Oil sands, pipelines and fracking: Citizen acceptance of unconventional fossil fuel development and infrastructure in Canada

Abstract

As unconventional fossil fuel production expands in much of the world, so does controversy, and in many cases, public opposition. This study explores citizen perceptions, support, and opposition for several types of unconventional fossil fuel in the case study of Canada, where such production continues to grow. We use a nationally representative survey of Canadians (n = 1407) to assess citizen acceptance of oil sands development and natural gas development using hydraulic fracturing, as well as related infrastructure (specifically the Northern Gateway, TransMountain, and Energy East pipelines). We compare this acceptance to other forms of energy generation, namely conventional oil, coal, renewables, and nuclear. Across the Canadian sample, oil sands and pipelines tend to have less acceptance than renewables and conventional oil, but more acceptance than nuclear and coal power. Acceptance for unconventional fossil fuel development and infrastructure is consistently higher among respondents in Alberta (the province where most development occurs), where respondents perceive more economic benefits and less environmental and social costs. Within each region, acceptance levels are similar for oil sands and oil sands pipelines, while hydraulic fracturing has significantly lower acceptance within all regions. Regression analyses indicate consistent patterns: opposition to unconventional fossil fuel developments and infrastructure is predicted by higher biospheric-altruistic values and environmental concern, and support is predicted by higher egoistic and traditional values and higher trust in oil and gas companies. Results provide insights to policymakers and stakeholders, including regional differences in acceptance, and how citizens perceive oil sands related projects differently than hydraulic fracturing.