UNDERSTANDING THE DYNAMICS OF THE

DIFFUSION OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

TECHNOLOGY FOR SHALE GAS EXTRACTION

IN THE UK

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO

THE UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER

ALLIANCE MANCHESTER BUSINESS SCHOOL

FOR THE DEGREE OF

B.SC. MANAGEMENT (INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS ECONOMICS)

DAVID FARKAS

2015/2016

SUPERVISED BY DR PAUL DEWICK

2

“This dissertation is my own original work and has not been submitted for any assessment or

award at the University of Manchester or any other university.”

3

ABSTRACT

The energy system of today is outdated, and not sustainable any more. Thus change is needed

and the sooner it may come the better. This research investigates the motors and barriers

regarding the development of the hydraulic fracturing TIS in the UK. The research methods

adopted include a literature review and event history analysis supported by both secondary

empirical and non-empirical data. The structural and functional analysis of the Technological

Innovation System (TIS) and the assessment of the phase of development together provide a

good base for identifying the motors and barriers of the TIS. The study observed, that the

current main motor of the development are the entrepreneurial activities, while the main

barrier was identified in the lack of positive public support for fracking. Finally, this

dissertation is moving further by proposing recommendations for further research that could

advance the system further, and probably direct the UK towards the right decision in solving

the rapidly arising energy questions.

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 5

1.1. Overview of the shale gas extraction process ........................................................... 6

1.2. Environmental risks associated with fracking ......................................................... 7

1.3. Research Question ....................................................................................................... 8

2. Literature review .............................................................................................................. 10

3. Research methodology ..................................................................................................... 20

4. Results and findings ........................................................................................................ 25

4.1. Structure of the TIS .................................................................................................. 25

4.2. Functions of the TIS .................................................................................................. 26

4.2.1. Entrepreneurial Activities ................................................................................. 26

4.2.2. Knowledge Development ................................................................................. 27

4.2.3. Knowledge Diffusion........................................................................................ 29

4.2.4. Guidance of the Search ..................................................................................... 30

4.2.5. Market Formation ............................................................................................. 31

4.2.6. Resource Mobilisation ...................................................................................... 33

4.2.7. Support from Advocacy Coalitions .................................................................. 34

5. Analysis and Discussion ................................................................................................... 37

6. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 41

7. References ......................................................................................................................... 43

8. Bibliography ..................................................................................................................... 47

9. Appendix ........................................................................................................................... 48

9.1. Table of actors ........................................................................................................... 48

9.2. Table of events by system functions ........................................................................ 49

9.2.1. Entrepreneurial Activities ................................................................................. 49

9.2.2. Knowledge Development ................................................................................. 50

9.2.3. Knowledge Diffusion........................................................................................ 52

9.2.4. Guidance of the Search ..................................................................................... 53

9.2.5. Market Formation ............................................................................................. 54

9.2.6. Resource Mobilisation ...................................................................................... 55

9.2.7. Support from Advocacy Coalitions .................................................................. 56

5

1. INTRODUCTION

The significance of shale gas explorations and commercial extraction in the US induced an

increasing interest in such projects all around the World. Several European countries have

started explorations and reserve estimations, although commercial fracturing remains present

solely in the US as of today. The potential effects of commercial extractions include a further

downward pressure on the natural gas prices, and evidently a higher energy security for the

extracting countries, which could prove as an especially burning issue for the UK. As we can

see in Figure 1, the level of imports has steeply increased since 2004.

Although there can be no analogy drawn between the US and the potential UK production,

recent studies showed that the UK also has highly significant reserves of shale gas, that could

supply the country for decades, even under the conditions of increasing energy demand.

However, there are major environmental and sustainability issues rooting in shale gas

extraction. Learning on the examples of the US, where shale gas was simply exempted from

the regulations of the major federal laws, many of them regulation emissions. Regulators in

the UK aim to wait until a sufficient amount of research is available on the potential risks

involved with the major issues around fracking, but as they are also initiating one of the first

major niche markets for fracking in the EU, therefore given the lack or relatively low level of

international regulations gives policy makers a good chance to set a precedent for countries to

Figure 1 (source: DECC)

6

follow. A high number of permits issued for experimental drilling and further shale

explorations in addition to several studies that were initiated in order to clearly understand the

potential impacts of the risks. Studies mainly confirmed the different environmental threats,

although all of them concluded, that with a sufficient level of monitoring and maintaining

well-integrity all these risks could be contained. Thus, research as of today has given a green

light to fracking. However, activists and the public did not. After two tremors happened at one

of the experimental drilling sites, activists started a lobby against fracturing. The increasing

number of activists and organizations fighting against the implementation of fracking in the

UK’s energy mix has served one of the most significant challenges to policy makers.

1.1. Overview of the shale gas extraction process

Hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling is no new method for the extraction industry. First

experiments took place in 1947, and the method was commercially applied since 1950,

although shale reserves proved harder to locate. According to the Society of Petroleum

Engineers 2.5 million fracks were made world-wide. The whole fracturing process consists of

… steps: site exploration and preparation, road and well pad construction, vertical and

horizontal drilling, well casing, perforation, hydraulic fracturing, completion, production and

abandonment of the well, and finally reclamation of the site. At the time of the actual

extraction process firstly the embedding rocks are cracked using explosives. As the second

step a mixture of water, “frac sand” and certain chemicals are pumped into the well under

high pressure, in order to expand and conserve the cracks. Using this method oil or gas can

flow out, via the same pipe used before. This method proves to be more cost-effective in the

case of shale oil and gas than other conventional drilling processes. In addition, horizontal

drilling is often included in the process, as it is a more cost effective and more

environmentally friendly way to exploit the opened well, which can be significantly spread

and would need several drilling sites in the surface otherwise to mine. A graphical

representation of the extraction process can be seen in Figure 2.

7

1.2. Environmental risks associated with fracking

As of everything that interferes with our natural world, fracking also has risks, which can

cause serious harms if they are not managed. First of all, water and water supplies are

threatened in several ways by fracking. As a life-cycle assessment study (Tagliaferri et al.,

2015) showed, the water usage of fracking is rather significant. As the water flows back from

the well it is either disposed using conventional disposable pipe, or it can be recycled for

future use. In the latter, and evidently more favourable case, the water usage can be

significantly decreased, but in lack of this extensive use of fracturing can pose a serious risk

on the water supplies of the country. In addition the study by Public Health England (2014)

pointed out that both gas and fracking fluid leakages from the well would contaminate

drinking water supplies in the area of the well, which imposes huge risk factor for public

health in the area in mining. The study also reported that methane leakages from the well on

the surface increase our greenhouse gas emission level, which is not aligned with the general

direction towards which policy makers are governing the country. However, generally

Figure 2 (source: Howarth et al., 2011)

8

speaking a report published by DECC (Department of Energy & Climate Change, 2013)

found that emissions generated by other, conventional natural gas extraction methods are on a

similar level. Thus the study implies that exploiting the shale gas resources of the UK could

serve as a potential bridge on the way to a lower carbon future of the UK.

The third, and reportedly greatly rare risk is seismic activity caused be fracking. As a result of

the method how the fractures are made smaller tremors could be generated, although these

rarely hit a significant volume. Such thing happened in the UK as well in 2011, when two

tremors (1.5 and 2.3 Richter Scale) were reportedly caused by the direct injection of the

fracking fluid. (DECC, 2012)

Majority of the studies and reports argue that in the case of proper well management these

risks could be eliminated. Therefore the main debate in the UK is happening around the

economic viability and the sustainability of further developing the industry. Researchers at

Tyndell Institute in Manchester reminded, that as the UK is committed to national and

international emission targets, investing in low or zero emission energy sources would be

more appropriate. Despite the increasing pressure coming from the public and a few

researchers the government have supported fracking consistently, while also ensuring that the

infrastructure is constructed properly and well-integrity is monitored. Recently, at the end of

2015, the latest license roll-out was carried out, where 61 new shale gas potential permits

were offered for 13 different companies.

1.3. Research Question

This dissertation aims to introduce the dynamics of the diffusion of hydraulic fracturing in the

UK, by applying the Technological Innovation System (TIS) approach. In order to provide an

insight to this, the study will answer the main research question:

What are the motors and potential barriers of development in the UK fracking TIS?

These motors and barriers can be identified while performing both the structural and the

functional analysis of the TIS. Therefore the study will aim to introduce the main actors,

networks, institutions and system functions that are responsible for the development of the

market.

In order to be able to tackle this question firstly the phase of the development have to be

identified .After mapping the events this can be easily determined, as for each phase of

9

maturity different set of functions should be drivers of the TIS. Therefore the main sub-

question the paper will aim to answer is:

What is the phase of development of the UK fracturing TIS, and which are the important

system functions in that phase?

After the structural and functional analysis of the TIS, the results are compared against the

proposed beneficial set of functions for the given level of maturity. From this step the main

strengths of each function will be possible to conclude. Therefore from the answers of this

sub-question complemented with the structural and functional analysis the motors of

development in the TIS can be identified. After this a revision of the supporting function are

essential to identify the potential barriers of the development, by identifying if a number of

the supporting functions are missing or are unfulfilled.

This study benefits research on key drivers of new energy technology diffusion. Given the

nature of the energy market is can also benefit policy makers to understand where to intervene

in order to reach the most desirable technology for fuel extraction. There are already studies

available on the possible pathways for the UK on its transition to a lower carbon future

(Foxon et al., 2010, Foxon, 2013;Hughes and Strachan, 2010), but given the recently

discovered shale gas resources of the country, a better understanding of the potentials of the

fracking industry would be beneficial.

After a thorough review of the existing academic literature around the fracking industry in the

UK and the use of the TIS approach on similar case studies, the study will construct and

analyse the Technology Innovation System for fracking in the UK, using the method of event-

history analysis. Therefore further chapters are the following: Chapter 2 the Literature Review

introducing the academic background of the dissertation; Chapter 3 will elaborate on the

research method used. Afterwards, in chapter 4 the findings will be presented, to be followed

by Chapter 5 the Analysis and Discussion of the findings with the aim of finding the answers

for the research question and sub-question. Finally, Chapter 6 will conclude the findings, and

propose the limitations and potential further research topics for the study. The literature used

is found in Chapter 7 and some complicated tables are presented in Chapter 8.

10

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

After the brief introduction to the study and the underlying technology this section will cover

a review of the academic work surrounding the research topic. Firstly a brief introduction to

studies using different approaches to analyse technology diffusion and then focusing on the

innovation system approach, namely the Technology Innovation System framework, as it

proved to be the most used among the literature to analyse niche and developed markets for

new, innovative technologies. Finally, the chapter includes a thorough review of the TIS

framework explaining the role of the functions it uses, and a showcase of studies that used the

TIS method to analyse the market development of similar niche and low-carbon emission

technologies.

As Usha Rao and Kishore points out in their review (Usha Rao and Kishore, 2009) on

technology diffusion models there is no ultimate diffusion pattern that can be used to describe

how a technology spreads among the market. Their study especially focused on RETs

(Renewable Energy Technology) and concluded that their diffusion pattern was greatly

different from those of ordinary products on the market. The main reason behind this is that

the government has a market maker role for the technologies, as they are providing a less

economical, although highly sustainable solution for energy generation. As a result not many

studies have been carried out on RET diffusion using diffusion models. Analysis of this area

was mainly focusing on more on analytical frameworks based on barriers to diffusion and

policies.

Policy analysis is an often used way to analyse diffusion of new energy technology. A study

carried out on the diffusion of wind energy technologies in Germany (Jacobsson and Lauber,

2004) analyse by linking diffusion patterns to actual policies with tools of policy analysis to

construct an analytical framework to be able to understand the less usual forces effecting the

diffusion of RET. They point out that the diffusion process is having the characteristics more

of a transition process, as countries are highly relying on a different source of energy

generation at the moment. They identify institutional change as a key condition and also claim

it as the main initial condition of the diffusion. This includes changes in both R&D and

educational policies that can generate a knowledge formation prior to the emergence of the

markets. After this, identified by other studies as well, the market generation role of policy

makers is key. This attracts and encourages many firms to take a part in the diffusion process

of the new technology, which they often achieve by forming coalitions with other non-

commercial organizations such as universities or NGOs. Finally in the centre of a transition

11

process stands the entry of new firms and organisations. These new entrants not only can

bring fresh knowledge into the existing industry, but can also fill in all the gaps emerged since

the early entry firms have started to develop the market. The study also points out that the

diffusion to be successful it has to be defendable of economic grounds.

A different approach to analyse technology diffusion became more popular after the book of

Christopher Freeman on the Japanese Innovation System, published in 1987, and another

group of academics started to use more systemic approaches to analyse diffusion. Many are

using the National Innovation System approach (Nelson, 1992; Lundvall, 1992) taking a

country as the unit of analysis, others use the Sectoral Innovation System (Malerba et al.,

2009; Rogge and Hoffmann, 2010; McKelvey and Orsenigo, 2001) taking a sector of the base

of their analysis. On the other hand recent studies argue that using the Technological

Innovation System (TIS) approach (Carlsson and Stankiewicz, 1991) is more appropriate as it

focuses on one technology or product (Jacobsson and Johnson, 2000; Cooke, 2001). Given

that each technology has its own TIS with its unique factors, they found that TIS is especially

appropriate for analysing technologies competing to fulfil the same function in the market

environment, exactly how fracking is one of the many low carbon technologies to become the

dominant on the greatly uncertain energy market of the UK. The paper declares the issue of

diffusion of RETs and low-carbon energy solutions as an issue of the formation of a new

system involving reformed or new networks and institutions that support the new technology.

Using this framework is not only the most appropriate to discover system failures, (Foxon and

Pearson, 2008) we can also identify institutional and network failures that are blocking the

transition process, enabling a more in depth analysis of the diffusion of the technologies.

A recent study by Negro et al. (2010) used TIS as a tool to identify the typical system failures

of sustainable energy technologies that often block the formation and evolution of an

innovation system. They have introduced seven main failures in their paper. (1) The Valley of

Death: technologies often get stuck on a particular stage on the development path, where the

high capital demand of the technology is matched with a still high level of uncertainty about

the performance of the technology on the market, which makes it greatly difficult to progress

from this stage. (2) Attention shift: the paper identifies two major potential attention shifting

points. The first can be related to technological hypes. As the time development and diffusion

of radical innovation takes is highly underestimated the attention of actors, especially policy

makers, strongly fluctuates, especially when a technology cannot show major progress under

the estimated time period. In this case a new, promising high-tech alternative can easily

12

collect all the attention. The second potential shift is a result of the changing policy

objectives. (3) Unstable policy instruments are partly the result of the attention shift just

discussed above, so they root from the same misjudgement of the innovation time frames in

addition to the technological disappointments. This explains the inconsistency behind R&D

subsidies, which can also be present within a time period without a change in the policy

objectives. The study noticed that subsidies were granted for limited time periods and some

programmes have even stopped, to be later restarted with a different set of conditions. (4) De-

Legitimisation is probably the most evident system failure of them all. Lack of legitimisation

makes a new technology socially less accepted and also less relevant to the compliant

institutions. In the case of the energy market this is an even more serious case, as the

traditional market players had decades to solidify their place and role among customers. In

addition a paper have pointed out, that in many occasions the formation of the new TIS is

blocked by incumbent players on purpose to protect their position from potential threats.

(Bergek et al., 2008) Other than these media and NGOs can also use this technique to shape

the market according to their interest or principles. The de-legitimisation can happen with

respect to three dimensions, namely performance (for example in terms of energy output or

environmental impact), potential (economical, technical, physical) and proven functionality

(in terms of cost and technology). However legitimacy is not a pre-requisite of a TIS (Berget

et al., 2008), the formation happens at the same time, and as discussed at the functions of the

TIS below, legitimacy is one of the seven. (5) Poor diffusion of knowledge: in a new

innovation system featuring many actors the fast and wide diffusion of knowledge is essential

for the efficient development of the system and also of the technology itself. In addition the

level of uncertainty is significantly lower and by connecting different actors a collective

demand can be articulated towards the market. Although many studies point out that

sustainable energy entrepreneurs and other actors lack the attention towards creating

innovation networks and as a result the flow of information is far from efficient, despite the

clear need for such relations as many actors are relatively small and lack essential resources to

become a part of the innovation system. On the other hand, evidently in many situations these

relations are created both on national and international levels. A recent study by van Alphen

et al. (2009) on the Norwegian CCS innovation system showed exactly that beside the project

networks on the national level the Norwegian CCS system is a part of an international

innovation system, which enables Norwegian actors to participate in international

programmes and also enhances the level of international investments. (6) Lack of capabilities:

general incapability can be related to management issues around the business level actors,

13

such as misunderstanding the demands of potential customers can result in an inappropriate

solution of customer needs. Also, the lack of capabilities of entrepreneurs to fulfil the high

standards set by ministries and authorities, who often lack the technological knowledge to set

appropriate standards, leads to wrong technological choices and lack of market instruments.

This often results in an early settlement of the dominant design in terms of the new

technology, however academics argue, that in such an early period of the evolution of an

industry the level of uncertainty is relatively high, and therefore it is essential to experiment

with a variety of designs. (Bergek and Jacobsson, 2003) In order to achieve this policy makers

must be in possession of the knowledge to set realistic expectations, and to make appropriate

decisions about which technology to further subsidise. Other incapability issues include the

lack of co-operation among entrepreneurs. The paper argues, that the early stage competition

present among the actors involved in the R&D processes can often lead to a lower level of

influence against the incumbent technology, as well as the chances to change regulations and

create a niche market for their products are significantly lower than in a coalition. (7)

Emerging technology being judged and compared to current incumbent technology: the paper

argues, that the two main criteria among which both incumbent and new market entrant

technologies are judged are price and size. They also point out that only large scale

technologies can have a short- and medium-term effect on the power balance of a country,

thus smaller technologies are not even being considered. This is partly a result of failure

mentioned above, such as authorities lacking knowledge, or incumbent actors trying to de-

legitimise the diffusion of the new technology. A typical example of this is the biomass

gasification technology. In Sweden a major energy company has chosen wind turbines instead

of biomass, as it was not large scale enough to replace the generation rate of a nuclear plant

that had to be substituted. (Johnson and Jacobson, 2000) Similar scenario happened in

Norway, where biomass was chosen to replace coal combustion, as it was assumed to be more

efficient. After the small-scale trial phase was skipped, actors had to face technical difficulties

and long learning periods that lead to disappointments, and biomass gasification was no

longer supported by the government. (Negro et al., 2008)

Other studies argued that systemic analysis is also more appropriate in the case of niche

technologies, and they have identified that the Technology Innovation System framework

provides more reliable and useful analysis for policy decision making purposes (Markard and

Tuffer, 2006; Foxon et al., 2010). The core of the TIS framework is the analysis of the

structural configuration of the innovation system (networks, actors, technology and

14

institutions) as well as the processes, called as system functions that embed the development

and formation of new technologies (Bergek et al., 2008) However, the initial concept of TIS

states that it is essentially a global system, as it is argued that the processes of technical

development and diffusion do not have spatial boundaries. (Carlsson and Stankiewicz, 1991)

However, many researchers focus their studies only either around a single country or the

comparison of two countries using individual TIS analysis. (Tigabu et al., 2013b, Wieczorek

et al., 2015) This national focus is often justified by the aim of providing analysis on domestic

technology development and innovation policy. In these cases the international effects are

considered as the part of the much broader term of exogenous forces, often without a clear

explanation of their impacts on the domestic TIS. It is argued that by treating these effects

contextual the connections between other innovation systems (national, sectoral) and TIS

might be dismissed, (Jacobsson and Bergek, 2011) as well as the role of the national

government in R&D stimulation might be overestimated as a result of a too narrowly defined

national TIS.

Originally a Technological Innovation System is defined as ‘a dynamic network of agents

interacting in a specific economic/industrial area under a particular institutional infrastructure

and involved in the generation, diffusion and utilisation of technology. (Carlsson and

Stankiewicz, 1991) Thus each Technological Innovation System has three components:

actors, networks and institutions. These are not necessarily have to be specific to a single

technology, but they might be shared among several technological innovation systems. The

actors consist of firms from the whole value chain (cf. Porter, 1985), for example in terms of

fracking they include the manufacturers of the machinery for the extraction plants,

engineering firms developing the systems that operate the machinery and also firms related to

the construction of the infrastructure supporting the operation of the plant. In addition they

also include other organizations, such as industry organizations, Non-governmental

organizations (NGOs), universities and also governmental bodies. By the time of the

formation of the TIS of a given technology, each new actor enters the system bringing

additional knowledge into it. This might happen through filling a gap in the supply chain, and

becoming a specialist supplier or meeting novel demand, and developing new applications).

Other organizations are also enriching the system at the event of entering, for instance

universities providing specialized modules, courses focusing on the given technology.

The networks can be further divided according to what purpose they have in the system.

‘Learning networks’ link suppliers with the users, firms in the system, either are they related

15

or competitor companies, and also university researchers. These networks enable the flow of

tacit and explicit knowledge between the different actors of the system. The other type of

networks can be identified in ‘Political networks’ that are connecting actors sharing the same

believes who are in the aim of influencing the political agenda concerning the given

technology. The main base of science literature in politics has non-technology specific

coalitions on focus, however it is important to state that for a new technology to diffuse

technology specific coalitions have to be formed, in order to pursue wider political debates on

the issues around the TIS. In the case of both networks present in the TIS, in the case of a new

firm entering the market, these boost the resource base of the individual firm and provide a

stronger voice in the political world.

The third component is institutions, such as legal, regulatory, cognitive rules and norms that

regulate and affect the interactions between the actors, define value base in different segments

of the society and influence the learning processes of firms. It is argued in the literature, that

institutional change is essential for the process of a new technology gaining influence on the

market. (Freeman and Louca, 2002) Thus firms are not only competing on the product

markets but also achieve influence over institutions. Academic studies even pointed out, that

competitor firms might co-operate for the sake of the collective manipulation of the

institutional environment, in order to gain access to otherwise unreachable resources that are

key for collective survival. (Van de Ven and Garud, 1989)

Once components are present, the formation of the new TIS can start, which is structured into

three processes: entry of firms and other organizations, formation of networks and

institutional alignment. The processes begin in the formative phase (Jacobsson and Bergek,

2011), where a high level of uncertainty is present, which is facing both commercial actors

and policy makers in terms of markets, technologies and regulations. (Kemp et al., 1998) This

phase may last for decades (Carlsson and Jacobsson, 1997), as the constitutive elements have

to be put in place, which is a cumulative process of several small changes. Once all the

elements are in place the growth phase begins (Carlsson and Jacobsson, 1997), and the new

innovation system begins to have an impact on the energy system. The evolution of the

system also starts from here. Evolution is mostly driven by new entrants and further research

carried out at universities, who often bring new ideas and updated technological solutions that

require the innovation system to reshape, and the TIS becomes more and more self-sustaining.

(Foxon et al, 2008) Although, in order to be able to assess how good the structure of the

system is, and be able to make suggestions on how the diffusion could be speeded up the

16

literature suggests that we identify the weaknesses of the TIS. Foxon et al. suggests the

introduction of a second level of processes that can create a bridge between performance and

structure in TIS development. These processes are referred as functions, and they address

what already has been achieved, or actions in progress, that have an influence on the system.

The academics argue that the main advantage offered by functions is that a separation can be

made between structure and content

By other words these ‘functions of the innovation system’ focus their attention on the

functional performance of the agents discussed above, which they conceptualized using a set

of the functions. The most commonly used ones among the literature are defined by two

studies (Bergek et al., 2008; Hekkert et al., 2007). These papers identify seven different key

functions, as follows: (1) Entrepreneurial activities: the exploration and exploitation of

arising business opportunities on the basis of the new technologies and applications. As a

result of real life applications opportunities arise to learn about the functioning of the new

processes, products and services when exposed to market dynamics. (2) Knowledge

development: evidently science-based research and development is the foundation of any

innovation process, as is provides the necessary knowledge. However, numerous other types

of knowledge can support innovation, for instance a more experience based knowledge

development that accumulates the knowledge through doing, using and interacting. (Jensen et

al., 2007) (3) Knowledge exchange: in addition to the generation of the knowledge the actual

diffusion of it could be just as much important for the development of the new or improved

products, processes or services. Academics argue that successful innovators are often among

those who can realise how knowledge generated by others can be used for commercial use.

(Chesbrough, 2006) (4) Guidance of the search is key for the selection of the direction of

technological development. The main tool for achieving this is priority setting in R&D

strategies, although setting expectations and vision as well as interactions between users and

producers contribute to this function. (5) Market formation: the introduction of any innovation

often moves markets out of their actual status-quo. Evidently the more radical the level of

innovation, the bigger disruption it is causing. As a result any incremental innovation, or

radical upgrade of existing products, processes or services are often in a need for a new

market to be formed. (6) Resource mobilisation: primarily this function refers to the collective

effort to secure financial (venture capital, policy support programmes) and human (via

education, training and competence development) capital. In addition the function also

includes the allocation and mobilisation of the necessary resources to make the various

17

processes of innovation possible. (7) Creation of legitimacy is essential to overcome the

liability of newness (Zimmerman and Zeitz, 2002) that is often a dismissed dimension of

innovation. Often the resistance to change should be countered by actions, including lobbying

and advice activities, on behalf of the interest groups.

Many papers use this method indeed for analysing low-carbon and renewable energy

technologies. For instance a study published by Andreasen and Sovacool in 2015 uses TIS for

analysing hydrogen cell fuel technologies, and comparing the development of the innovation

systems in Denmark and the United States. They found TIS to be greatly appropriate for this

research as it is bringing one technology into focus and gives a valuable insight to the

dynamics of emerging technologies, which fracking can also be considered as one. They

argue that even though each country has a different base for their innovation system neither is

proving to be successful in terms of the diffusion of the technology and enhancing research

around the technology. In fact, as also mentioned above, other papers argue that the national

constraints of the TIS framework might have to be put to rest in order to come across some of

the system failures that might exist on the national level, but are caused by a ‘global TIS’

present in the environment (Bento and Fontes, 2015) The study uses the a modified TIS

approach to analyse conditions under which the rapid transfer the low carbon energy source of

wind plants in Portugal (as the receiving region) is possible based on the diffusion process in

the core country, Denmark. The main finding of the paper was that given the relatively short

time period between the diffusion in the core country and the receiving country resulted in an

assimilation of knowledge spillovers that significantly improved the local absorptive capacity

in Portugal. Conditions concerning fracking in the UK are some extent similar to what this

paper identified. The United States have already implemented this low-carbon energy

extraction technology that is gaining knowledge for the UK as a receiving country in terms of

choosing the right policies and regulations to achieve a fairly rapid and environmentally safe

diffusion of fracking. Other studies are also drawing on the spatial dimension of technology

innovation systems, (Quitzow, 2015; Wieczorek et al., 2014) Latter paper suggests that the

country specific systemic failures could be easily dealt if the systemic policy could be more

effective and countries would co-operate on a higher level.

In addition to analysing the construction of the supporting system for an innovation, TIS is

widely used among the literature to make policy recommendations using the same functions

discussed above. After evaluating each function of the model, in terms of being a strong or

weak function of the innovation system, researchers are enabled to make policy

18

recommendations how to keep the already strong functions running and get the weaker

functions to catch up so the TIS of the technology can be complete.

Although, as partially already discussed above the initial framework might have some

limitations, which are usually attempted to be balanced in the literature. Academics are often

applying modified TIS approaches to analyse different energy technology diffusions. One

paper focuses on the interaction between the functions of the framework using a case study of

the biofuels innovation system in the Netherlands. (Suurs et al., 2009) They are introducing

the term of cumulative causations in their study, and identifying it as the ‘motor of

innovation’. Thus we can state that the presence of interactions could be key for the diffusion

of a niche technology having a yet developing TIS. Same academics have also studied the

case of development of the hydrogen and fuel cell technologies, (Suurs et al., 2009) as well as

the case of natural gas as an automotive fuel in the Netherlands. (Suurs et al., 2009) They

found that although sustainable change often needs radical changes in the incumbent systems,

these technologies did have significant barriers making diffusion impossible. They identified

the main motors of innovation in the Science and Technology Push (STP) Motor and the

Entrepreneurial Motor for the hydrogen and fuel cell TIS and in the Market Motor for the

natural gas as automotive fuel TIS.

The technology innovation system approach was also used to assess diffusion of modern

niche technologies in developing areas of the World. A group of academics have recently

published a number of papers that have focused on the diffusion of the bio-digestion

technology, used to for energy generation, in Rwanda and Kenya. (Tigabu et al., 2013) They

argue based on the Rwandan study that in the case of an emerging market a higher level of

systematic policy interventions are needed to shape and strengthen the innovation system.

Another study applied TIS to analyse a remote electric mini-grid technology applied in Laos.

(Blum et al., 2015) They have found that TIS is greatly useful for deriving policy

recommendations for technologies with significant barriers, bottlenecks. The diffusion of

fracking in the UK also set back by several functions, making TIS a desirable method for

analysis. Some academics on the other hand recently questioned the credibility of TIS in the

conditions of emerging markets, (Gosens et al., 2015) stating that the level of innovation at

emerging markets is highly dependent on transnational dimensions, which cannot be analysed

using the TIS framework. They suggest that policy makers of such countries should bear this

condition in mind if they use research based on the TIS framework for making policy and

regulation decisions. In other words the structural base of an innovation system is not present

19

as other academics argue (Kebede et al., 2015). In this paper the researchers deliberately focus

on the building of the Innovation System for RETs in Ethiopia and Bangladesh. Although

they are not deriving the same conclusion as the study mentioned above, but they state the

evident sluggishness of the diffusion resulting from lower development levels, and identify

‘well-intended’ NGOs (NPOs) as potential actors, concluding that these organizations are the

only system builders in developing economies.

Given the findings of the review the literature has used many different approaches to tackle

technology diffusion and analysis of energy technology markets. Among these the most

appropriate for the aim of this study is the TIS framework, as it is the most widely used

approach and its features fit the aim of this study the most. Fracking in the UK is a niche

market, therefore there is no need to further improve the level of analysis by adding more

research criteria. Using the seven functions a wide range of events are covered that have an

effect on the diffusion of the new technology, and after mapping the event to the functions it

is possible to directly observe and analyse the failing part of the market. So after

characterising the structure of the UK fracking TIS (actors, networks, institutions) the study

will focus on evaluating in what state of maturity the given TIS is and what are the strengths

and weaknesses of the functions. Having a better understanding of these can give a better

understanding on what policymakers might consider to change in order to achieve a more

mature and balanced TIS.

20

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In order to be able to measure and operationalise system functions the method of event history

analysis is used in this paper. The method was developed by Van de Ven (2003) and generally

used for TIS based analysis among the literature. However, in order to be able to use it for

studying a TIS, the research focus has to be broadened further than a single firm. The main

changes involve tackling events not according to their importance to different projects and

actors, but based on their significance for the system itself. In addition the analysis in this case

is not based on the identification of quantitative relations, but on the construction of

narratives.

The basic unit of the analysis is kept to be the event that can be defined as an instance of rapid

change with respect to actors, institutions and/or technology, which is the work of one or

more actors and which carries some public importance with respect to the TIS under

investigation. (Suurs, 2009) As the study notices, this definition of an event carries and

advantageous dual meaning for TIS analysis, as it captures the happenings on the structural

level, as well as the world of concepts of how the TIS, as a whole, is functioning. These

events can range from academic research carried out to policies issued or conferences

organised.

The basis of the event history analysis lies the narrative, a storyline including sequences of

events. Establishing and analysing these narratives in terms of their effect on the system will

be the base of this study, assuring the identification of strengths and weaknesses of each

separate system function of the fracking TIS (of the UK). This requires the systematic

collection and analysis of event data. In order to do that first a range of literature was

collected, including journals, periodicals, newspapers, websites and reports. This was mainly

done using the EbscoHost database, which makes the literature digitally available, and the use

of search terms was a powerful way to distinguish articles that were covering topics related to

hydraulic fracturing. During the read-through of these papers the definition of system

functions made it possible to refer reports as events. After identifying all the events, a

database was constructed putting the events in chronological order so that the evolution and

the maturity of the TIS could be observed, and the events could be more systematically

analysed. This database provides us an overview of the content of the events at the time of

their occurrence. With the aid of this overview an ultimate distinction between different event

types can be made that are corresponding to different system functions. As a result events

21

serve as indicators of each system function. Table 1 shows how Suurs (2009) related different

types of events as indicators of systemic functions.

In addition events were also categorised according to the positivity of their effect on the

system, either positive or negative. It is essential to note on the other hand that a negative

contribution towards a system function might have important advantageous effect on the long

run. For instance a negative Guidance of the Search type event might indicate or even

eliminate a badly performing technology, although the short-run and immediate effects of

such an event can result in a (partial) breakdown of the TIS.

Previous studies using the event history analysis mainly on biomass based energy generation

technologies (Negro, 2007) showed that the set of system functions used in this paper to study

the TIS corresponds well to the empirical data gathered around the field of sustainable energy

technology. Only if some main events could not have been possibly linked to one of the

system functions, or if a well working system would have had a significantly low number of

events for one of its functions, then the TIS would be considered as irrelevant. The findings of

this study can also only reassure this statement, as they do not suggest a desired

reorganisation of the system functions. It is also important to point out that although these

functions served as the base of the interpretation of the literature, they did not force it at any

point.

Table 1: Event category classification scheme (adopted from Suurs, 2009)

22

The categorisation of the event types is then followed by the analysis of the event data.

Following the suggestions of Poole et al. (2000) and Abell (1987) there are two different

types of analysis. Both techniques are based on recognising patterns among the events. The

first one is aiming to reveal trend patterns that indicate the evolution and the maturity of

individual system function over time. These patterns can be constructed on a quantitative

basis simply plotting the aggregate number of relevant events. Before the analysis no

validation of the level of positivity or negativity can be observed, therefore the score for each

event is either +1 or -1. The classification scheme used in this study can be seen in Table 2.

(adopted from Negro, 2007), where events are not only allocated to each function, but also

given an evaluative score.

Positive and negative events are possible to be plotted separately, enabling a clear distinction

between the volumes of support and resistance observed towards the technology in focus at

the moment of the analysis. In certain cases, when the available event data makes it possible,

there might be a chance to make further distinctions, and for instance reveal a shift in the

nature of events, which might be observable as a change in the participation of different actors

or the underlying technology. After drawing these graphs for all the system functions, it is

Table 2: Event impact classification scheme (adopted from Negro, 2007)

23

possible to observe how they develop over time, thus a motor of innovation might be

indicated by them. In addition characteristic trends concerning individual functions can be

observed, for example an unexpected decline of activity of one of the functions, which require

further analysis in order to uncover what triggered those changes. Typical explanations for

such trends involve changing political environment, development of alternative technologies,

or the entry of a new actor into the system. However, as mentioned above, these trends are

based on quantitative analysis, qualitative analysis is necessary for understanding the main

developments in the overall flow of events, therefore enabling the observation if a certain

level of quality has been reached. As of a summary, trend patterns reveal the outcomes of TIS

development.

The second technique, proposed by Abell (1987), focuses on the causal relationship between

events, thus mainly providing explanations for the outcomes revealed by the trend patterns.

The references between different these events are possible to follow within the complete

database, resulting in event sequences. After the overview of these one is able to create

narratives using the event sequences, which make it possible to declare the roles of different

functions within the system and the way they interact with each other. However, as Poole et

al. (2000) points out, it is never possible to integrate all events into sequences, this technique

is focusing more on identifying the motors of innovation within the system. It is important to

note that event sequences might not only induce a single event, but a number of one, as well

as vice versa, a single event might be a result of multiple sequences happening within the TIS.

This two types of trends mutually benefit each other, and together they make it possible to

identify different episodes in the TIS development. The trend factors indicate periods in the

need of special attention, while the interaction patterns provide explanation of the trend

patterns. Therefore an episode can be either characterised by a certain set of motors of

innovation or alternatively by a set of external factors shaping the dynamics of the TIS

development over a time period. For instance, such an external event, might be the time

period after the oil crisis, or the great depression of our century, as they serve as a frame for

an episode, making it a chapter of the narrative and a useful guide to the readers.

In addition to the foreground flow of the events discussed above, event history analysis also

features background factors that are structural factors of the TIS development. By definition

there is no event that is not related to the actors, institutions and technologies that build up the

TIS, which means the presence of structural factors can always be observed, although these

24

are not directly measured during the analysis. However, the effect of these factors remain

traceable within the event data, therefore the identification of possible structural drivers and

barriers, as well as the effect of the motors of innovation on the TIS structure is possible.

The final result of the event history analysis is a narrative, which may feature several

episodes, partially supported by a quantitative representation of the development of the seven

TIS functions over time. Construction of the narrative is carried out as objectively as possible,

however interpretations of the researcher also plays a crucial role in the analysis.

Some studies used different methods to understand the dynamics of innovation systems. A

frequently used one was expert interviews with key stakeholders of the TIS (. However, for

the sake of this study, this method would have had major limitations. Given the relatively

small number of actors in the system, a lower correspondence rate would have resulted in a

complete insufficiency, potentially sabotaging the analysis.

25

4. RESULTS AND FINDINGS

4.1. Structure of the TIS

Before the event-history analysis is carried out first the system structure has to be determined.

In order to gain insight in the structure of the innovation system the components already

discussed above (actors, networks and institutions) has to be mapped. The underlying

technology of the system in this case is given as described, and is not on an innovation cycle

any more. As a result no industrial actors are taking advantage of any patents granted for their

techniques, but a dominant design of the technology is used by all commercial actors.

However, commercial fracking still remains out of the UK, as actors focus more on

supporting their case either for or against the exploration and the exploitation of shale gas

resources using hydraulic fracturing. After introducing the structure of the TIS underlying

hydraulic fracturing in the UK, including its main actors and their relationship; this chapter

will focus on presenting the findings of the study, by outlining each of the system functions,

and analyse the strengths and weaknesses of each in terms of their support towards the further

evolution of the TIS.

We can identify four categories of actors according to the nature of their organization. As

seen in Appendix 9.1. (adopted from a study by Carney et al., 2015) the 34 identified actors

are either of an industrial, research, political or NGO type or organization. In terms of

numerical distribution research and political organizations are in the majority that indicates

that not many commercial actors have entered this highly uncertain niche market. However, it

is not all about the numbers, as it will be further discussed at the relevant system function, but

the influence each actor can make to solve the uncertainties among fracking. Evidently the

same goals, as the study points out as well, are distinguishing actors by the side they are

representing in the debate, and advocacy coalitions are formed, although the high level of

uncertainty makes it harder for actors to decide who they are going to ally with. (Fink and

Harms, 2012) The government is taking a pro-fracking view, which makes it a part of a bigger

coalition that is generally in the favour of further developments of shale gas extraction using

fracking, although they all tend to support a well-regulated gas exploration environment more

than pure commercial exploitation of the sites. In line with this approach it can be observed,

that the government is mostly using incentivising methods rather than imposing policy

decisions from its centre role making it more difficult to identify a single clear government

policy. This precarious and indeterminate approach of the pro-fracking coalition gives a good

chance to promote a precautionary position, addressing the unclear risks and potentially

26

significant environmental consequences. However, the uncertainty that is generating the

interactions among and between the coalitions are from a different root. Firstly, the lack of

scientific information regarding the issue creates a high level of uncertainty, which is then

further increased by the key decisions made by policymakers without having a complete

understanding of the situation. Secondly, it can also be observed that in different cases

regarding fracking activities different authorities are making the decisions. The European

Union sets out regulations to maintain water quality, the UK is responsible for mineral rights,

licensing and taxation, while local authorities decide on permissions to actually pursue

drilling at given local sites. Many of the issues surrounding uncertainty could be solved by

having better networks in the system. Many actors are only relying on the word of their

trusted coalition members, while the system lacks the conventional intermediaries. All these

limitations of the structure are very well reflected in the strengths and weaknesses of the

system functions, which are now going to be described by graphical representation of the

events mapped to them from the storyline. In addition in each paragraph the major events are

highlighted with a short analysis on their effect on the given system functions.

4.2. Functions of the TIS

4.2.1. Entrepreneurial activities

Firstly, one of the main limitation and weakness of this function is the absence of commercial

fracking in the country. Although many industrial actors have entered the market before this

function became active, events mainly include test drillings, and proposals of new fracking

sites. As Figure 3 shows there have been an immediate drop after the initial testing have

occurred, which was the direct consequence of the two tremors that hit the area of the fracking

sites (1.5 and 2.3 on the Richter Scale) An investigation was initiated, and the DECC

(Department of Energy & Climate Change) reported that they were caused by the injection of

fracking fluid at the drilling site. After the incidents commercial fracking was permanently

banned by the government until sufficient amount of research could have been carried out

concerning the incident. This serves at the major weakness to this function, although looking

at the long-run effect of this event we can observe that the studies which were triggered by

these events could significantly benefit the TIS. The main actor of the function is Cuadrilla

Resources Holding Ltd. who remains the only significant industrial actor to carry out test

drills in the UK. Thus, another weakness of the function can be identified in the lack of active

industrial actors, which could be the result of that many of them are big, multi-national

companies like Shell and Total. They would prefer focusing on a much larger scale of

27

production instead of running experimental and exploration projects like Cuadrilla, which is a

significantly smaller scale national level actor. As a result, despite the successful explorations

of Cuadrilla revealing a more accurate and higher estimate of shale gas reserves in their

licensed area, the level of activity is insufficient, and poses as another major weakness of this

function, creating a barrier for the Innovation System to further evolve. In addition, the most

recent event of the function is the refusal of two applications filed by Cuadrilla for two further

fracking sites. The decision of the local council was unexpected by the industry and is the

only inconsistency the government showed in terms of their deliberate support of fracking.

4.2.2. Knowledge Development

On the other hand, as one would expect, the level of knowledge development is rather

sufficient in the system, as a result of the open request for such from the government. Most

actors are realising the need for a better understanding of the risks creating uncertainty around

fracking. With both the government and NGOs involved in the process, the quantity and the

quality of research carried out can be identified as one of the main strengths of this function.

However, as already mentioned before each coalition of actors tend to use and trust their own

commissioned sources, which tend to support their case with their findings. Most of the

studies are evidently carried out concerning the different environmental and public health

risks of fracking so that they can support the development of the industry. Findings indicate

among most of the studies that in the case of a high level of regulations ensuring that no

emissions are occurring and well-integrity is maintained, all the risks associated with fracking

could be eliminated. This was even identified before major pilots started. The Strategic

Environmental Assessment initiated study in 2005 concluded that the government may

Figure 3: Entrepreneurial activities

28

proceed with licensing for shale gas; although it suggested that higher level of expectations

are set on applicants, requiring a demonstration of their high level of understanding of the

environmental sensitivity and potential constraints of their operation. However, due to the

higher level of regulations and need for higher level of monitoring at the extraction site

creates a higher barrier to entry. Initial investments are higher, as companies have to make

sure that everything is in order, in addition to the higher running costs rooting from the need

for a higher level of surveillance and monitoring.

As a result of these numerous positive studies the number or licenses being handed out by the

government are relatively high. In 2008, when Cuadrilla has also acquired its first licenses on

blocks with shale gas potential, 93 new licenses were awarded overall, which has focused

attention on fracking. In the next round that happened in 2015, licenses were awarded in 62

blocks with a potential of shale gas extraction for a total of 13 different companies (including

Cuadrilla as well). The high activity received from the government can be considered as the

main strength of this function, as not only the research findings call for their interference, but

they are also ensuring that industrial actors are being involved in the process of testing the

technology in the UK environment. However, studies carried out on the economic impacts of

fracking are concerned about the viability and appropriateness of favouring fracking over

other lower or zero emission alternatives, The report of the Tyndell Institute in Manchester

points out that under the constraints of the Copenhagen Accord and the Low Carbon

Transition Plan fracking is not a viable option to fulfil the commitments the UK has obliged

Figure 4: Knowledge Development

29

itself to. (Broderick et al., 2011) They remind that all investments would become stranded

assets in the long run, and the UK would need to make further changes in order to keep up

with the climate change objectives. In addition studies focusing on the effects of fracking on

the public also provided further risks associated, creating a significant barrier for fracking,

and becoming the major weakness of the function. A report by O’Hara et al. (2013) observed

that public perceptions have suffered significantly after the protests happened in Balcombe,

which is reflected by the seventh function of the TIS as well, discussed in 2. Literature

Review. Furthermore a recent study by Jones et al. (2014) articulated some alerting issues

about the falling property prices, as well as the potential change in availability or mortgages

and property insurance. However, despite these negative events, as Figure 4 shows, this

function is the most active, and one of the most positive one of them all.

4.2.3. Knowledge Diffusion

Although, even if the level of knowledge development might be sufficient, the system lack

networks and alliances between actors in order to ensure that knowledge is equally spread

around actors. The communication between the two opposing coalitions can only happen via

the few conferences held annually. Longest running one is the Shale Gas Environmental

Summit organised since 2009, covering the main environmental issues concerning shale gas.

The event since then has been renamed, and the UK Shale Gas Summit will sit in October in

Manchester. Even though these conferences provide a great platform for professionals to

share their views, what serves as the main strength of this function, they fail to communicate

Figure 5: Knowledge Diffusion

30

towards the public. This major weakness of the function that created a great barrier for

fracking to evolve by triggering protests, is aimed to be set aside by the official collaboration

between the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive announced in 2012.

Under this joint approach the HSE is monitoring that companies with licenses issue by the

Environment Agency are not violating any regulations, which creates a relief for the public.

As seen in Figure 5 this function is also relatively active, although most of the conferences

were happening recently, after many protests were held by the public. For activists and

lobbies please refer to 4.2.7.

4.2.4. Guidance of the Search

As it can be already stated after analysing the above functions the government has a clear

vision and high expectations towards fracking. In the early stage of activity of this function

the UK pledge itself to certain target emission rates. Firstly, on a national level in 2008, with

the New Climate Act proposing a cut in the emission levels 80% below 1990s levels. In the

following year a similar, although significantly lower levels of cut were pledged in the

Copenhagen Accord, which lifted the level of commitment to an international level, therefore

failing to complete these targets would result in a higher level of prosecution. However, this

early involvement of the government in energy market revolution is considered to have a

negative effect on the TIS. Fracking is a technology exploiting fossil fuel wells, therefore it

does not come with a relevant change in emission levels. As later events of this function

show, the main reasons why the government is favouring fracking is the high level of

resources the UK is having, which could potentially play a role in getting the UK off all the

coal based energy sources. In order to achieve this, and provide a higher level of energy safety

for the UK the government subsidised studies and initiated market formation acts (see xx.xx

for more detailed findings). The events concerning this function are the response to the Fifth

Report Energy and Climate Change Committee and the review of scientific and engineering

evidence. Both concluded that fracking imposes a potentially good opportunity, and the risks

articulated by many studies and activist groups could be managed by applying best

operational practice and hand-on monitoring by the authorities. The high level of involvement

of the government can be identified as the main strong feature of this function, as the public

being afraid of the US example is mostly against fracking, but the government took the role to

guide research and explorations to carefully evaluate what the real scenario is for fracking in

the UK. This was further enforced last year as the European Parliament voted on the approval

of two gas shale reports in the topics of environment and industry. After the majority voted

31

for the approval of the reports the EU stated that shale gas can be extracted safely in the EU as

far as the risks are contained by pre-emptive measures. The EP also approved by voting, that

each member state should freely make the decision on whether they wish to pursue further

developments or incentivization policy for fracking. This just further embedded the policy the

government was already using to help the development of the fracking TIS, although

sometimes this meant laying further mandatory impact assessments, which are not carrying

improvements for the short-run, but help to achieve a better public perception of fracking in

the medium- or long-run. As a result we can see on Figure 6 that the number of positive and

negative events for this function are equal, despite the relatively low number of anti-fracking

initiated research output, which is identified as the most serious weakness and insufficiency of

this system function.

4.2.5. Market Formation

As already discussed above the government have taken a serious role in incentivising fracking

which resulted in a number of positive events in the early stage of this function. Even before

major explorations took place the government introduced the repeal of shale gas production

from the Petroleum Revenue Tax, which is currently at 35%, from 1st January 2016. In

addition in the later stage further tax relieves were introduced by George Osborn. The project

was named the “ring fence expenditure supplement”, and was aimed at shale gas projects that

could have never happened under the former tax conditions. A year later, in 2014, David

Cameron initiated a tax relief, which is not aimed directly at the fracking companies, but the

councils who are issuing the licences for local extraction projects. They were granted 100% of

Figure 6: Guidance of the Search

32

the business rates of shale gas sites, which is evidently incentivizing them to attract more

fracking companies into their local territory. As it can be seen on Figure 7 plotting the events

related to this function, the recent activity has been more in the negative half of the graph. As

after the incentivising policies a number of commercial actors were attracted to the market,

sufficient level of regulations had to take place to avoid railing on the route the US has been

through concerning fracking. Stricter regulations were introduced in 2015, although the

potential moratorium was rejected with a significant majority vote by MPs. Again in terms of

this function the government prove to be a rather wise actor by luring companies into the

market, on the other hand making sure that the natural resources are not exploited senselessly.

This can be identified not only the strength of this function, but the TIS as a whole, as the role

of the government of subsidising early entrants on the market is essential, but in this case they

do not forget about their role to impose the appropriate regulations. However, the regulation

can delay the actual build-up of the market, which can be considered as a weakness of this

function. But as mentioned before the long-term effects can change in the nature of the

impact. In our case consequent regulation of the market reduce uncertainty among

commercial users, who therefore will be more willing to invest their equity in further projects,

and infrastructure. The major weakness of the function is reflected by the higher barriers to

enter the market as a result of the stricter regulations and more complicated application

processes.

Figure 7: Market Formation

33

4.2.6. Resource Mobilisation

As Figure xx shows there have been a quite consistent activity happening around this

function, with an expectable peak after the incentives were outlined, but before the stricter

regulations were implied. Beside the smaller new entrants the function encountered two major

investment in 2014. Firstly, INEOS announced a £640 million investment into shale gas

exploration in the UK. One year later they were among the firms to secure numerous licenses

for carrying out such operations. This precedent was followed by TOTAL, a French

originated oil giant, who announced a minimum of £12 million investment in the UK shale

gas industry. Even some local councils decided to invest the equity via pension funds.

Reportedly a sum of £53 million was invested by a number of local councils from around the

UK. In addition from the governmental and political, in 2014 George Osborne announced the

proposal of a future England Shale Fund that would help firms getting through the

challenging market entry phase. We can state that financial resources are present in the

system. Physical resources, the actual gas in our case, is also quite represented. Explorations

range from the earliest stage to the present day. After realisation of potential shale gas stocks

the UK might have underground, the study of the British Geological Survey initiated research

projects aiming to project the potential volume of the shale gas available. In 2010 they used

US figures, and with an analogy they estimated the amount of shale gas the UK might have.

Figure 8: Resource Mobilisation

34

Although a significant limitation of this technique is that the rock beddings of the gas are

different in the two places, about which the study wans as well. Industrial actors also received

licences for exploration, but the first official report on an estimate came in 2014, when

Cuadrilla claimed that they have estimated a 330 trillion cubic feet gas reserve in their licence

area, which was 50% more than the previous estimates. As Cuadrilla claimed this amount of

gas could potentially serve the UK’s demand for decades. This was obviously calculated

while accounted for the projected change in our energy use. The high volume of physical

resources can be identified as the major strength of this function. As the graphical

representation of the events on Figure 8 shows, with only one negative event this one is one of

the most positive and probably strongest function.

4.2.7. Support from Advocacy Coalitions

On the other hand, even though sufficient resources are present in the system, with companies

lining up ready to start building extraction sites, the resistance created by the anti-fracking

coalition is proving to be one of the main barriers for further developments. As we can see in

Figure 9 activist groups mainly started their lobbies against fracking after the Preese Hall

incident. There are local groups scattered around the UK, as seen on the map in Figure XX.,

and in 2011 Frack-off was founded, which organizes many local demonstrations and

blockades to emphasize the risks involved in hydraulic fracturing. The biggest of such

demonstration happened in 2013, when around 2000 people marched against the Balcombe

fracking site, operated by Cuadrilla. Blockades were initiated on the roads leading to the

extraction plant, and the tension escalated to Cuadrilla temporarily suspending operations

until the local council could remove the demonstrators. Tension between the two sides of

coalitions has been the highest in these days. The peaking number of events also shows this.

The pro-fracking coalition had to respond to these lobbies, so David Cameron elaborated on

the potential effects of fracking on energy bills, while Michael Fallon (Minister for Energy

and Business) made a strong claim for the benefits of fracking. Despite these efforts anti-

fracking groups are having a huge effect on public perceptions about fracking. Numerous

demonstrations happened recently as well, Greenpeace even started a national-wide legal

block on fracking in 2013. West Sussex landowners also initiated a legal block on the

Balcombe site (which is the extraction site of Celtique, a smaller fracking company). The

increasing number of protests and actions against fracking impose a great weakness of this

function. As it can be seen on the chart, the number of negative events is by far the highest in

this function, as well as the difference between positive and negative events. According to the

35

events we can observe, that both sides are rounding their arguments around one main point

supporting their point in the debate. While the pro-fracking coalition is emphasizing the

economic advantages of extracting shale gas, for the UK and the public, anti-fracking groups

are desperate to highlight the environmental issues, and emphasize that these are risky and

dangerous enough to offset the economic gains.

The real power and significance of the anti-fracking coalition is best to be observed on a very

recent event. In 2015, protesters gathered in Lancashire against Cuadrilla’s application for

further two sites. After an extended decision making procedure both of the applications were

unexpectedly rejected by the council, causing a major setback for shale gas exploration and

extraction in the area. This kind of pressure from the public enforces the governmental and

decision making boards to carefully analyse the scenarios before they make a decision. As a

result, this weakness of the function can also be changing its nature in the long-run. A more

thoroughly analysed decision might be less risky and have a chance to actually provide the

best scenario for all the actors and stakeholder in fracking. On the other hand, the pro-fracking

coalition should pay attention not to let the whole TIS being interrupted, or even terminated

by the negative public perceptions and should work on a better lobby plan to make sure their

voice and the results of studies supporting their case also gets to the public knowledge about

the advantages and disadvantages of fracking.

After analysing the functions one by one we could observe that there are significant

differences between the development and influence of each in terms of the whole system. The

Figure 9: Support from Advocacy Coalitions

36

government proved to be a central actor making appearances all around the functions,

sometimes acting as an incentiviser directing the other or new actors into the essential

direction, while in other cases it has been the actor creating a barrier for others to further

develop the system. In the next chapter the paper will analyse and discuss these findings, with

a special focus on the indicated aims of the study.

A complete list of events mapped to their system function is presented in Appendix 9.2.

37

5. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

After understanding the dynamics of each function the study should now focus on evaluating

the importance of the system functions regarding the innovation system. In this section the

key system functions will be measured against the appropriate functional patterns proposed by

Hekkert et al. (2011), in order to identify the phase of development, and therefore answering

the sub-question of the study. After that the actual and desired key functions will be analysed

that would serve as the motors of development in order to accelerate and advance the

development into the next phase.

According to the findings presented in the previous chapter we can state that there are three

main functions that are working in the favour of the development of the TIS. Firstly,

Entrepreneurial Activities. Despite the activity level being relatively low, the presence of real

life experimental to support the findings of the numerous research articles are key for the

advancement of the system. We could observe, that the government is also incentivising

actors to join this function by using different policy measures to make the sector more

desirable. Especially well initiated policy package we can see, as it is not only tackling the

commercial sector but also incentivising local councils (via the increase in the amount of

money they can keep from taxes that fracking companies pay locally), therefore making it a

joint interest to initiate more experimental extraction sites.

The second key function is knowledge development. As a result of the relatively high level of

uncertainty around the environmental and economic impact of fracking this function remains

dominant, as both sides of the debate over fracking are in need of more credible findings.

Evidently because of this, both the pro- and anti-coalition are still keen on subsidising and

initiating research. As the functional analysis revealed, while the pro-fracking coalition is

mainly focusing on the economic advantages of the new technology, the anti-fracking actors

are reminding those in favour about the environmental risks and the potential consequences of

those. Although studies generally show that these can be eliminated, the cost of those is still

not perfectly known. If we add the current environmental state of the world to this scenario,

we can identify, that macroeconomic factors are also partly driving this function. The UK’s

plan for the transition of a lower carbon future gives the anti-fracking coalition a great

argument against the, maybe not so significant, economic benefits, if we take into

consideration that if the UK plans to keep up with its commitments the maximum lifetime of

the fracking industry is already sealed. Therefore, this function is also calling for further

38

research and knowledge development to be carries out, to ensure that the level of uncertainty

among the market can be kept on a low level.

As the third main function, Market Formation can be observed. Despite the recent negative

activities until this point the government was using all its governance power to promote the

industry. Several tax relieves were introduced which attracted the current industrial actors to

the market.

If we align this pattern with the one proposed by Hekkert et al., (see in Figure 10) it is evident

that the hydraulic fracturing is in the development phase. The paper characterises this stage

with the dominance of entrepreneurial activities in terms of importance to the TIS. They

describe this phase with a number of experimental plants set up in order to test whether the

innovation works under real life conditions or not. They point out that all system functions

might negatively or positively affect this function, therefore a careful analysis of them may

prove critical in this phase. Given the situation of all functions involved in shaping the system

it is appropriate to focus on which functions should evolve and become dominant in order to

be able to proceed to the next phase, and therefore lining up the potential motors and barriers

of the TIS. With the two other functions discussed above being relatively dominant in the

Figure 10: Support from Advocacy Coalitions (Hekkert et al., 2011)

39

current system we can assume, that the transition from the first, pre-development phase of the

TIS has happened recently and now we can expect entrepreneurial activity to slowly start to

overcome these functions to then proceed to the next, take-off phase. As we can observe on

Figure 10 in the take-off phase knowledge development and diffusion are taking a back seat,

thus we can identify that one of the main motors of development should definitely be the

Entrepreneurial Activities, and companies should work on their way into commercial

activities. The paper also suggests that companies have to build their legitimacy in the next

phase, which is evidently going to be one of the major issue for the fracking industry in the

UK. According to the findings about the seventh function by this research, (discussed in

4.2.7.) there is an increasingly serious barrier for further development. As numerously

mentioned before, the negative lobby resulting from the uncertainty in the UK is significant.

A report carried out by O’Hara et al. (2013) observed, that public perceptions of fracking in

the UK have suffered significantly after the protests at the Balcombe extraction site. This

level of pressure from the public and NGOs forced the government to re-assess its current

regulations, and as a result a higher level of regulations were imposed, which are evidently

not supporting the rise of the Entrepreneurial Activities function. It is rather worrying fact in

terms of system development that one of the functions that should evolve to become a motor

of the innovation is now identified as a current barrier.

In order to fully understand the origin of the barrier, the structural components should be re-

observed, and if the root of the barrier is identified and removed, the problem could be

overcome. In the case of the Support from Advocacy Coalition barrier, the main structural

scarcity can be identified in the lack of positive actors being active in this function. The great

majority of the events had a negative effect on the TIS so far, and there were only a few actors

who were attempting to promote the case of fracking for the public. A further disadvantage is

that all these actors were from a political background, which instantly rules out the persuasion

of a great chunk of the audience due to the lack of diversity among the actors. Evidently as a

result of the lack of actors come with the lack of networks initiated to protect and promote the

technology. Despite the government is heavily backing hydraulic fracking to order to take

advantage from the shale gas resources, this may not be enough according to the findings of

this study. As Hekkert et al. points out the lack of information about the technology and

different external factors can also serve as the root of the failure in the system. In our

scenario, as already discussed above, the relative shortage of credible information compared

to other technologies definitely intensifies the doubt about the potential of the technology

among the public.

40

External factors have also been slightly touched before, and other than macroeconomic

factors, such as the prices of fuels used for energy generation, another potential rival TIS

might also cause the failure in the TIS interesting this study. In the case of the UK, one of the

main argument of the anti-fracking coalition, is that different lower or zero carbon emission

technologies might me more appropriate to use given the commitments the government is

already pledged for. Despite the government also had renewable energy policies in the past,

these were reported highly unsuccessful in promoting renewable energy sources. (Mitchell

and Conor, 2004).

41

6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The central theme of this paper was to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the functions

of fracking TIS in the UK. First of all, the structure of the system was constructed identifying

the main actors, networks and institutions present in the fracking market. After this a

structural and functional analysis of the TIS was carried out, using the event-history analysis

method. Findings were then presented systematically among the functions. This analysis

enabled us to understand the narrative of the evolution of the market, and answer the sub-

question of the research, and present the strengths and weaknesses among the functions.

Further analysing these helped the study to categorize functions according to their importance

for the TIS. Identifying the Entrepreneurial activities function as one of the recently emerging

ones, lead us to the conclusion of that the UK hydraulic fracturing system is in its

development phase. We could also observe that the change between functions happened

recently, and as result of that the R&D activity and the Knowledge Development function was

observed rather influential. We could also observe that many of the functions are either

relatively low on activity, or they are relatively one sided compared to the others, therefore

often creating a barrier for the further development of the system, which we could also relate

to the maturity of the system. As it is such an early phase, it has not attracted many actors yet,

given the level of uncertainty is rather high.

By using the structural and functional analysis and the observed phase of development we

could derive that in order for the further development of the TIS an increasing level of

entrepreneurial activities would be the key motor. In addition supportive research and lobbies

would serve as secondary motors helping to dissolve the uncertainties around this market to

attract more entrants, and therefore better exploit the potential of the shale gas resources the

UK are in possession of. The increasing amount of negative lobbies were pointed out as one

of the major barriers to the development of the system, as they not only generate a further

need for research and development, but also significantly danger the public perceptions

around fracking, which can be very costly for industrial actors to overcome.

Limitations of this study on hand roots from the uniqueness of the energy markets. This sector

can be considered as a relatively conservative sector that is forced to accommodate major

changes. In addition governments might have different ability to intervene in different points

of time. In addition hydraulic fracturing around Europe is a relatively niche market, which

resulted in a relatively low number of events. Although these were still sufficient for

understanding the dynamics of the innovation system as of now, but change is happening

42

rapidly in this developing stage of the TIS, especially in this case which lacks commercial

activity. Given TIS is not focusing the analysis on macroeconomic factors, it is not possible to

perfectly embed them in the analysis. For instance in our case the recent fluctuations in the

price of crude oil would probably have a significant effect on demand for natural gas,

therefore exogenously affecting the TIS. Besides these the potential bias arising from the

researchers interpretations of secondary qualitative data can also be considered as a limitation

on the objectivity of the study. In order to overcome these limitations, further empirical

research would be appropriate in a few years of time, in order to keep the analysis up to date,

as major changes among the functions can be expected in the short-run as well. In addition to

improve the objectivity of the findings, further research evaluating primary data on the system

functions may be appropriate, as the use of a reflective method with the interviewees would

enable eliminating potential bias in the interpretations of the researcher.

As a potential target of future research could similarly to this research, uncover the motors

and barriers of the discussed competing Technological Innovation Systems, which could

possibly either provide further knowledge for the fracking TIS or reveal possible co-operation

opportunities that can advance the systems or ultimately developing one to a level when the

other is eliminated.

43

7. REFERENCES

Alphen, K., van Ruijven, J., Kasa, S. et al. 2009. The performance of the Norwegian carbon

dioxide, capture and storage innovation system. Energy Policy. 37, 43-55

Andreasen, K. P., & Sovacool, B. K. 2015. Hydrogen technological innovation systems in

practice: comparing Danish and American approaches to fuel cell development. Journal of

Cleaner Production, 94, 359-368.

Bento, N., & Fontes, M. 2015. Spatial diffusion and the formation of a technological

innovation system in the receiving country: The case of wind energy in

Portugal. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 15, 158-179.

Bergek, A. and Jacobsson, S., 2003. The emergence of a growth industry: a comparative

analysis of the German, Dutch and Swedish wind turbine industries. In Change,

transformation and development (pp. 197-227). Physica-Verlag HD.

Bergek, A., Jacobsson, S., Carlsson, B., Lindmark, S., & Rickne, A. 2008. Analyzing the

functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis. Research

policy, 37(3), 407-429.

Blum, N. U., Bening, C. R., & Schmidt, T. S. 2015. An analysis of remote electric mini-grids

in Laos using the Technological Innovation Systems approach. Technological Forecasting

and Social Change, 95, 218-233.

Carlsson, B., & Stankiewicz, R. 1991. On the nature, function and composition of

technological systems. Journal of evolutionary economics, 1(2), 93-118.

Carlsson, B. and Jacobsson, S., 1997. Diversity creation and technological systems: a

technology policy perspective. Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions and

organizations, London, Pinter Publishers, 7.

Chesbrough, H. W. 2006. Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting

from technology. Harvard Business Press.

Cooke, P. 2001. Regional innovation systems, clusters, and the knowledge

economy. Industrial and corporate change, 10(4), 945-974.

Cuadrilla Resources. 2014. New sites proposed for next phase of gas exploration to unlock

Lancashire’s Bowland Shale. [Online]. Available at:

<http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/news/cuadrilla-news/article/new-sites-proposed-for-

next-phase-of-gas-exploration-to-unlock-lancashires-bowland-shale/>

44

Foxon, T. and Pearson, P., 2008. Overcoming barriers to innovation and diffusion of cleaner

technologies: some features of a sustainable innovation policy regime. Journal of cleaner

production, 16(1), pp.S148-S161.

Foxon, T., Jonathan, K. and Oughton, C. eds., 2008. Innovation for a low carbon economy:

economic, institutional and management approaches. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Foxon, T. J., Hammond, G. P., & Pearson, P. J. 2010. Developing transition pathways for a

low carbon electricity system in the UK. Technological Forecasting and Social

Change, 77(8), 1203-1213.

Foxon, T.J., 2013. Transition pathways for a UK low carbon electricity future.Energy

Policy, 52, pp.10-24.

Gosens, J., Lu, Y., & Coenen, L. 2015. The role of transnational dimensions in emerging

economy ‘Technological Innovation Systems’ for clean-tech. Journal of Cleaner

Production, 86, 378-388.

Hekkert, M.P., Suurs, R.A., Negro, S.O., Kuhlmann, S. and Smits, R.E., 2007. Functions of

innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change. Technological

forecasting and social change, 74(4), pp.413-432.

Hekkert, M. P., & Negro, S. O. 2009. Functions of innovation systems as a framework to

understand sustainable technological change: Empirical evidence for earlier

claims. Technological forecasting and social change, 76(4), 584-594.

Hekkert, M., Negro, S., Heimeriks, G., & Harmsen, R. 2011. Technological innovation

system analysis. Faculty of Geosciences Utrecht University.

Howarth, R. W., Ingraffea, A., & Engelder, T. 2011. Natural gas: Should fracking

stop?. Nature, 477(7364), 271-275.

Hughes, N. and Strachan, N., 2010. Methodological review of UK and international low

carbon scenarios. Energy policy, 38(10), pp.6056-6065.

Jacobsson, S., & Bergek, A. 2011. Innovation system analyses and sustainability transitions:

Contributions and suggestions for research. Environmental Innovation and Societal

Transitions, 1(1), 41-57.

Jacobsson, S., & Johnson, A. 2000. The diffusion of renewable energy technology: an

analytical framework and key issues for research. Energy policy, 28(9), 625-640.

45

Jensen, M. B., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., & Lundvall, B. Å. 2007. Forms of knowledge and

modes of innovation. Research policy, 36(5), 680-693.

Jones, P., Comfort, D., & Hillier, D. 2014. Fracking for shale gas in the UK: property and

investment issues. Journal of Property Investment & Finance, 32(5), 505-517.

Kebede, K. Y., Mitsufuji, T., & Islam, M. T. 2015. Building Innovation System for the

Diffusion of Renewable EnergyTechnology: Practices in Ethiopia and Bangladesh. Procedia

Environmental Sciences, 28, 11-20.

Kovats, S., Depledge, M., Haines, A., Fleming, L. E., Wilkinson, P., Shonkoff, S. B., &

Scovronick, N. 2014. The health implications of fracking. The Lancet, 383(9919), 757 – 758.

Malerba, F., & Mani, S. (Eds.). 2009. Sectoral systems of innovation and production in

developing countries: actors, structure and evolution. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Markard, J., & Truffer, B. 2006. Innovation processes in large technical systems: Market

liberalization as a driver for radical change?. Research Policy, 35(5), 609-625.

McKelvey, M., & Orsenigo, L. 2001. Pharmaceuticals as a sectoral innovation system. ESSY

Project (European Sectoral Systems of Innovation), November.

Negro, S. O. 2007. Dynamics of Technological Innovation Systems: The case of biomass

energy. Netherlands Geographical Studies, 356.

Negro, S.O. and Hekkert, M.P., 2008. Explaining the success of emerging technologies by

innovation system functioning: the case of biomass digestion in Germany. Technology

Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(4), pp.465-482.

Negro, S. O., Hekkert, M., & Alkemade, F. 2010. Seven typical system failures that hamper

the diffusion of sustainable energy technologies. In Summer Conference pp. 16-18.

O’Hara, Sarah. Mat Humphrey, Rusi Jaspal, Brigitte Nerlich and Marianna Poberezhskay.

2013. Public perception of shale gas extraction in the UK: How people’s views are changing

Quitzow, R. 2015. Dynamics of a policy-driven market: The co-evolution of technological

innovation systems for solar photovoltaics in China and Germany. Environmental Innovation

and Societal Transitions, 17, 126-148.

Rogge, K. S., & Hoffmann, V. H. 2010. The impact of the EU ETS on the sectoral innovation

system for power generation technologies–Findings for Germany. Energy Policy, 38(12),

7639-7652.

46

Suurs, R. A. 2009. Motors of sustainable innovation: Towards a theory on the dynamics of

technological innovation systems. Utrecht University.

Suurs, R. A., & Hekkert, M. P. 2009. Cumulative causation in the formation of a

technological innovation system: The case of biofuels in the Netherlands.Technological

Forecasting and Social Change, 76(8), 1003-1020.

Suurs, R. A., Hekkert, M. P., & Smits, R. E. 2009. Understanding the build-up of a

technological innovation system around hydrogen and fuel cell technologies. International

Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 34(24), 9639-9654.

Tagliaferri, C., Lettieri, P., & Chapman, C. 2015. Life Cycle Assessment of Shale Gas in the

UK. Energy Procedia, 75, 2706-2712.

Tigabu, A. D., Berkhout, F., & van Beukering, P. 2015a. Technology innovation systems and

technology diffusion: Adoption of bio-digestion in an emerging innovation system in

Rwanda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 90, 318-330.

Tigabu, A. D., Berkhout, F., & van Beukering, P. 2015b. The diffusion of a renewable energy

technology and innovation system functioning: Comparing bio-digestion in Kenya and

Rwanda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 90, 331-345.

Wieczorek, A. J., Hekkert, M. P., Coenen, L., & Harmsen, R. 2015. Broadening the national

focus in technological innovation system analysis: The case of offshore wind. Environmental

Wieczorek, A. J., Hekkert, M. P., Coenen, L., & Harmsen, R. 2012. Systemic instruments for

systemic innovation problems: A framework for policy makers and innovation scholars.

Science and Public Policy 39 pp. 74-87

Innovation and Societal Transitions, 14, 128-148.

Zimmerman, M. A., & Zeitz, G. J. 2002. Beyond survival: Achieving new venture growth by

building legitimacy. Academy of Management Review, 27(3), 414-431.

47

8. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bass, F. M. 1980. The relationship between diffusion rates, experience curves, and demand

elasticities for consumer durable technological innovations. Journal of Business, S51-S67.

Cotton, M., Rattle, I., & Van Alstine, J. 2014. Shale gas policy in the United Kingdom: An

argumentative discourse analysis. Energy Policy, 73, 427-438.

Darmani, A., Arvidsson, N., Hidalgo, A., & Albors, J. 2014. What drives the development of

renewable energy technologies? Toward a typology for the systemic drivers. Renewable and

Sustainable Energy Reviews, 38, 834-847.

Dinica, V. 2006. Support systems for the diffusion of renewable energy technologies—an

investor perspective. Energy Policy, 34(4), 461-480.

Gallagher, K. S., Grübler, A., Kuhl, L., Nemet, G., & Wilson, C. 2012. The energy

technology innovation system. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37, 137-162.

Hammond, G. P., O’Grady, Á., & Packham, D. E. 2015. Energy Technology Assessment of

Shale Gas ‘Fracking’ – A UK Perspective. Energy Procedia, 75, 2764-2771.

Kauffmann, H. C. 1986. Outlook for the oil and gas industry. Journal of Business Strategy, 5,

75.

Melikoglu, M. 2014. Shale gas: analysis of its role in the global energy market. Renewable

and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 37, 460-468.

Prpich, G., Coulon, F., & Anthony, E. J. 2015. Review of the scientific evidence to support

environmental risk assessment of shale gas development in the UK. Science of The Total

Environment.

Stamford, L., Azapagic, A. 2014. Life cycle environmental impacts of UK shale gas. Applied

Energy, 134, 506-518.

Suurs, R. A., Hekkert, M. P., Kieboom, S., & Smits, R. E. 2010. Understanding the formative

stage of technological innovation system development: The case of natural gas as an

automotive fuel. Energy Policy, 38(1), 419-431.

Winskel, M., Radcliffe, J., Skea, J., & Wang, X. 2014. Remaking the UK's energy technology

innovation system: From the margins to the mainstream. Energy Policy, 68, 591-602.

48

9. APPENDIX

9.1. Table of actors

Full Name Category Full name Category

Centrica

Industry

Tyndall Centre

Manchester Research

Chemical Industries

Association

UK Energy Research

Centre

Cuadrilla Resources

Holding Ltd. Cabinet

Political

IGas Energy Conservative Party

National Grid

Department of

Energy and Climate

Change

Oil & Gas UK

Energy and Climate

Change Committee

of House of

Commons

Shell International Environment Agency

TOTAL Green Party

United Kingdom

Onshore Operators

Group

Health and Safety

Executive

British Geological

Survey

Research

Labour Party

Chatham House Liberal Democrats

CNG Services Ltd.

Office of

Unconventional Gas

and Oil

Geological Society Campaign to protect

Rural England

NGO

Gfrac Technologies Frack-off

Policy Exchange Friends of the Earth

The Royal Academy

of Engineering No Hot Air

The Royal Society WWF UK

49

9.2. Table of events by system functions

9.2.1. Entrepreneurial Activities

Year Event Impact Source

2010

Test well drilled by Cuadrilla

at Preese Hall, which got

closed after tremors occurred

-1

The Royal Society

http://www.raeng.org.uk/publications/report

s/shale-gas-extraction-in-the-uk 2010

Test well drilled by Cuadrilla

in Grange Hill Farm, and

fracturing permit was applied

for after potential for shale

gas

+1

2010

Purchase of Eéswick-1 site

by Cuadrilla from Warwick

Energy. Well was a good PR

example for fracking

+1

Frack-off

http://frack-off.org.uk/why-does-cuadrilla-

own-an-old-gas-well-near-elswick-in-

lancashire/

2013

Exploratory drilling begins at

Balcombe, hydrocarbons

were found, but the site got

temporarily closed due to the

pressure from the public

+1

Cairney et al., 2015

2013 Preese Hall site permanently

closes -1

2014

Cuadrilla indicates two new

fracking sites (Bowland,

Lancashire)

+2

Cuadrilla Resources

http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/news/

cuadrilla-news/article/new-sites-proposed-

for-next-phase-of-gas-exploration-to-

unlock-lancashires-bowland-shale/

2015

Lancashire council rejects

planning applications for

both sites above

-2

The Guardian Online

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/

2015/jun/29/fracking-application-

cuadrilla-rejected-lancashire-county-council

50

9.2.2. Knowledge Development

Year Event Impact Source

2005

Strategic

Environmental

Assessment to report

on licence issuing for

on-shore oil and gas

extraction. Study

found that higher

expectations needed

from companies

+1

National Archives, Webarchives

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/

20121114093642/http://og.decc.gov.uk/

en/olgs/cms/licences/lic_rounds/13th_round/

13sea/13sea.aspx

2008

13th

round of Onshore

lincencing 93 new

licences awarded,

although by this time

no accurate shale gas

estimates were

available so

companies cannot be

treated as conscious

actors

+1

National Archives, Webarchive

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/

20121114093642/http://og.decc.gov.uk/media/

viewfile.ashx?filetype=4&filepath=og/

licences/rounds/13/13r-licence-awards.doc

2011

Cuadrilla

commissioned study

reporting the

economic benefits of

shale gas extraction

+1

Cuadrilla Resources Online

http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/benefits/jobs-

and-investment/

2011

Report of the Tyndall

Center Manchester,

questioning the

viability of fracking

on the long-run.

-1

Tyndall Center, Manchester

http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/sites/default/files/

coop_shale_gas_report_update_v3.10.pdf

51

2011 Fifth report of Energy

and Climate Change

Committee, finding

risks are manageable

under regulation

+1 Parliament Publications Online

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/

cmselect/cmenergy/795/795.pdf

2012

DECC reports

tremors at Preese

Hall were cause by

fracking fluid

-1

Government Online

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/

system/uploads/attachment_data/file/48330/5055-

preese-hall-shale-gas-fracturing-review-and-

recomm.pdf

2013

Public Health

England report on the

potential health

impacts of fracking,

finding that

regulations could

eliminate the risks

+1

Public Health England Online

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/

uploads/attachment_data/file/329744/PHE-CRCE-

002_for_website_protected.pdf

2013

DECC report on

potential greenhouse

gas emissions

associated with shale

gas extraction,

finding that emission

as similar to

conventional gas

extraction

+1

Government Online

https://www.goc.uk/government/uploads/system/

uploads/attachment_data/file/237330/MacKay_

Stone_shale_study_report_09092013.pdf

2013

Report by O’Hara et

al. Observes that

public perceptions of

fracking have

dropped after

Balcombe protests

-1 O’Hara et al., 2013

52

2014 Study on the effect of

fracking on property

and investment

-1 Jones et al., 2014

2014

Life Cycle

Environmental

Analysis, finding

risks avoidable with

regulations

+1 Stamford and Azapagic, 2014

2015

14th

round of

Landward Licencing,

where 61 new blocks

with shale prospects

received permits

+61

Government Online – Oil and Gas

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/oil-and-gas-licensing-

rounds#th-landward-licensing-round

2015

Life cycle assessment

if shale gas in the

UK, recommending

stricter regulations to

avoid excessive water

usage

-1 Tagliaferri et al., 2015

9.2.3. Knowledge Diffusion

Year Event Impact Source

2009

Shale Gas Environmental

Summit founded, which is a

yearly conference from this

year onward. (Accounted in

+1 impact for each

following year)

+1

SMI Online

https://www.smi-

online.co.uk/energy/uk/shale-gas-

environmental-summit#tab_overview

http://www.esgos.eu/

2012

Collaboration between The

Environment Agency and

the Health and Safety

Executive (HSE), better

way of monitoring

+1

National Archives, Webarchive

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/

20140328084622/http://cdn.environment-

agency.gov.uk/lit_7317_e1b401.pdf

53

2013

Workshop held at the

London School of Hygiene

and Tropical Medicine

about the health

implications of fracking

+1 Kovats et al., 2014

2013

Foundation of Shale World

UK, a yearly conference

from this year onwards.

(Accounted for +1 impact in

each following year)

+1

Shale World UK website

http://www.terrapinn.com/conference/shale-

gas-uk/our-story.stm

2015 UK Shale Energy

Conference +1

Oil & Gas Innovation Centre website

http://www.ogic.co.uk/whatson/the-uk-shale-

energy-conference-2015/

9.2.4. Guidance of the Search

Year Event Impact Source

2008

New Climate Change Act,

proposing cut of emission levels

80% below 1990 levels

-1

Grantham Institute LSE

http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/

wp-content/uploadds/2014/uk-carbon-

tagets-2020.pdf

2009

Copenhagen Accord,

international commitment on

cutting emission 20-30% below

1990 levels

-1

Pew Center of Global Climate Change

http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/targets-

and-actions-copenhagen-accord-05-24-

2010.pdf

2011

Governmental response to the

ECCC report, stating that shale

gas could serve as a transition

to zero emissions

+1

Parliament Publication Online

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/

cm201012/cmselect/cmenergy/795/795.pdf

2012

Royal Society and Royal

Academy of Engineering

review of academic evidence on

fracking. concluding risks could

be eliminated with regulation

+1

Royal Society Online Resources

https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/

projects/shale-gas-extraction/2012-06-28-

shale-gas.pdf

54

2013

MEPs voted on mandatory

Environmental Impact

Assessment for extraction

projects

-1

Environmental Justice Organisation

http://www.ejolt.org/2013/07/meps-

putting-the-brakes-on-fracking-in-europe/

2015

European Parliament voted on

the approval of a shale gas

reports on environmental

impacts and the shale gas

industry

+1

Shale Gas Europe Online

http://shalegas-europe.eu/the-european-

parliament-votes-on-shale-gas-what-did-

we-learn/?lang=de

9.2.5. Market Formation

Year Event Impact Source

2003

Exemption of shale gas

from the Petroleum

Revenue Tax

+1 Selley, 2002

2013

HM Revenue extends the

ring fence expenditure

supplement for onshore

activities

+1

Financial Times Online

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/

ca8ce446-9162-11e2-b839-

00144feabdc0.html

2014

D. Cameron announces that

local councils can keep

100% of business rates

collected from shale gas

sites

+1

Government News Online

https://www.gov.uk/government/

news/local-councils-to-receive-millions-in-

business-rates-from-shale-gas-developments

2015

Infrastructure Act banning

fracking in all land above

1000 metres.

-1

Legislation Online

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/

ca8ce446-9162-11e2-b839-

00144feabdc0.html

55

2015 Draft regulations on

fracking in protected areas

-1 Government Online

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syst

em/

uploads/attachment_data/file/473795/

Consultation_Surface_Restrictions

_-_04_11_2015_FINAL.pdf

Legislation Online

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2015/97

80111137932/

introduction

2015

MPs vote on Infrastructure

Bill, which created more

regulations but a potential

moratorium was rejected

-1

Carbon Brief Online

http://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-

infrastructure-bill-amendments-on-fracking-

fossil-fuels-and-zero-carbon-homes

9.2.6. Resource Mobilisation

Year Event Impact Source

2010

BGS report on unconventional

hydrocarbon resources indicating

potential shale gas reserves

+1

BGS

https://www.og.decc.gov.uk/UKpromote/

onshore_paper/UK_onshore_shalegas.pdf

2013 Bowland Shale resource study,

potential reserves found +1

BGS

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/energy/

shaleGas/bowlandShaleGas.html

2014 Jurassic Shale resource study, no

significant gas resources found) -1

BGS

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/energy/

shaleGas/wealdShaleOil.html

2014

Cuadrilla claims 330 trillion

cubic-feet (tcf) gas in Lancashire

licence area

+1

Drill or Drop

https://drillordrop.com/2014/03/05/50-

more-gas-to-frack-in-fylde-than-

estimated-cuadrilla/

56

2014 Proposal of North of England

shale fund by G. Osborne

+1 BBC Online

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-

29968603

2014 INEOS announces £640m

investment +1

BBC Online

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-

30125028

2014 TOTAL announces £12m

investment +1

BBC Online

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-

30125028

2015 Local councils around the UK

invest £53 through pension funds +1

Desmog Online

http://www.desmog.uk/2015/10/02/

revealed-local-council-pension-funds-

investing-53m-fracking-companies

9.2.7. Support from Advocacy Coalitions

Year Event Impac

t Source

2011 Foundation of Frack-off, major

activist group -1

Frack-off website

http://frack-off.org.uk/

2012 Global Frackdown founded,

international hub for activists -1

Global Frackdown website

http://www.globalfrackdown.org/

about/

2012 National Anti-Fracking

Gathering -1

Campaign Against Climate Change

website

http://www.campaigncc.org/

nationalantifrackingmeeting

2013

Around 2000 people march

against Cuadrilla’s Balcombe

fracking site

-1

Financial Times Online

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/

d3c0c630-f865-11e2-92f0-00144

feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk

57

2013

D. Cameron strongly claims

that energy bills could be cut.

+1

Telegraph Online

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/

10236664/We-cannot-afford-to-miss-out-

on-shale-gas.html

2013

M. Fallon (Minister of Energy

and Business) makes a strong

claim for the benefits of

fracking

+1

Telegraph Online

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/ene

rgy/10213985/The-potential-prize-from-

fracking-is-huge.html

2013 Green Alliance criticises the

government’s approach -1

Green Alliance website

http://www.green-

alliance.org.uk/resources/

Green%20Standard%202013%

20report.pdf

2013 Greenpeace starts a nationwide

legal block on fracking -1

Greenpeace website

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/

media/press-releases/greenpeace-launches-

nationwide-legal-block-fracking-

20131010

2014 West-Sussex landowners’ legal

block on fracking at Balcombe -1

Financial Times Online

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cd8e520e-

8cd6-11e3-8b82-

00144feab7de.html#axzz47VamnOHA

2015

Protesters gather in Lancashire

against Cuadrilla’s planning

application s

-1

Sky News Online

http://news.sky.com/story/1416236/protest

ers-rally-against-fracking-proposals