09 June 2012, . Stewart T 2011, Growing opposition to coal seam gas mining, Direct Action, viewed on 09 June 2012, . Talisman Energy 2012, CR Report, Talisman Energy Inc, viewed on 09 June 2012, . Wilkinson P 2012, Coal Seam Gas: IEA presents Golden Rules for A Golden Age, Sustainability PR, viewed on 09 June 2012, . Wiseman H 2009, Untested Waters: The Rise of Hydraulic Fracturing in Oil and Gas Production and the Need to Revisit Regulation, Fordham Envt’l. L. Rev 115, viewed on 09 June 2012, < http://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/thester/courses/Emerging%20Tech%202011/Wiseman%20on%20Fracking.pdf>. Read More