Shale oil and gas
Since 2009, I have studied the “fracking” controversy in North America—debates and conflicts over the extraction of oil and natural gas from shale. I received an NSF grant for a project called “Mapping Knowledge Investments during the Marcellus Shale Gas Rush: A Study of Public, Private, and Academic Water Quality Monitoring Efforts.” This research examined social conflicts surrounding unanswered scientific questions about water pollution. The study combined interviews, participant observation, surveys of water monitoring organizations, and GIS mapping of water monitoring activities. I also studied other dimensions of the fracking controversy, such as the disclosure of industry information about chemicals used in the fracking process and the risks of transporting oil by rail.
Key idea: Spatial knowledge gaps
One of the main contributions of this project was to document the geo-spatial distribution of regulatory and voluntary water quality monitoring across the Marcellus Shale gas development region. The aim was to understand the social and political processes that created spatial knowledge gaps, and their consequences for affected communities. Regulators, scientists, and environmental advocates often argue that volunteer water monitoring projects can help to fill in gaps in regulatory science; yet I found that not all communities are equally well equipped to generate water quality knowledge through volunteer efforts. When public agencies only monitor a small proportion of streams, this may be relatively unproblematic for communities that can draw on the resources of a nearby university, a dedicated, well-funded environmental protection group, or a vibrant base of civic engagement. However, communities that lack such resources are at a disadvantage when they seek to make political and scientific claims about the condition of their watershed. This research suggests a need to reorient public spending on water monitoring toward communities that have received fewer knowledge investments in the past.
Kinchy, Abby, Sarah Parks, and Kirk Jalbert (2015) “Fractured knowledge: mapping the gaps in public and private water monitoring efforts in areas affected by shale gas development,” Environment and Planning C.
Key idea: Contentious baselining
How do we know if a new industrial activity is inflicting environmental harm? The science seems simple: compare environmental conditions before and after the activity began. However, the question of “before”—the baseline condition—can be contentious. In Pennsylvania, the natural gas industry has questioned claims of harm by pointing out gaps and uncertainties in baseline water quality knowledge. This case is suggestive of a more general dynamic of contentious baselining, which has significant implications for the distribution of power and authority in environmental disputes. I compared the practices for establishing baseline ground and surface water quality in Northeastern Pennsylvania that emerged during the first five years of the Marcellus Shale gas boom. While the practices were dissimilar, they were equally contentious, and in both cases, the gas industry appeared to have far greater influence than residents or public interest groups in establishing or questioning baselines. I presented this research at a refereed workshop at the Max Planck Institute in Berlin in 2018, and the policy implications of this study are spelled out in a paper in Environment and Planning E. I argue for the need to explore alternative legal frameworks for righting environmental wrongs that are not so centrally dependent on a documented baseline.
Kinchy, Abby (2019) “Contentious Baselining: The Politics of ‘Pre-Drilling’ Environmental Measures in Shale Gas Territory.” Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space 0 (0): 251484861987758. https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848619877585. (online first)
Key idea: Disclosure conflicts
Secrecy and transparency are persistent concerns across many dimensions of fracking governance in the United States. Protesters, investors, and emergency responders have demanded more information about the contents of fluids used in the extraction process, the routes of oil shipments by rail, and other dimensions of extraction. Drilling and railroad companies have typically resisted these demands. My research conceptualizes these struggles over access to information as disclosure conflicts. Through a close examination of two cases, disclosure of information about fracking fluids and crude oil train routes, I concluded that disclosure conflicts are dynamic, changing focus and character as information is released or concealed over time. For example, activist pressure can lead to industry disclosures, but these disclosures can paradoxically produce new (but less obvious) forms of ignorance. In the case of fracking fluid, for instance, the industry provided information in a format designed to make it difficult to identify troubling patterns in the data. There are several implications of this research. For policy makers, it would be wise to anticipate that disclosure policies will not close debate but instead shift its focus to a new area of conflict (such as the format of disclosures). Activists may need to develop strategies for mobilizing politically engaged audiences even when information is scarce or when disclosures are confusing or distracting.
Kinchy, Abby, and Guy Schaffer (2018) “Disclosure Conflicts: Crude Oil Trains, Fracking Chemicals, and the Politics of Transparency.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 43(6): 1011-1038.
Additional Selected Publications
Delborne, Jason A., Dresden Hasala, Aubrey Wigner, and Abby Kinchy (2020) “Dueling Metaphors, Fueling Futures: ‘Bridge Fuel’ Visions of Coal and Natural Gas in the United States.” Energy Research and Social Science 61 (online first November 2019): 101350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.101350.
Kinchy, Abby, Roopali Phadke, and Jessica M. Smith (2018) “Engaging the Underground: An STS Field in Formation.” Engaging Science, Technology, and Society 4: 22-42.
Brasier, Kathryn J., Kirk Jalbert, Abby J. Kinchy, Susan L. Brantley, and Colleen Unroe (2017) “Barriers to sharing water quality data: experiences from the Shale Network,” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 60(12): 2103-2121.
Eaton, Emily and Abby Kinchy (2016) “Quiet Voices in the Fracking Debate: Ambivalence, Nonmobilization, and Individual Action in Two Extractive Communities (Saskatchewan and Pennsylvania).” Energy Research and Social Science (special issue titled “Risk, the social sciences and unconventional hydrocarbons”).
Kinchy, Abby (2014) “Political Scale and Conflicts over Knowledge Production: The Case of Unconventional Natural Gas Development,” Routledge Handbook of Science, Technology, and Society, edited by Daniel L. Kleinman and Kelly Moore. New York: Routledge.
Kinchy, Abby J., Simona Perry, Danielle Reinhardt, Kathryn Brasier, Richard Stedman, and Jeffrey Jacquet (2014) “The Impact of New Natural Gas Development on Rural Communities in North America,” Rural America in a Globalizing World: Problems and Prospects for the 2010s. Morgantown: West Virginia University Press.
Kinchy, Abby J. and Simona L. Perry (2012). Can Volunteers Pick up the Slack? Efforts to Fill Knowledge Gaps about the Watershed Effects of Marcellus Shale Gas Development, Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum 22(2): 303-340.
Key idea: Spatial knowledge gaps
One of the main contributions of this project was to document the geo-spatial distribution of regulatory and voluntary water quality monitoring across the Marcellus Shale gas development region. The aim was to understand the social and political processes that created spatial knowledge gaps, and their consequences for affected communities. Regulators, scientists, and environmental advocates often argue that volunteer water monitoring projects can help to fill in gaps in regulatory science; yet I found that not all communities are equally well equipped to generate water quality knowledge through volunteer efforts. When public agencies only monitor a small proportion of streams, this may be relatively unproblematic for communities that can draw on the resources of a nearby university, a dedicated, well-funded environmental protection group, or a vibrant base of civic engagement. However, communities that lack such resources are at a disadvantage when they seek to make political and scientific claims about the condition of their watershed. This research suggests a need to reorient public spending on water monitoring toward communities that have received fewer knowledge investments in the past.
Kinchy, Abby, Sarah Parks, and Kirk Jalbert (2015) “Fractured knowledge: mapping the gaps in public and private water monitoring efforts in areas affected by shale gas development,” Environment and Planning C.
Key idea: Contentious baselining
How do we know if a new industrial activity is inflicting environmental harm? The science seems simple: compare environmental conditions before and after the activity began. However, the question of “before”—the baseline condition—can be contentious. In Pennsylvania, the natural gas industry has questioned claims of harm by pointing out gaps and uncertainties in baseline water quality knowledge. This case is suggestive of a more general dynamic of contentious baselining, which has significant implications for the distribution of power and authority in environmental disputes. I compared the practices for establishing baseline ground and surface water quality in Northeastern Pennsylvania that emerged during the first five years of the Marcellus Shale gas boom. While the practices were dissimilar, they were equally contentious, and in both cases, the gas industry appeared to have far greater influence than residents or public interest groups in establishing or questioning baselines. I presented this research at a refereed workshop at the Max Planck Institute in Berlin in 2018, and the policy implications of this study are spelled out in a paper in Environment and Planning E. I argue for the need to explore alternative legal frameworks for righting environmental wrongs that are not so centrally dependent on a documented baseline.
Kinchy, Abby (2019) “Contentious Baselining: The Politics of ‘Pre-Drilling’ Environmental Measures in Shale Gas Territory.” Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space 0 (0): 251484861987758. https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848619877585. (online first)
Key idea: Disclosure conflicts
Secrecy and transparency are persistent concerns across many dimensions of fracking governance in the United States. Protesters, investors, and emergency responders have demanded more information about the contents of fluids used in the extraction process, the routes of oil shipments by rail, and other dimensions of extraction. Drilling and railroad companies have typically resisted these demands. My research conceptualizes these struggles over access to information as disclosure conflicts. Through a close examination of two cases, disclosure of information about fracking fluids and crude oil train routes, I concluded that disclosure conflicts are dynamic, changing focus and character as information is released or concealed over time. For example, activist pressure can lead to industry disclosures, but these disclosures can paradoxically produce new (but less obvious) forms of ignorance. In the case of fracking fluid, for instance, the industry provided information in a format designed to make it difficult to identify troubling patterns in the data. There are several implications of this research. For policy makers, it would be wise to anticipate that disclosure policies will not close debate but instead shift its focus to a new area of conflict (such as the format of disclosures). Activists may need to develop strategies for mobilizing politically engaged audiences even when information is scarce or when disclosures are confusing or distracting.
Kinchy, Abby, and Guy Schaffer (2018) “Disclosure Conflicts: Crude Oil Trains, Fracking Chemicals, and the Politics of Transparency.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 43(6): 1011-1038.
Additional Selected Publications
Delborne, Jason A., Dresden Hasala, Aubrey Wigner, and Abby Kinchy (2020) “Dueling Metaphors, Fueling Futures: ‘Bridge Fuel’ Visions of Coal and Natural Gas in the United States.” Energy Research and Social Science 61 (online first November 2019): 101350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.101350.
Kinchy, Abby, Roopali Phadke, and Jessica M. Smith (2018) “Engaging the Underground: An STS Field in Formation.” Engaging Science, Technology, and Society 4: 22-42.
Brasier, Kathryn J., Kirk Jalbert, Abby J. Kinchy, Susan L. Brantley, and Colleen Unroe (2017) “Barriers to sharing water quality data: experiences from the Shale Network,” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 60(12): 2103-2121.
Eaton, Emily and Abby Kinchy (2016) “Quiet Voices in the Fracking Debate: Ambivalence, Nonmobilization, and Individual Action in Two Extractive Communities (Saskatchewan and Pennsylvania).” Energy Research and Social Science (special issue titled “Risk, the social sciences and unconventional hydrocarbons”).
Kinchy, Abby (2014) “Political Scale and Conflicts over Knowledge Production: The Case of Unconventional Natural Gas Development,” Routledge Handbook of Science, Technology, and Society, edited by Daniel L. Kleinman and Kelly Moore. New York: Routledge.
Kinchy, Abby J., Simona Perry, Danielle Reinhardt, Kathryn Brasier, Richard Stedman, and Jeffrey Jacquet (2014) “The Impact of New Natural Gas Development on Rural Communities in North America,” Rural America in a Globalizing World: Problems and Prospects for the 2010s. Morgantown: West Virginia University Press.
Kinchy, Abby J. and Simona L. Perry (2012). Can Volunteers Pick up the Slack? Efforts to Fill Knowledge Gaps about the Watershed Effects of Marcellus Shale Gas Development, Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum 22(2): 303-340.
