New Study from Gregory FCA and GoMarcellusShale.com Shows Marcellus Shale Continues to Take Hit in Public Opinion

New Study from Gregory FCA and GoMarcellusShale.com Shows Marcellus Shale Continues to Take Hit in Public Opinion

 

Surprisingly, Marcellus Shale scores better in sentiment in social media than in the traditional press, while dwarfing online buzz of other major shale plays

 

A recent survey of Marcellus Shale public opinion, conducted by Gregory FCA and GoMarcellusShale.com, reveals that this vital source of domestic clean energy continues to take a public opinion thumping as traditional media reporting turns negative toward development of natural gas in the Appalachian Basin.

 

The study—which used Nielsen BuzzMetrics to cull more than 45,000 traditional media sources and over 150 million social media sources, including blogs, blog comments, message boards, forums, Facebook and Twitter—shows that the interest in Marcellus Shale by the media and general public is immense, drawing some 56,625 comments over the past year, more than the online and media interest shown in the eight other major shale plays throughout the United States.  

 

While the interest is intense, the public sentiment toward Marcellus Shale development is exceedingly negative, compared to other shale plays. In fact, in traditional media, Marcellus Shale proves to be a lightning rod for negative press reports, with a positive sentiment of only 1.1 on a 10-point scale with five being the most positive sentiment and negative 5 being the lowest sentiment. As a point of comparison, Niobrara and Bakken Shale plays scored positive sentiments in the traditional media over the past year, with 5 and 4.5, respectively. Only the Utica Shale play scored more negative sentiment in traditional media, with a negative 1.5 sentiment in traditional press.

 

Interestingly, Marcellus Shale showed higher public sentiment in the digital domain, scoring nearly double the positive sentiment in online comments—a positive 2.8 sentiment in social media compared to 1.1 positive sentiment in traditional media.

 

“Clearly, traditional media has been persuaded by environmental groups as well as broad-based media vehicles—such as the Oscar-nominated documentary ‘Gasland,’” says Keith Mauck, the publisher of GoMarcellusShale.com. “This has had a corrosive effect on the public opinion of Marcellus Shale, penetrating the reporting by mainstream media and tainting their worldview of the issue.”

 

At the same time, sentiment in user-generated content—social media—is nearly twice as positive than comments and reporting in traditional media.

 

“That’s an interesting and counterintuitive conclusion, particularly considering that environmental groups are typically savvy social networkers who know how to get their message out online,” says Greg Matusky, President of Gregory FCA, one of the nation’s 50 largest public relations agencies. “It tells me that while the media is decidedly negative, citizens and supporters of natural gas development in the Appalachian Basin have found a place online to voice their support, a place that’s unfiltered by reporters and editors. It also suggests that the industry has not done a good enough job of communicating facts to traditional media.”

 

Conversely, industry groups may have found an effective way of countermining traditional media reporting.

 

“The recent New York Times expose comes immediately to mind,” says Matusky. “The article, which reported on groundwater contamination by Marcellus Shale development, was strongly attacked online by industry groups. Our study shows that this kind of rapid response through unfiltered and direct channels can affect public opinion.”

 

What is not so clear, however, is whether more positive online sentiment will eventually affect traditional media coverage and convince reporters and editors that domestic, clean energy, if developed responsibly, represents a major energy advance for America.

 

“The stakes are high—as evidenced this month when America went to war arguably over Mideast oil and on the heels of a nuclear disaster in Japan,” says Mauck. “America’s future depends on an effective, long-term energy policy, and public opinion weighs heavily in the direction of that policy, which is why this study is so timely and important for our nation.”

 

The study, which includes sentiment reporting by energy type, development method, and company players, can be downloaded at http://www.marcellus-shale-public-opinion-report.com/.

Views: 2233

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Tom Copley on May 28, 2011 at 5:05pm
Bill-- My bad! I meant to point to this section of the Alaska Permanent Fund article where it gives the payout amounts.Palin was in office from December, 2006 until July, 2009 when the largest proceeds were paid. Not saying she made it happen, but she did nothing to interfere. --Tom
Permalink Reply by Kathleen Elsie Gibbs on May 28, 2011 at 2:36pm

When there are seven or more well to be drilled and fracked in a mile of someones home it can take several years of trucks and noise. Before the first Marcellus well was drilled we had five wells drilled on our road by Atlas. Atlas (yes that is the name on the permits) now is scheduling the Marcellus. I can only hop that the farmers and large land owners have leases that cover all the areas of drilling and are not being cheated.

Our lease over the hill from our home is for all the levels of drilling. We held out till January 2011.

Permalink Reply by craig on March 30, 2011 at 8:09am

So the movie Gasland is substantive and not a PR moment? Really? 

Here's the truth about workers on drilling rigs and frac crews. The local driller was recently told to hire ALL Pennsylvanians that apply and pass the physical and drug tests. How many have they hired, you may ask...just one so far.... the rest failed the drug test or physical. Who's fault is that?

My business is starting to benefit from the drilling that just started 3 weeks ago in our area. A LOCAL man placed a very large order and when I asked him what he did for a living he said I'm on a fracing crew. He was born and raised in PA. I asked what prompted him to look into a fracing job....his reply was "unemployment". He went to school and learned the basics of fracing etc. He works 2 weeks on and 5 days off and makes over $1,000 take home a week. Now comes the rub: He works his butt off doing manual work, and gets paid well for it. In todays world not very many folks are physically fit enough to do this kind of work, or they refuse to take such work. 

Another good reason you should be happy they do use at least some out of state workers is the fact that us PA folks just don't have the required drilling/fracing knowledge/experience to qualify for some of the jobs. 

 

Permalink Reply by Tom Copley on March 30, 2011 at 9:17am
Positive affect tends to be associated with higher credibility. The more favorable sentiment towards the Marcellus shale than in traditional media may merely reflect higher credibility or believability of social media, not that industry groups are having more success there. However, it underscores the importance of the venue, the need for an effective social media strategy, and that credibility is a key dynamic. --Tom
Permalink Reply by Anthony(tony) Tavelli on March 30, 2011 at 2:35pm
Well said Tom. On the surface spills or truck roll overs,which I have not read any articles on aquifer contamination from such. If one has a good understanding of aquifers,you're fears would be lessened. Unconfined are at risk. The more numerus confined aquifer and that which most wells are drawing water from. Confined have a natural layer of protection. Unless you spill into the recharge area,nothing gets into it. To help with perspective,80% of rain water runs off. Only 20% may make it into a confined aquifer.To contaminate a confined from the surface,unlikely.
Permalink Reply by Jim Walters on May 28, 2011 at 1:03am

i watched Gasland. . . . doesn't matter what Fox said, but the common folk he was interviewing made a huge impact. One that is hard to deny. Now whether the problems came from far beneath the earth or right on top. . . . fact is there were problems, and because of these problems people suffered. An operation of this size is bound to have problems, that's just the nature of the beast.

Are the rewards worth the risk to you? If so, fine......... but to think all this gas is going to benefit America when China has already become a huge player in Chesapeake's book is kinda foolish. I hear a loud sucking sound (as did Ross Perot) and this time it's your gas going to Asia . . . so let's keep it real, forget the Nationalism and ask yourself if it's worth it to you, personally, to have the trucks, the noise, and the occasional accident on your property. If so . . . . good luck. 

 

I only own five acres, but it's in a heavily wooded area of hills and wildlife so quiet at night I can hear a deer fart in the woods. I wouldn't trade that for any money cause in this world peace and quiet is near but impossible to find. 

 

Permalink Reply by craig on May 28, 2011 at 4:52am

Jim,

If the problems you are talking about refers to being able to light your tap water on fire, then those same people have been suffering for 5 decades, at least. That is how long they have been lighting their tap water on fire. Drilling had nothing to do with it, however greed(read a lawsuit) by the individuals in the so called 'movie' is what is driving their emotions. Gasland isn't worth commenting on anymore. 

As far as China and our gas is concerned...we have had posters here claiming that they are already shipping LNG to China, however you will find that the infrastructure to do this doesn't exist yet. Personally, I'd like nothing better than to shift the balance of payments our way with LNG as well as our food supply. 

Something I've wondered about: What would a person that feels as you do say if I bought the land next door to you and started a pig farm? I doubt seriously that you would be happy with any kind of farm next door and would be looking for a way to stop it as well. 

Let them drill, lets just make sure it is done as safely as practicable. 

Permalink Reply by Ralph Wayne Detwiler on May 28, 2011 at 5:36am

Craig,

 

Great ans.

 

Permalink Reply by Jim Walters on May 28, 2011 at 6:55am

Pigs? . . . I don't know . . . but I dairy farmed in Alaska for about four years and lived in the barn above the cows without much of a problem . . . but pigs? you may get a bitch or two out of me I suppose. Now if it were a farm like grandpa had with a nice mixture of cows, pigs, chickens, etc. That would be a bonus I believe. I'm just not much into the caged chicken syndrome kind of farming....... AND 

 

I have learned to be tree hugger (after 40 years as a home builder) . . . :-)

 

About Gasland, I suppose you guys have choked that issue to death by now, so your probably correct, but I just saw it a couple weeks ago and those people are real IMO so. . . . . . 

 

Like I said . . . it's a personal decision. My neighbor signed the lease and we are still friends. . . . But to think the product will remain in this country and lower prices is a bit naive IMO. When I was commercial fishing in Ak a guy told me most of the oil from the North Slope went to Japan. Don't know if it's true, but . . . my bet is the gas will surely end up in China. Regardless, no argument on my part, just an opinion. 

Permalink Reply by Jim Walters on May 28, 2011 at 7:13am
forget the Japan thing I just snoped it and it seems to be an urban legend kind of thing . . . . at least with crude . . . refined ? I don't know.
0l1a6laz7smpfPermalink Reply by 0l1a6laz7smpf on May 28, 2011 at 7:30am

Gee I am glad Jim that you just posted on this discussion cause I somehow didn't read it when Keith first posted the discussion.

What a wonderful realistic presentation at that link that James Northrup provided about fracking (pg.1).   You have to wonder if the oil company would have given the landowner a full evaluation (such as showing the video about fracking and its impact on a town) before signing the lease if it would have made the Lessor more enept to do a better contract if he/she decided to lease.

And if any hold out for reasons you mentioned Jim for privacy of their own peaceful lot...seems to me eventually the noise and traffic, etc. would be all around.  So the idea of the townpeople coming together when they find that the oil companies want to lease in their area is a good time to identify the types of issues that are brought up (normally afterwards when it really should have been discussed thoroughly to begin with) regarding the process of the drilling.

Permalink Reply by Jim Walters on May 28, 2011 at 10:07am

wow man . . . I just watched those two videos and what blows my mind is that ANYONE would want that kind of crap in their environment at all. . . . I know you guys are all gung ho for this, but for the life of me I don't see why . . . so after that I gotta say I am dead on to the anti crowd , , , thanks man for making up my mind for me. . . .

 

The only reason a company man would go so far as to show that stuff you think is so righteous is that they KNOW they have a lock on this and don't really give a s..it whether we like it or not. . . . well we'll see . . . .  

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service