x
  • Bookmark and ShareShare
  • Earn Points
    What's this?
Does 'fracking' need a new name?
The slang for hydraulic fracturing sounds dirty and disconcerting — and now a study finds it even curbs support for the controversial gas-drilling technique.
Fri, Jun 01 2012 at 11:57 AM
 52
natural gas rig

Photo: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

Hydraulic fracturing is no stranger to criticism. Better-known as "fracking," the gas-drilling technique has been linked to environmental problems such as groundwater pollution, toxic air emissions and earthquakes, and it's spurring a "golden age" of natural gas that environmentalists worry will dampen demand for renewable energy.
 
But according to a recent study from Louisiana State University, part of the problem might be the word "fracking" itself. That's not to say semantics are responsible for flammable tap water, but the study does link phrasing to public opinion. In a survey of 731 randomly selected Louisiana residents, researchers found people were less likely to support hydraulic fracturing when they heard it called "fracking." In other words, the study suggests gas companies would benefit from using other words.
 
"Public aversion to the term likely results from the harsh consonants and perhaps the obvious similarity to a certain other four-letter word," LSU's Michael Climek says in a press release. "And this research shows that the unpleasant sound of the word is at least partially responsible for residents thinking 'fracking' is unsafe and that it should not be pursued by the state of Louisiana. If businesses and legislators use another word or description, constituents may be more willing to support hydraulic fracturing."
 
Of course, since it's impossible to assess whether hydraulic fracturing is safe based on its name, this is irrelevant from an environmental or public-health perspective. The LSU study is all about marketing, focusing on how to make fracking sound safe rather than actually making it safe. But that's the point of marketing — it's up to engineers and scientists to fix a product; marketers just make products seem cool.
 
As one marketing executive told American Public Media's Marketplace this week, the problem with "fracking" is that it describes the process a little too honestly. "The root of it is 'fracture,' and that's just not a very positive thing," said David Placek, CEO of Lexicon Branding. "Whether there's a fracture in a political party, or you fracture your arm, it's just nothing but negative connotations." Plus, in addition to evoking a well-known English expletive, Placek points out that "frack" is also similar to "frak," a made-up curse word from the TV show "Battlestar Galactica."
 
Among the survey respondents who heard the word "fracking," 35 percent called the process "somewhat safe" or "very safe," and 39 percent said Louisiana should encourage it. When the word wasn't used, those numbers grew to 43 and 52 percent, respectively. Instead of "fracking," the latter group heard only this description: "a way to extract natural gas that involves using a high-pressure injection of water, sand and chemicals to remove natural gas from rocks deep in the Earth's surface."
 
That phrasing may be less provocative, but it's still a mouthful. So, in the spirit of catchphrase marketing, we came up with a few alternatives that sound safer and more marketable. Let us know what you think in the poll above or in the comments below — but don't forget to watch your fracking language.
 
Related on MNN:
 

The opinions expressed by MNN Bloggers and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of MNN.com. While we have reviewed their content to make sure it complies with our Terms and Conditions, MNN is not responsible for the accuracy of any of their information.

You might also like:

Join the conversation

Comments: 52
Sign in with one of these accounts to add your comment.
anonymous
dana Jun 08 2012 at 3:52 PM

I think you all miss the point. Renaming and rebranding are techniques of advertising to make something more pallatable to the public. So let's rename "Fracking" "kill the earth for money".

|
anonymous
Well Informed Jun 08 2012 at 2:14 PM
Here's the skinny, After a small time oil man in the Illinois Basin spends roughly 250,000 dollars to drill an oil well into a formation of rock capable of producing 2 barrels of oil a day, he decides to do a frac-job. Why he would do this is simple, His 2 bbl/day well would take 1562 days to pay for it self at $80 oil, and simply cannot afford to operate that long with no income. If he fracs the well and quadruples his production (a whopping 8bbl/day) his payoff also just cut in quarter.
.... More
Now he can afford to drill for and produce "local oil" and feed his kids. These are the real people effected by the nay-sayers, small time producers. They cannot afford or comprehend all of the red-tape and legalities of the proposed regulations. I am sure it sounds and feels good to support government regulations against "Big Oil", but remember, what hurts the BPs and Mobils also trickles down to john Q. Public. These big companies can abide by these regulations and never throttle back their frac-ing operations because of huge capital and near-unlimited legal staff. But, it will spell disaster for real people. And, if anyone would like me to delve into the argument about the environmental impact, let me know.
|
anonymous
RosaLinda Jun 08 2012 at 1:54 PM

The first time I heard "fracking" it was a subsitite for the f-word on the now-defunct Sc-Fi show "Caprica."

|
anonymous
John Jun 08 2012 at 1:06 PM

Hydro-Drilling

And I'd absolutely love for kbeavin or ArpSchnitger to explain how hydraulic fracturing is worse for the environment than the coal mining that it is displacing. The only two choices we currently have are Coal or Shale Gas. Stop trying to pick a non-existent perfect and decide which of the real options are the lesser of the two evils.

|
anonymous
Love To See Us ... Jun 10 2012 at 11:13 AM
Wind Power has enormous potential in my state, NJ. But our governor is taking great amounts of funding from folks very interested in Fracking and shale gas strip mining. Our Koch Brothers funded governor has removed 400+ million dollars from the renewable energy fund (established, legislatively, and which raised its money as a surcharge). He transferred this money to the General Fund of NJ (thereby converting it to collected taxes, in case anyone writing history wants to let him go down as not
.... More
having raised taxes) and used it to balance the budget in 2008 or 9. Now he wants to take another 216 million dollars from the same fund to transfer it to the General Fund. His name is Chris Christie. Chris Christie raised taxes: [($400+ (that + represents a figure in the 10 millions) or (if this next grab goes through) soon totaling $616+ million) divided by the number of taxpayers in NJ]. When a state government has not done due diligence to promote clean energy, and when there is corruption behind that decision (I don't care which came first, he may well have been courting that money, or they may have already been talking) - how then can we say we gave the more advanced option a chance? How can we say we've made Wind Energy a priority? Not even upgrading appliances or energy conservation have received a thorough campaign to promote them--this is no basis for a result we can compare to the billions invested in fossil fuel production. This is no basis by which to declare a failure. The up and coming generations, who will suffer the most from all of this, will look at this all with their unjaded eyes. A term of slang is created very often by the way people associate it. Fracking sounds ugly because it is ugly; the harsh consonents work together because it makes people angry. I guess those who want to fight it may have coined the term. I was told by a guy who claimed to be formerly in the fracking business. He said it worked just fine with water as the injection fluid. And that didn't threaten aquifers (I'll defer to experts and evidence before I support that, but it's interesting). How can all the PR of big money in the world make us lose our minds and risk our water supply and all that depends on it? Whomever is scraping in the financial returns on this industry, I do not get the feeling you are thinking about others.
|
anonymous
okiejoe Jun 08 2012 at 4:50 PM

You know, shale gas is not the only kind of natural gas we produce. Plain old natural gas(methane) has been produced from wells that are just like oil wells, in fact, ARE oil wells, for well over 100 years. The gas is orders of magnitude cleaner than shale, burns better, and is still extremely plentiful.

|
anonymous
Guest Jun 09 2012 at 11:38 AM
Umm....okie, the gas that comes from a well that is fractured is methane.... Also, many oil wells are fractured. The issue is that without hydraulic fracturing, the amount of gas that can be extracted economically from known US reserves drops dramatically. Here is a general observation about many of the comments. Do a little independent and comparative research and evaluate the facts you find. For example, it has been established beyond a shadow of a doubt that the gas in the tap water in the Pennsylvania
.... More
house did not come from a drilled gas well.
|
anonymous
Well-Informed Jun 08 2012 at 1:50 PM

Why would we call it Hydro-Drilling? When a "frack" or a Frac, the logical abbreviation for Fracturing, is performed the well has been drilled for some time. I challenge any of the posters of these comments to explain what frac-ing is or does without checking wikipedia first. The name doesnt give the practice a bad rap, ill-informed, chicken littles do!

|
anonymous
snowyowl Jun 08 2012 at 10:58 PM

What fracking does is release methane and it's combustion products into the atmosphere, where they contribute to global warming. If you don't understand global warming and the scientific evidence for it, then you should re-name yourself "Mis-Informed", or better yet "Willfully Ignorant".

|
anonymous
Guest Jun 09 2012 at 12:25 PM
I assume that you don't wish to stop generating electricity or using some form of modern transportation. So, let's look at the credible and not so credible alternatives. Let's begin with the not so credible. Tidal and water current generation costs several orders of magnitude more than any other sources out there, is not very energy dense, and (in the scale needed) will have significant adverse impact on marine life. Hydro power in the quantities required is not possible in the US. Solar PV power
.... More
costs two or three times what wind power costs and even if the solar panels were free it would still cost too much. Thermal solar is expensive and will only work in some areas of the country. The same goes for geothermal. Wind power cost is reaching grid parity and is becoming more prevalent but without expensive storage likely cannot operate the grid on its own. That leaves nuclear, oil, coal and gas. Also, don't forget that a major contributor to co2 in the atmosphere is cars and trucks. If we replaced coal with a properly distributed combination of nuke, gas and wind and built infrastructure to power cars and trucks with natural gas, we would become the least greenhouse gas emitting industrialized country in the world.
|
soflaman
soflaman Jun 08 2012 at 1:41 PM

You're right John.  We should only focus on the two options that we have used forever.  Never mind that both of them "frack"-up the earth.  We should not spend any time or money on those pesky alternative energy sources.  And BTW, I think your name is unfortunate for you in that it makes people think of a plumbing fixture.  I know that must make things diffuclt for you, so I suggest you change your name to Dick!

|
anonymous
Guest Jun 09 2012 at 12:06 PM
I apologize for belaboring this point, but please provide a credible link to the information you assert. The fact is that until very recently (so recently that the data is still in reports and has not yet been peer-reviewed and published) that there was no direct measurement of fugitive emissions from fractured gas wells. I can tell you that the emissions that result are primarily from the equipment used to drill and pump fluid into the wells and the trucks that deliver and remove water from the
.... More
sites. That equipment use is temporary. When methane emits from a well head, that means something is wrong and needs to be repaired. Think of it this way: methane emissions in the quantities to do the type of damage you seem to be implying would also be costing the producer millions of dollars in lost revenue. Self interest alone prevents the type of leakage you assert. In the past, EPA has made estimates of these emissions. They made those estimates by flying over a drill site, photographing the equipment, counting the diesel engines and then estimated the emissions by using emission factors for engines manufactured in the 1970s and assuming that the engines ran at full power for days at a time. You can look this up,on their web site.
|
anonymous
John Jun 08 2012 at 3:00 PM
Hey, I'm all for figuring out how to capture anti-matter and have it create unlimited clean energy for us Star Trek style. Let me know when you have that figured out! Should we be researching better alternatives? Frak yes! Do we have them yet? Heck no. Our current alternatives are Coal, Shale Gas, Nuclear, or turn out the lights. And I'm not sure Nuclear is really an alternative to replace coal completely (although I probably should have listed it the first time). Nothing else is remotely close
.... More
to ready to meet US power demand. So....which do you prefer we use until the something better is ready?
|
anonymous
snowyowl Jun 08 2012 at 11:03 PM

We have a great, cost-effective alternative to all of the sources you mention: conservation and efficiency.

|
anonymous
Dennis Jun 08 2012 at 8:07 PM

Wind,solar,and tidal activity re great sources of renewable energy.

|
anonymous
Guest Jun 09 2012 at 11:42 AM

Do you drive a car, ride a bus, train or airliner? How do you propose to fuel those?

|
anonymous
Nick B Jun 08 2012 at 12:47 PM

Let's call it "Corn Sugar".....

|
anonymous
okiejoe Jun 08 2012 at 4:44 PM

Nick, I like it. It goes right over the heads of those who don't understand 'high fructose corn syrup.'

|
anonymous
Arp Schnitger Jun 08 2012 at 12:15 PM

Sure.Let's sugar-coat what this procedure really is, call it "Ice Cream Making," or "Mamma's Milk." Truth is, the name change is desperately wanted by an industry that doesn't want to be regulated, doesn't want to have to give up the practice, and doesn't give a happy damn what devastation it wreaks in aquifers upon which humans depend for potable water. A rattlesnake without rattles is still deadly. Wake up, people!

|
anonymous
Guest Jun 09 2012 at 11:44 AM

Please provide a link to a credible source where hydraulic fracturing wreaked devastation to an aquifer. I have been researching and measuring the environmental impact of natural gas extraction for several years and I have not come across a case that fits your bill.

|
anonymous
Mike Norton Jun 06 2012 at 12:02 PM

Fracking is going to revive manufacturing and create lots of jobs in this country. Gas is a lot cleaner burning and cheaper than coal.
I offer the new name of Lateral Harvesting or "latvesting"

|
kbeavin's picture
Seakat Jun 04 2012 at 6:40 PM

There is not excuse for fracking, no way to clean it up, no way to cover it up. Making the name prettier for it isn't going to help what it does for the environment.

|
anonymous
Kev C Jun 04 2012 at 1:00 PM

Only really one option.
Outlaw it and then you wouldn't have a problem.
One planet, one choice. Don't Frack it!

|
icanwaitanotherday's picture
icanwaitanotherday Jun 04 2012 at 9:24 AM

Don't they use "fracking" as a dirty word on battlestar galactica? Or was that "frelling"? I get them mixed up

|
anonymous
svann Jun 08 2012 at 11:03 AM

Yep. Fracking was from BSG. The obvious meaning. Used VERY frequently. Frelling is from some other sci-fi from way back.

|

EDITORS' PICKS

tease kids in woods

line

tease stargazing

line

tease hand

Advertisement
From our sponsor

NEWSLETTER

Mother Nature. Delivered
Advertisement