A Summary Report of a 2017 Survey of the Politics of Oil and Gas Development Using Hydraulic Fracturing in Colorado
Connect with the author
Below is an excerpt from a memo written by Kristin L. Olofsson, Tanya Heikkila, and Christopher M. Weible for the Workshop on Policy Process Research on July 26, 2017.
It appears that quality scientific evidence may be influential in impacting positions of respondents regarding oil and gas development that uses hydraulic fracturing. When respondents were given circumstances under which they would be willing to expand oil and gas development that uses hydraulic fracturing (see Q7), the most convincing argument was if convincing scientific evidence showed it is completely safe to the environment or public health, followed by convincing scientific evidence showing it boosts the economy. The least convincing argument was when a majority of Coloradans supported expansion. Relatedly, when respondents were given circumstances under which they would support government decisions to limit or stop oil and gas development that uses hydraulic fracturing (see Q8), the most convincing scenario was again if scientific evidence shows it is a significant threat to the environment or public health, followed by evidence showing that it hurts the economy.