A recent study led by Binghamton University and UNLV reveals how energy companies employ persistent, personalized tactics to convince landowners to permit fracking on their properties, leading to significant concerns about the impact of these practices.
A groundbreaking study led by Binghamton University and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) has uncovered how energy companies pressure landowners into allowing hydraulic fracturing (fracking) on their properties, often resorting to persistent and personalized tactics.
Led by Benjamin Farrer, who was a doctoral student at Binghamton University at the time of the study and is currently a visiting professor of political science at UNLV, the research highlights that energy companies employ a variety of methods to convince landowners, including calls, letters and even in-person visits. When initial attempts fail, they often leverage “compulsory unitization” laws to compel landowners to agree.
“Hydraulic fracturing is a controversial issue, but a lot of the controversy has been focused on the big-picture consequences, for the climate and the economy,” Farrer said in a news release. “One of our hopes for this paper is that it will encourage policymakers to pay more attention to the individual experiences of the people who are closest to the issue.”
The use of compulsory unitization laws allows drilling to proceed if a certain percentage of landowners in an area agree, forcing the remaining landowners to comply.
“Under fracking, though, where the drilling happens horizontally under multiple properties, compulsory unitization can force mineral owners who otherwise don’t want to lease their property to do so,” Robert Holahan, associate professor of political science at Binghamton University, said in the news release.
The researchers investigated Ohio’s extensive fracking history, analyzing data from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Among the 37 applications reviewed, evidence showed energy companies repeatedly contacting landowners, sometimes in highly intrusive ways. One example involves a landowner undergoing radiation treatment who faced persistent outreach from a landman pushing for a lease agreement.
“Overall, we find widespread use of personalized tactics like phone calls and visits, as well as evidence that these tactics are used persistently, as landmen make multiple attempts over multiple months to contact landowners,” the researchers noted. “We also find that many negotiations end in compulsion rather than in consent.”
Holahan emphasized the need for continuous updates to laws governing resource extraction, noting that legal tools originally designed to ensure fair distribution of revenues now often force landowners into unwanted leases.
“Effective resource policy requires a continuous updating of the law as technologies change,” he added.
The researchers plan a follow-up survey with individuals whose records were studied to verify the findings. They are also surveying residents in New York and Pennsylvania’s Twin Tiers region to gauge views on conventional and green energy projects.
The paper, “Assessing How Energy Companies Negotiate With Landowners When Obtaining Land for Hydraulic Fracturing,” is published in the journal Nature Energy.