Here Are a Few Relevant Links, but There Are Many More

The author of the most recent Wheeler Panel Report on the Community Effects of shale gas development suggests there is little peer-reviewed literature on the topic of social/community impacts of unconventional gas. While this is generally true, probably the single most salient source has been nonetheless overlooked in this report:

Willow, A.J., and S. Wylie (ed’s.) 2014. Energy, Environment, Engagement: Encounters with Hyrdraulic Fracking. Special section of the Journal for Political Ecology 21:222-348.

This interesting collection of papers provides a half-dozen in-depth studies of social and community impacts of shale gas from the Marcellus Shale region As such, its inclusion would more than double the number of peer-reviewed papers cited on the topic of community effects of shale gas development in this discussion paper. The findings from these studies are, for the most part, much more troubling about the possibility of negative impacts on communities than is implied by the Community Effects discussion paper. It is essential reading and the findings from the various papers in this special issue should be incorporated into the Community Effects discussion paper, which is otherwise superficial. For example, the Discussion Paper’s relying so much on lessons from the past resource development impacts literature is highly problematic given the unique, varied and arguably much more severe impacts associated with unconventional shale gas development, as well as the more limited and shorter-term nature of the benefits.

As well, there is now considerable documentation of community impacts accessible on the web. In the modern age of internet communication I would consider such sources to fit the definition of “grey literature” that the author cites as so central to the Discussion Paper’s analysis. The peer-reviewed studies in the Willow and Wylie (2014) volume tend to confirm these abundant, informal reports and, as such, it would be wise to not simply dismiss them outright as “anecdotal”. Such anecdotal reporting is, after all, the raw material upon which social scientific research of the kind used to evaluate “community effects” of development is typically built. These various web-based reports are relevant sources that should also be used to inform a more credible and up-to-date review of community effects.

Here are a few relevant links, but there are many more:

http://albertavoices.ca/

http://www.frackcheckwv.net/impacts/the-human-story/

http://ecowatch.com/2014/01/31/personal-accounts-from-the-frontlines-of-fracking/

http://www.propublica.org/article/fracking-tales-stories-from-the-frontlines-of-gas-drilling

Sincerely,

Brad Walters, PhD

Professor of Geography & Environment

Mount Allison University