Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 377386

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Public Relations Review

Fracking democracy: Issue management and locus of policy

decision-making in the Marcellus Shale gas drilling debate
Michael F. Smith a, , Denise P. Ferguson b
a
b

Department of Communication, La Salle University, 1900 W. Olney Ave., Philadelphia, PA 19141, United States
Department of Communication, Pepperdine University, 24255 Pacic Coast Hwy, Malibu, CA 90263, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 5 July 2012
Received in revised form 1 August 2013
Accepted 8 August 2013

a b s t r a c t
This study examined a two-year period in which natural gas development in the Marcellus
Shale region of Pennsylvania expanded rapidly, as did public policy proposals meant to
deal with the myriad legal, economic, and environmental issues that accompanied this
growth. Focusing on the use of legitimacy strategies during the critical phase of the issue
of hydraulic fracturing, the study examined how activists and energy industry advocates
argued that different levels of government policy making local, state, and federal should
be the locus of policy decisions. Both the fractivists and the energy industry sought to
legitimize state-level legislators and regulators. Activists viewed federal-level intervention
as legitimate leverage for their work in the state, while the energy industry saw federal
regulators as redundant and restrictive. Finally, while both sides viewed local authorities
as legitimate actors, the energy industry sought to limit their ability to act against the
development of new wells.
2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In March 2010 the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it planned a two-year, $1.9 million
study to review water quality in the Marcellus Shale region of Pennsylvania in response to concerns raised by landowners,
environmental groups, and some media outlets about the impact of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, on water supplies
(Maykuth, 2010). Environmental activists hailed the announcement as a way to address persistent but anecdotal reports of
water quality problems in areas close to wells. The Marcellus Shale Coalition, an energy industry trade group, pledged to
support the study but noted that no problems with groundwater contamination had been attributed to fracking, and that
the practice has been regulated successfully by state agencies (MSC Statement on EPA Study of Hydraulic Fracturing, 2010,
emphasis added) for several decades.
Nearly two years later, in February 2012, the Pennsylvania State General Assembly passed Act 13, which amended the
states oil and gas statutes. While the principal aim of Act 13 was to determine a means of collecting impact fees from
energy companies, one provision of the act would prevent Pennsylvania communities from using zoning ordinances to prohibit drilling in their municipalities. Zoning is the primary tool local communities have to control development of any kind.
Under Act 13, local communities must allow for the reasonable development of oil and gas resources. Many environmental
activists and local municipal leaders felt the state government had stripped citizens of an important right; several municipalities led suit to prevent this aspect of Act 13 from being implemented (Olson, 2012). One reporter described the impact
of Act 13 as fracking democracy (Rosenfeld, 2012).

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 215 951 1981; fax: +1 215 951 5043.
E-mail address: msmith@lasalle.edu (M.F. Smith).
0363-8111/$ see front matter 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.08.003

378

M.F. Smith, D.P. Ferguson / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 377386

Regulating natural gas exploration and extraction is a complex public policy issue. One reason for this complexity is that
decisions affecting the outcome of an issue are made at all levels of U.S. governmentlocal, state, and federal. This complexity
represents a strategic planning challenge for issue managers working for industry interests, environmentalists, and citizens.
While these groups use public relations strategies to pursue their preferred outcome on an issue, they also argue over which
government structure or agency is the appropriate place for public policy to be decided.
In this study, we explore how the locus of public policy decision making is embedded in the discourse of activists and their
industry targets. Specically, we review the literature on issue management, legitimacy strategies, and public policy decision
making; provide background on the Marcellus Shale case; analyze the discourse of a key activist umbrella organization and
the main industry coalition; and offer some conclusions about what the discussion of the locus of policy decision making
contributes to our understanding of democracy and public relations.
2. Legitimacy and the locus of public policy decision making
2.1. Legitimacy in issue management
Heath and Palenchar (2009) argued that Legitimacy is a (perhaps the) central theme in issues management (p. 9). Issues
management is the process by which various advocates identify, prioritize, dene, analyze, promote, and seek to inuence
the resolution of questions of public policy (Jones & Chase, 1979; Crable & Vibbert, 1985; Botan & Taylor, 2004; Heath &
Palenchar, 2009; Lerbinger, 2006). Legitimacy is dened as the public acceptance of the political orders claim to authority
(Coombs, 1992, p. 105). Actors in public policy debates generally seek to advocate and establish the legitimacy of their issue,
of their role as an issue manager, and of the proposed policy resolution (Coombs, 1992). Before members of publics will
support the position of an organization, they must believe that the issue is a legitimate one and that the issue manager and
the organizations policy proposal also are legitimate.
Coombs (1992) identied 10 bases upon which claims of legitimacy are based: (1) tradition, or legitimacy based on history
or the way things have always been done; (2) charisma, which is legitimacy based on notable personality characteristics of
the issue advocate; (3) bureaucracy, which draws legitimacy from accepted rules, laws, statutes, and so on (p. 107); (4)
values, which either represent those things that are universally judged to be right and just or those things that a particular
society or culture nds important or worthy; (5) symbols, which are signs that represent concepts and ideas, such as a peace
symbol or a countrys ag; (6) de-legitimacy, or the process by which one partner in the legitimacy dance questions the
legitimacy of the other, as when an activist group questions an institutional targets motives; (7) credibility, which rests on
a sources expertise and trustworthiness; (8) rationality, focusing on the use and quality of evidence used to bolster claims
about the legitimacy of an issue and proposed policy resolutions; (9) emotionality, which relies on eliciting an emotional
response from the receivers of the issue managements messages; and (10) entitlement, or legitimacy that derives from the
issue managers direct experience with a particular issue. According to Coombs, each base is a means by which evidence is
presented to advance a legitimacy claim. Coombs schema has been used to study issue advertising (Bridges, 2004) and the
content of issue-related Web sites (Duhe, 2007).
2.2. Legitimacy and the locus of policy decision making
Most issue life cycle models identify a stage during which some proposal to resolve an issue is deemed the most legitimate
option (Downs, 1972; Jones & Chase, 1979; Crable & Vibbert, 1985; Heath & Palenchar, 2009; Lerbinger, 2006). Since public
policy change is the goal of many issue managers, government action to resolve an issue is often called for. However, as
Toth (2006) noted, . . .there has been very little written in the public relations literature about the concept of a public policy
arena or process (p. 505). Public policy is determined through both legislation, or laws created by elected ofcials through
a deliberative process, and regulation, or rules established by agencies given authority to oversee particular areas of the
publics interest, such as the environment, education, or labor relations.
Political sociologists study the legitimacy of a political system and its exercise of authority (Habermas, 1979; Weber,
1969). Deliberative democracy assumes legitimacy: that outcomes are legitimate to the extent they receive reective assent
through participation in authentic deliberation by all those subject to the decision in question (Dryzek, 2001, p. 651). There
is a belief that democratic deliberation should somehow embody the essential democratic principles of responsiveness to
public wishes and the political equality of every member of that public (Parkinson, 2003, p. 181). Thus, issue management
by affected parties is central to democratic deliberation.
The nature of complex public policy disputes is that policy decisions are made at many different levels (local, state, and
federal) and can take a variety of forms. For some issues, no clear federal mandate exists to regulate particular activities, and
thus many issue battles are fought locally. Toth (2006) argued that to be successful, all organizations must understand and
build public policy relationships through active collaboration with local, state, and federal public ofcials (p. 499). From
a strategic standpoint, different levels of government might be more receptive to a particular industry or interest groups
concern either because of an industrys signicant presence in a particular location (e.g., oil drillers in Texas, car makers
in Michigan) or the political climate, such as when a statewide election produces a legislature more amenable to business
interests. Thus, a key strategic decision for issue managers is to determine an appropriate place, or locus, where a policy
should be developed and determined. In cases where the legal authority over decisions is clear, there is little to debate about

M.F. Smith, D.P. Ferguson / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 377386

379

the locus of decision making and limited strategic positioning. However, in complex issues with policy propositions that
could be decided by any number of agencies or governmental units at the local, state, and federal level, the potential exists
for issue managers to argue over the appropriate locus of policy decision making. Establishing the legitimacy of the locus
of decision making helps increase the chance that a policy resolution is more widely accepted and implemented (Coombs,
1992; Toohey, Dailida, & Bartholomew, 2003). It is not surprising, then, that claims and counter claims about the legitimate
locus of policy decision making would arise in issue management discourse.
3. Case background
For over 75 years, geologists and gas companies knew that there was natural gas lodged within the Marcellus Shale
Formation, which stretches from New York through Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia (Harper, 2008). By 2003, rising
energy prices, the push for greater U.S. energy independence, and the development of technology that allowed companies to extract natural gas from deep within the Marcellus Shale prompted further exploration of the area (Harper, 2008;
Pennsylvania Geological Survey, n.d.).
In 2005, only four deep wells existed in Pennsylvania (Frazier, 2011). In 2010 alone, 1386 new wells were drilled, accounting for 50 percent of all the new natural gas wells in the U.S. (Maykuth, 2011). Between January and April, 2012, drilling
began on 618 new natural gas wells (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2012) and 1387 new permits were approved
(Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 2012). Thousands of gas workers owed into the state from around
the country, and an army of trucks, moving equipment, extracted gas, and water descended upon the largely rural landscape.
Such rapid development in a region rich in other natural resources, such as farmland and forests, was bound to raise complex and interrelated issues, which have included environmental concerns; economic/socioeconomic impact; infrastructure;
lease payments and the conditions for land use; legal issues over land rights; regulations, fees, and taxes on natural gas produced; and water resources and quality (Pennsylvania State University, n.d.). The nature of the Marcellus Formation makes
it challenging to extract the natural gas, and the solution companies have developed to address that challenge makes water
resources one of the most signicant issues in the debate over Marcellus Shale.
Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a process by which ssures holding pockets of natural gas deep within the shale
are broken up by high-pressure injections of water, sand, and chemicals so that gas may be released and pumped to the
surface (Sjolander, Clark, Rizzo, & Turack, 2011). While all the issues mentioned above are important and interwoven, we
have chosen to focus on the issue of fracking and its impact on water quality. Fracking raises three important water-resource
concerns: (1) supplying water for well construction without impacting local water resources; (2) avoiding degradation of
small watersheds and streams as substantial amounts of heavy equipment and supplies are moved around on rural roads;
and (3) determining proper methods for the safe disposal of the large quantities of potentially contaminated uids recovered
from the wells.
Pro- and anti-drilling actors and coalitions entered the public debate in 2008 with both the Marcellus Shale Coalition and
Marcellus Shale Protest, two umbrella organizations that serve as clearinghouses for advocates for each side of the issue,
seeking to inuence public policy to address the issues raised by fracking. Advocates on both sides have appealed to local,
state, and federal lawmakers and regulatory agencies and to the public, in turn, and sought to either legitimize friendly
decision-making bodies or delegitimize those whose policy decisions ran counter to the advocates aims. Thus, the research
question that guided this study was: To what extent did the legitimacy of government decision-making bodies become an
issue in activist and corporate discourse about the fracking in the Marcellus Shale Region?
4. Method
Our analysis of the activist and target organizations (energy companies) is punctuated by the two governmental decisions
cited in Section 1: the March 2010 announcement by the EPA that it would investigate the potential adverse effects of fracking
on water quality, and the announced implementation of Act 13 two years later. This legislation still faced a court challenge
as this study was written. We studied the websites of two prominent organizations representing both anti-fracking activists
and the energy industry. Marcellus Protest (MP) represents over 90 environmental and community organizations including
the Pennsylvania Sierra Club, PennEnvironment, Citizens for Pennsylvanias Future (PennFuture) Clean Water Action, and
the Delaware Riverkeeper Network. On the industry side, we examined the Marcellus Shale Coalitions (MSC) website,
since the organization functions as the energy industrys formal association and clearinghouse in the region. Although the
Marcellus Shale formation stretches under several states, we focused on the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, where most
of the development has occurred.
With both websites, we conducted a thematic analysis of every public relations text that was produced by the organizations, including news releases, statements, testimony, presentations, reports, organization-produced magazines and
newsletters, and links to news articles and other groups that supported each organizations position.
Thematic analysis identies themes that are important to the description of the phenomenon (Daly, Kellehear, & Gliksman,
1997) that emerge through careful reading and rereading of the data (Rice & Ezzy, 1999, p. 258). Patterns are recognized
within the data, where emerging themes become the categories for analysis (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006). We applied
Coombs (1992) bases of legitimacy to the discourse of the principal activists and corporate actors. Specically, we examined

380

M.F. Smith, D.P. Ferguson / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 377386

advocates strategies designed to bolster or undermine the legitimacy of various local, state, or federal legislative or regulatory
bodies as the appropriate locus for determining policy related to fracking.
5. Marcellus Shale activists and the locus of hydraulic drilling policy decision making
The EPAs decision in March 2010, which came after pressure from activist organizations and local communities, legitimized their concerns about gas drilling and drew increased media attention to the issue. The announcement energized
activists as they continued their opposition to unregulated penetration of Pennsylvanias lands by the energy industry and
advocated for decision making that involved affected citizens and appropriate government and regulatory bodies.
Because Marcellus Protest identies itself as an alliance of western PA groups and individuals building a broad movement
to stop the destruction of our environment and communities caused by Marcellus Shale gas drilling as well as to support
other directly affected communities (About, 2010), our analysis will focus on how MP has identied, legitimized and,
in some cases, delegitimized government decision makers. Marcellus Protest maintains a website that is an information
clearinghouse about Marcellus Shale gas drilling and activism and related issues, and notes that more than 90 organizations
are active in this issue, representing a new social movement (About, 2010) that is spreading nationally. Marcellus Protests
website includes libraries of gas drilling information, archives of news releases and media coverage, mobilization tools, and
links to social media engagement on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Flickr. Workshops on the gas drilling issue, protests
and rallies, and appearances at public meetings are publicized on the website and on the Marcellus Protest Facebook page.
Marcellus Protest provides a forum for fractivist organizations that have increasingly combined forces and jointly issued
reports and statements, held protest events, and testied at public meetings.
Between March 2010 and October 2012, Marcellus Protest directed communication efforts to (1) legitimize state government and regulatory authorities as decision-making bodies and protectors of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvanias citizens
and environmental resources, while simultaneously de-legitimizing their decisions or inaction which, activists believed,
jeopardized the environment and citizens rights; and (2) legitimized the authority of local governing bodies to make policy
decisions and bolstered the legitimacy of environmental and community groups to inuence these local decisions.
5.1. Legitimizing state and federal regulators while de-legitimizing their decisions
Communication by environmental organizations, community groups, and local residents available through the Marcellus
Protest website emphasized the authority of state and, to a much lesser extent, federal government and regulatory bodies to
make policy decisions about issues related to hydraulic fracturing, while critiquing decisions by these bodies that activists
believed were anti-environment or contrary to the will of the people. Based on the thematic analysis of the website, activists
used legitimacy bases of rationality, bureaucracy, and tradition to bolster local decision making by, for example, town and city
councils, where community groups and residents were more likely to have access and inuence than with larger government
and regulatory entities. MP website pages and documents asserted the rightful role of state and local governing bodies as
being in service to the people, as Councilman Doug Shields said when addressing the Pittsburgh City Council and alleging
that the state had transgressed the powers that we provided to members of the government (City Council votes, 2010).
Marcellus Protest published a lengthy report in November 2011 when Shields introduced a Toxic Trespass Resulting from
Unconventional Natural Gas Drilling ordinance:
The City Council of Pittsburgh possesses the authority to establish policies that protect the rights of the community.
That authority includes the right to make laws that declare the involuntary intrusion of corporate-produced, mined,
transported, processed and disposed-of chemicals, toxins, brines, radioactive and other harmful materials into the
bodies of City residents and ecosystems of the community a form of trespass. (Will City of Pittsburgh stand, 2011)
Marcellus Protest also acknowledged the legitimacy of the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), relying on
legitimacy bases of bureaucracy, tradition, and rationality. The federal EPA, MP pointed out, is responsible for regulating
major industries whose operations impact air and water quality. However, the George W. Bush administration was accused
of taking the teeth (Stack, 2010) out of EPA regulations, specically referring to the 2005 Energy Policy Act which exempted
gas industries from any federal regulation and oversight under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Thus, the few mentions of federal
policy decision making advocate for the passage of the FRAC (Fracking Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals) Act, which
would close the Halliburton Loophole, subject energy companies to the Safe Drinking Water Act and force them to reveal the
chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing process. (The FRAC Act was introduced to both houses of Congress in June 2009
and has been stalled since then.) An article posted from the Williamsport Sun-Gazette suggested that while some believe that
the federal government should stay out of the regulatory process, the Pennsylvania EPA is struggling just to keep up with
its oversight of the industry (Reuther, 2010). According to an MP brochure, the federal EPA and the Pennsylvania DEP are
unable to provide adequate protection against the environmental, economic, and social abuses of natural gas development
due to exemptions, deregulation, government cutbacks, and lack of accountability (What the gas industry doesnt want you
to know, 2011).
Because of the failings at the federal level, Marcellus Protest stated, regulation of the industry falls on state-level agencies,
with the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) being the primary regulatory body in Pennsylvania. The MP relied
on the legitimacy bases of bureaucracy, tradition, rationality, and entitlement to bolster the legitimacy of state regulators

M.F. Smith, D.P. Ferguson / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 377386

381

while de-legitimizing their decisions and inaction which, activists believed, jeopardized the environment and citizens
rights. The DEPs regulations, while legitimate, argued the activist organization, have not kept pace (Marcellus 101, 2012).
Pennsylvania passed the Oil and Gas Act in 1984, which requires that all new wells be permitted by the state prior to
being drilled, and also requires that all existing wells be registered. The DEPs Oil and Gas Program develops and enforces
regulations for the bonding, permitting, and registration of wells; environmental requirements for drilling operations,
waste disposal, cementing and casing of wells; and proper plugging of wells upon abandonment. However, there is a lack
of enforcement, too many violations, inadequate penalties, and the agency is under-staffed and under-resourced, alleged
Marcellus Protest (The Permitting Process, 2012) in a PowerPoint presentation posted on the website. The MP recognized
Governor Tom Corbetts charge that the Department of Environmental Protection return to its core mission of protecting
the environment based on sound science (Marcellus 101, 2012).
Another way Marcellus Protest attempted to de-legitimize state regulators policy decisions was through attacks regarding
collusion with corporate interests. One lawsuit against the Pennsylvania DEP that was featured on the website alleged that
the sources of our problems are the corporations themselves, their stolen rights and authorities under law, and their power
over governments (The Pennsylvania DEP, 2011). The state legislature was used by corporations and their lobbying groups
to make laws that exempt themselves and preempt community control that revokes community self-determination
(Jefferson, 2012).
State bill HB 1950 (known as Act 13) was the target of Marcellus Protest de-legitimacy of state fracking policy decisions and
processes, leading up to its passage in February 2012 and since. Environmental groups, local ofcials, public health experts
and tens of thousands of residents opposed the bill for months, and have expressed outrage at both the Act 13 provisions
and the closed-door way in which it was passed by the state Senate and House. Activists have de-legitimized the policy
for its provisions that overturn local zoning ordinances and force townships to allow gas operations in residential and all
other parts of the municipality; set one of the lowest impact fee rates for drilling companies in the nation; and underfund
environmental programs. Act 13, charged the April 2012 Marcellus Monthly, has placed the decision of where oil and gas
operations will occur solely in the hands of individual gas owners and the oil and gas industry, has given an unconstitutional
role to the PUC (Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission) to review local ordinances, and allows the DEP to grant waivers
without dened standards (Legal challenge, 2012). Marcellus Protest argued that our rights were tossed aside by this
legislation, and the PUC was given authority to rule on municipal ordinances without judicial process, and was exempted
from expected rules of procedure, such as open meetings (The pipelines are coming, 2012). As activists de-legitimized the
process, policies, and passage of Act 13 at the state level, they simultaneously legitimized local governing bodies as decision
makers, illustrated by an MP website press release quoting Delaware Riverkeeper Network Deputy Director Tracy Carluccio:
Act 13 is one of the worst pieces of environmental legislation to be passed in Pennsylvania and speaks volumes about
whose interests the majority of the Legislature and the Governor are protecting. Its clear the industry tried to take
over the Commonwealth by removing municipal rights but communities are ghting back. (Groups call, 2012)
5.1.1. Legitimizing local government and citizen groups
Environmental activists, community groups, and citizens through Marcellus Protest Organization clearinghouse relied
on legitimacy bases of entitlement, credibility, rationality, and values as they legitimized the authority of local governing
bodies to make policy decisions while simultaneously bolstering the legitimacy of environmental and community groups
to inuence these local decisions. An MP brochure claimed that Inadequate state and federal oversight has put the
responsibility on local governments and home-town municipal attorneys (What the gas industry doesnt want you to
know, 2011). When a Pittsburgh councilman submitted a bill to ban local drilling, Marcellus Protest agreed that the citys
right to protect residents from the hazards of drilling should trump any state claim of authority over drilling matters
(Smydo, 2010). The MP believed, with city council members who unanimously passed the bill in November 2010, that
it is up to the citizens of this city and state to determine what happens in our communities. We will not give up this
right to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the zoning boards, the Governor, the industry, nor the
Department of Homeland Security. (Marcellus Protest Statement, 2010)
Local governing bodies, which made zoning and ordinance decisions, provided ways for citizens in local groups to be
involved and make a difference in your community (Reasons to be hopeful, 2011). One year later, the same councilman
introduced a Toxic Trespass Resulting from Unconventional Natural Gas Drilling ordinance to City Council, which was
passed. According to a report on the MP website,
The human and natural communities of Pittsburgh possess inalienable rights, including the right not to be trespassed
upon, the right to a healthy environment, and other rights enumerated in the laws of this City, the Constitution of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Constitution of the United States of America (as well as rights not enumerated)
and the people possess the power and authority to enforce the laws of their City that protect these rights. (Will City
of Pittsburgh stand, 2011)
The passage of Act 13, which the March 2012 Marcellus Monthly proclaimed strips your municipality of any power to
protect you and your community from toxic fracking (Pennsylvania passes Gov., 2012), demonstrated activists attempts
to de-legitimize the decision-making processes and policies of state government while simultaneously bolstering the

382

M.F. Smith, D.P. Ferguson / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 377386

legitimacy of local governing bodies. Seven municipal governments, two elected ofcials, and the Delaware Riverkeeper
Network petitioned the Commonwealth Court for an injunction against Act 13s implementation in late March, naming
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvanias Public Utility Commission (PUC), its Attorney General, and its Dept. of
Environmental Protection (DEP) as respondents (Legal challenge, 2012), reported the Marcellus Monthly. The MP reported
that the Pittsburgh City Council and the association representing over 1400 townships would le an Amicus brief in
September to preserv[e] our citys self-determination:
We at the local level, suburban, urban or rural, fully appreciate what is at stake here. For Pittsburgh to have no voice at
all on this issue would be a dereliction of our duty as Council persons to look out for the property rights of all people
who live or own property in the city through our zoning code. (Pittsburgh City Council, 2012)
By October, Southwest PA residents, townships, environmental organizations, and city councils from eight counties had
coalesced as LAWPA, Local Authority Western PA, to present arguments to the PA Supreme Court (Southwest PA residents,
2012). Challenges to the bills implementation continue.
6. Marcellus Shale Coalition and the legitimacy of the Commonwealth
The Marcellus Shale Coalition (MSC) is a trade association formed in 2008 whose 200-plus members range from the
major energy companies involved in drilling to associated businesses such as law rms, water treatment and disposal
companies, and even realtors. Because the MSC views itself as the leader in framing the issues in the Marcellus Shale region
(Making connections, 2011), our analysis will focus on how this institutional target sought to identify, legitimize and, in some
cases, delegitimize government decision-makers. The MSC maintains a website with news releases, statements, testimony,
presentations, reports and the Marcellus Quarterly magazine at http://marcelluscoalition.org. In addition, the website also
links to news coverage supporting the industrys positions on issues, and reports on community meetings, rallies, and other
actions in support of drilling. In its list of the ten most inuential organizations in the Marcellus Shale debate, The Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette ranked the MSC fourth, lauding it as the most-quoted source for the industry in Pennsylvania (Hamill, 2011).
Between March 2010 and June 2012, the organization sought to (1) bolster the legitimacy of state-level policy decisions
to regulate hydraulic fracturing; (2) de-legitimize federal attempts to regulate natural gas drilling in Pennsylvania; and (3)
simultaneously bolster the legitimacy of local communities to create policy and de-legitimize the ability of municipalities
to take the ultimate step in regulating gas drilling, an outright ban.
6.1. Legitimizing state regulators
During the period under study, the MSC consistently argued that state-level agencies, particularly the state Department
of Environmental protection (DEP), the General Assembly and the Governors Ofce, were the most legitimate locus for
setting gas drilling regulations in Pennsylvania. These legitimacy claims were often made in response to attempts by federal
regulators, particularly the EPA, to set rules for fracking, and relied upon the legitimacy bases of tradition, bureaucracy,
rationality, and entitlement.
The MSC often referred to Pennsylvanias history of gas and oil exploration and the states experience in regulating the
industry. When the EPA announced its March 2010 investigation, for instance, the MSC responded that Hydraulic fracturing
has been an established and proven practice for 60 years in Pennsylvania and around the country, and has been regulated
successfully by state agencies (MSC Statement on EPA Study of Hydraulic Fracturing, 2010). The MSC also stated that There
have been no identied groundwater contamination incidents due to hydraulic fracturing, as noted by the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection [and] other state regulators, and that water withdrawals in Pennsylvania are
highly regulated by state agencies and water commissions (MSC Statement on EPA Study of Hydraulic Fracturing, 2010).
Gas drilling sites withdraw water from nearby surface sources, such as rivers, and one concern about fracking was the amount
of water being withdrawn.
Later in 2010, a White House staff member urged energy industry ofcials to more fully disclose the chemicals and other
substances added to water to create the uid used in fracking. In response, the MSC claimed:
Our industry was born in Pennsylvania more than 150 years ago. Since that time, more than 380,000 wells have been
drilled in the Commonwealth, the majority of which have utilized hydraulic fracturing technologies. . .we worked
with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to fully disclose uids used in Marcellus Shale.
In fact, DEP lists these uids publicly on its webpage. And these uids are mandated by the federal government to be
at all well locations, too. (Marcellus Shale Coalition statement on calls from Obama, 2010)
Around the same time, the MSC quoted a DEP ofcial as saying, The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection [DEP] has a successful history of overseeing the environmentally protective development of the commonwealths
oil and gas resources. By applying our existing regulatory structure and adapting to the new challenges that the Marcellus
presents, I am condent that this track record will continue (Top 10 quotes from PA DEP, 2010). Here, MSC is using a DEP
ofcial to reinforce its appeal to the legitimacy of tradition, a tradition that they claim will continue into the future.
Another means by which the MSC legitimized the state-level policy makers was through bureaucracy, arguing that statelevel rules already were stringent and accomplished what local or federal rules would. In March 2011, the MSC touted a DEP

M.F. Smith, D.P. Ferguson / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 377386

383

report on ground water testing over a three-month period that indicated that there had been no contamination of ground
water as a result of fracking and other drilling operation. According to the MSCs Executive Director, Kathryn Klaber, These
fact-based results are not only encouraging, but they also underscore how closely and aggressively state regulators monitor
water use and management associated with the development of clean-burning natural gas from the Marcellus Shale . . ..
These ndings also address a host of recently raised claims in a series of intellectually dishonest news reports (MSC: New
Fact based DEP water results, 2011).
6.2. De-legitimizing federal regulators
A number of federal agencies, plus Congress and the Ofce of the President, potentially can claim oversight over fracking.
In April 2012, when the Obama Administration named an intergovernmental task force to review federal policy related to
natural gas, the membership represented 13 different government agencies, including the Department of the Interior and
Homeland Security (Executive Order, 2012). However, much of the discourse MSC directed toward the federal government
was aimed at the EPA. The MSC attempted to de-legitimize the work of federal regulators by using the bases of rationality
and entitlement.
As noted in Section 1, the EPA had announced a two-year study into water quality in the Marcellus Shale region. However,
the MSC pointed out that it made no sense that the EPA would be engaging in a second study into fracking after a similar
EPA study in 2004 found that there was no contamination of the water (Back to the Future, 2010). In the subtitle to the press
release highlighting the testimony to be delivered to a regional EPA meeting, the question was asked: Did the EPA forget
its 2004 study? The MSC meant to undermine the legitimacy by suggesting it was not rational to do a second study. More
pointedly, the MSC was condent that an objective, science-driven, and peer-reviewed evaluation of fracturing will reach
the same conclusions produced by a host of other studies, including most notably one issued by your agency in 2004 (Back
to the Future, 2010). Further questioning the rationality of pursuing a second study of fracturing, MSC Executive Director
Kathryn Klaber argued that
the EPA found no evidence suggesting the fracturing of shallow coal bed methane reserves posed a threat to underground drinking water supplies. Certainly youre aware that coal bed methane strata reside thousands of feet closer
to the water table than shale formations, and that the technology used today to access clean-burning natural gas from
these formations is much more advanced and sophisticated than what was available in the past. (Back to the Future,
2010)
Again, the EPAs study was seen as redundant and unlikely to produce different results.
The MSC also questioned the EPAs legitimacy through the base of entitlement. Building on its endorsement of state
government as the proper locus for policy development, MSC statements consistently cast the EPA as being too far removed
from those directly affected by fracking. In responding to EPA-issued guidelines for air quality, the MSC stated, Our state
regulators are keeping an eye on the ball. However, its not clear if EPA is as well (MSC Statement on Proposed EPA Air
Regulations, 2011). In a June 2012 piece, the MSC utilized testimony from DEP Secretary Michael Krancer before a U.S.
congressional committee. After reviewing the regulatory framework that the state legislature and DEP had implemented
since 2007, Krancer said, I can tell you unequivocally that the federal government could not have implemented and executed
what we have done, and done very well, right here in Pennsylvania (Pa. to Fed. Govt., 2012). In February 2012, the MSC
published a letter criticizing recent EPA regulations which said, in part, These actions often encroach on states rights to
regulate oil and gas production. . .and most recently, undertake an unnecessary and duplicative water testing and sampling
action in Dimock, Pennsylvania, where a state agency has already acted extensively and with a deep understanding of the
circumstances and the community itself (MSC Letter to on Recent Shale Gas Development Hydraulic Fracturing Actions,
2012). The implication is clearthe EPA is not from Pennsylvania, does not understand state efforts, and is seen as an
interloper.
6.3. MSC and the paradox of local governance
Perhaps the most controversial and contradictory aspect of MSCs advocacy was in relationship to local government as
a locus for decision making. On one hand, the MSC praised local governments for embracing economic development and
asserted that municipalities were entitled to adopt policies to help them adjust to some impacts, such as increased infrastructure repair and use of emergency responders. On the other hand, the MSC asserted that giving over 2500 municipalities
the power to stop well production through zoning ordinances and other rules would be misguided and unfair.
The MSC argued for the legitimacy of community solutions using the bases of entitlement and values. Perhaps the clearest
statement of this came in the rst issue of the Marcellus Quarterly magazine, in which one article contrasted resolutions
banning drilling passed by the cities of Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and Buffalo, New York, with a pro-drilling resolution passed
by South Union Township, Pennsylvania:
With all the talk about heavy-on-symbolism, light on substance resolutions coming out of areas where producers
have no interest in producing, its worth noting that this small town of 12,000, which is the actual home to actual
development, recognizes full well that this process can be done in a safe, environmentally responsible manner while

384

M.F. Smith, D.P. Ferguson / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 377386

beneting its residents through job creation, added revenue, and energy security for Pennsylvania and the nation.
(Small Town Versus City/National Media, 2011).
Note the focus on the actual home to actual development, meaning that the people living in this community were entitled to make decisions about development. Throughout the MSCs web site were stories from local community newspapers
reporting on the economic benets of drilling.
The legitimacy of local communities seemed to be bolstered by the introduction of the MSCs Guiding Principles for the
industry, which were announced by a campaign entitled Commitment to Community. Among the principles were promises
to provide the safest possible workplace. . .in the communities in which we operate and to being responsible members
of the communities in which we work (Gov. Ridge, 2010). The MSC, more to the point, sought to work with local ofcials:
the MSC and its members are eager and committed to strengthening our partnerships with elected ofcials at every level
of government, especially at the local and township level (As PA Twp. Supervisors Head to Hershey, 2010).
Importantly, though, this article also suggested that the appropriate role for local government was limited: Local governments play a signicant role across the Commonwealth, ensuring that critical services are delivered and available for
communities. These important efforts from rst response to public safety measures are directed and often carried out by
township supervisors (As PA Twp. Supervisors Head to Hershey, 2010). Note that this passage does not refer to site licenses,
or taking measures to place wells to avoid contamination. Rather, the MSC is suggesting that communities are important,
but only legitimate in certain areas of policy, such as public safety.
Despite supporting a limited range of local policy making, the MSC was quite clear in its desire to limit the legitimacy of
local decision makers. While some communities, as noted above, were supportive of gas exploration, other towns had used
zoning laws to forbid drilling. Under the law in 2010, communities had the right to inuence development. The challenge
for MSC and the industry was that there are over 2500 local governments in Pennsylvania, more than any other state. Thus,
two years before Act 13 became law, MSC issued a position paper that argued . . .if local government is where everything
begins in our state, sometimes its where it all comes to an end as well. . .Tonight, a local government body in Pennsylvania
can pass an ordinance that effectively eliminates the ability of landowners and businesses to develop clean-burning natural
gas resources on their property (United We Produce, 2010). The harm from this was directed to landowners and businesses,
not to the MSC or gas producers. In this position paper, MSC advocated for a statewide ordinance that eventually was written
into Act 13the prohibition of local ordinances against the reasonable development of natural gas.
The position paper attempts to delegitimize the very process by which most ordinances are developed at the local level:
Even though the process for passing a new ordinance requires a brief notice and public hearing, the decision is generally
made by a majority vote of a board of supervisorsor two people in many municipalities (United We Produce, 2010). Of
course, these supervisors were often elected by those same landowners, and the process allows for input from interested
citizens. Ironically, the document praises local governments: After all, the closer the government is to the people, the more
responsive and accountable it will be.

7. Discussion and conclusion

In our examination of activists and energy representatives in the Marcellus Region, we discovered that both sides heeded
Toths (2006) admonishment to build public policy relationships. . .at the local, state, and federal level (p. 499). We also
found that both sides emphasized the legitimacy of state-level policy actors in addressing issues related to fracking, at least
until the passage of Act 13 in February 2012. For activists, the state government was the locus for creation of regulations
and enforcement mechanisms to control water issues. For the industry, a long tradition of working within Pennsylvanias
regulatory structure and general support for gas drilling among the legislature and regulators bolstered the state as the
legitimate locus for policy making and enforcement. And, while Marcellus Shale development was originally promoted by
Democratic Governor Edward Rendell, the fact that Republican leaders controlled the Governors Ofce and both houses of
the General Assembly probably made state-level work more legitimate. The two sides diverged signicantly in their judgment
of other levels of government, though. Activists viewed federal-level intervention as providing legitimate leverage for their
work in the state, and welcomed the EPAs involvement as a catalyst for state-level organizing. The MSC, on the other hand,
saw federal regulators as redundant and restrictive, and attempted to de-legitimize the EPA as an issue manager. Finally,
while both sides advocated the legitimacy of local community engagement on the Marcellus Shale development, the industry
lobbied to restrict local communities ability to prohibit drilling wells.
The Marcellus Shale development is a sprawling issue, with a number of advocates on all sides. Space did not permit us
to explore them all, including the [relatively few] activist groups that have supported the energy industry. This study is part
of a larger project on the Marcellus Shale region. One limitation, at least conceptually, is that we did not actively explore
the notion of these various policy decision makers as issue managers who would themselves engage in self-legitimizing
strategies; an earlier study examined fractivist organizations use of self-legitimizing strategies (Ferguson & Smith, 2012).
Coombs (1992) original work was applied to a presidential task force that unsuccessfully sought to legitimize its policymaking efforts on the issue of hunger. In the present case, the director of the DEP has often argued for state-level solutions
and for the DEP as the appropriate place to resolve regulatory issues. While this could be the grounds for a future study, we
would point out that government actors are both the target of advocacy efforts and advocates themselves.

M.F. Smith, D.P. Ferguson / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 377386

385

With regard to issue management and activism studies, this study makes two contributions. First, it further develops
the strategies of legitimacy that may be employed in policy debates. While we found examples of many of Coombs (1992)
bases of legitimacy, we would modify his original formulation and redene de-legitimacy as a strategy, not a base of
evidence itself. The process of de-legitimizing involves evaluating an opponent or opposing idea using the other nine bases
of legitimacy, questioning, for instance, the extent to which a federal policy maker is entitled to have a voice in local issues.
Second, we have embraced Smith and Fergusons (2010) call for more longitudinal studies of the interaction between activists
and their targets. The evolution of an issue occurs over timethe MSC, for instance, had begun to formulate its arguments in
support of Act 13 several years before it became law. Indeed, the efcacy of these strategies in the long-term resolution of
the issues raised is yet to be seen. For instance, while both sides lauded state-level efforts, a Quinnipiac University poll found
that 51 percent of Pennsylvanians disapprove of the way the state legislature does its work (Women Give Obama, 2012).
Thus, while the state may be the legitimate locus for environmental policy, generating public enthusiasm for state-level
efforts may be challenging.
Finally, this study illustrates how important arguments about American governance and democracy those that have
followed the country since its inception can work their way into the public relations strategies in complex public policy
debates. From the time of the Federalist Papers, an ongoing conversation about which level of government has the authority
to determine policy over which issues has run like a current through U.S. political discourse. The Tea Party movement
has questioned the scope and legitimacy of the federal government. A 2011 Gallup survey indicated that most Americans
(69%) have a great deal or fair amount of trust in their local government to handle local problems, with a slightly smaller
percentage (57%) expressing similar opinions about state government. This compares to only 31% who expressed the same
level of condence in the U.S. Congress (Saad, 2011). Moreover, a treasured part of the American democratic mythos has
been citizen participation in deliberations about local policies. There are many complex policy debates in the U.S.energy,
education, and health care, to name three. As advocates on all sides of these issues utilize public relations techniques
to advance their positions, the locus of policy decision making will continue to be an important part of strategic issue
management. There is more to be explored about how debates over the locus of decision making may inform strategic
messaging that helps produce policies that embody the essential democratic principles of responsiveness to public wishes
and the political equality of every member of that public (Parkinson, 2003, p. 181).
Acknowledgement
We wish to acknowledge the assistance of Jessica Reagans, Pepperdine University, in gathering material for this article,
and for reviewer feedback that helped shape the nal product.
References
About, 2010. Retrieved from http://www.marcellusprotest.org/about.
As PA Twp. Supervisors Head to Hersheym, MSC reinforces commitment to strengthening partnerships with local governments. (April 2010). Retrieved from
http://marcelluscoalition.org/2010/04/as-pa-twp-supervisors-head-to-hershey-msc-reinforces-commitment-to-strengthening-partnerships-withlocal-governments/.
Back to the future with EPA and hydraulic fracturing. (July 2010). Retrieved from http://marcelluscoalition.org/2010/07/back-to-the-future-with-epa-andhydraulic-fracturing/.
Botan, C. H., & Taylor, M. (2004). Public relations: State of the eld. Journal of Communication, 54(4), 645661.
Bridges, J. (2004). Corporate issues campaigns: Six theoretical approaches. Communication Theory, 14(1), 5177.
City Council votes unanimously to support banUpdated with video. (November 2010). Retrieved from http://prairiehome.publicradio.org/programs/2009/
01/03/.
Coombs, W. T. (1992). The failure of the Task Force on Food Assistance: A case study of the role of legitimacy in issue management. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 4(2), 101122.
Crable, R. E., & Vibbert, S. L. (1985). Managing issues and inuencing public policy. Public Relations Review, 11, 316.
Daly, J., Kellehear, A., & Gliksman, M. (1997). The public health researcher: a methodological approach. Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press.
Downs, A. (1972). Up and down with ecology: The issue-attention cycle. The Public Interest, 29, 3950.
Dryzek, J. (2001). Legitimacy and economy in deliberative democracy. Political Theory, 29(5), 651669.
Duhe, S. C. (2007). Power, resistance, and social change. In S. C. Duhe (Ed.), New media in public relations practice (pp. 8990). New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Executive order: supporting safe and responsible development of unconventional domestic natural gas resources. (April 2012). Retrieved from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-ofce/2012/04/13/executive-order-supporting-safe-and-responsible-development-unconvention.
Ferguson, D. P., & Smith, M. F. (2012). What the Frack? Activism in the Marcellus Shale region. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 7(2), 1434.
Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme
development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 6779. Retrieved from http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/IJQM/issue/archive
Frazier, R. R. (2011, June). 2 professors plus 1 calculation = gas rush. [podcast transcript]. Retrieved from http://alleghenyfront.org/
transcript.html?storyid=201105311327570.541075
Gov. Ridge. (October 2010). MSC unveil landmark industry-wide Commitment to the Community guiding principles. Retrieved from
http://marcelluscoalition.org/2010/10/gov-ridge-msc-unveil-landmark-industry-wide-commitment-to-the-community-guiding-principals/
Groups call on state legislature to revoke Act 13 Marcellus legislation. (October 2012). Retrieved from http://www.marcellusprotest.org/revoke Act13
release 02Oct12.
Habermas, J. (1979). In T. , Trans. McCarthy (Ed.), Communication and the evolution of society. Boston: Beacon.
Hamill, S., 2011. 10 people shaping the debate. Retrieved from http://shale.sites.post-gazette.com/index.php/news/157-environment/23890-10-peopleshaping-the-debate.
Harper, J. A. (2008). The Marcellus ShaleAn old new gas reservoir in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Geology, 38(1), 213.
Heath, R. L., & Palenchar, M. J. (2009). Strategic issues management: organizations and public policy challenges (2nd. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,
Inc.

386

M.F. Smith, D.P. Ferguson / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 377386

Jefferson, B. (October 2012). Council votes on anti Act 13 resolution. Retrieved from http://www.marcellusprotest.org/event calendar/2012-10-08/jeffersonboro-council-votes-anti-act-13-resolution
Jones, B. L., & Chase, W. H. (1979). Managing public policy issues. Public Relations Review, 7, 323.
Legal challenge to Gov. Corbetts Act 13 led by municipalities and individuals. (April (2012). Marcellus Monthly, 1. Retrieved from
http://www.marcellusprotest.org/sites/marcellusprotest.org/les/April 2012.pdf.
Lerbinger, O. (2006). Corporate public affairs: interacting with interest groups, media, and government. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Making connections: MSC staff and members engage communities, businesses, and stakeholders. (Spring 2011). Marcellus Quarterly, 1(1), 28.
Marcellus 101. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.marcellusprotest.org/sites/marcellusprotest.org/les/Marcellus101-Part.2.RevisedFeb2012.pdf.
Marcellus Protest statement in support of Councilman Shields ban on Marcellus drilling. (September 2010). Retrieved from
http://www.marcellusprotest.org/content/marcellus-protest-statement-support-councilman-shield%E2%80%99s-ban-marcellus-drilling.
Marcellus Shale coalition statement on calls from Obama administration for increased fracturing disclosure. (March 2010). Retrieved from
http://marcelluscoalition.org/2010/03/msc-statement-on-epa-study-of-hydraulic-fracturing/.
Maykuth, A. (March 2010). Federal EPA to study hydraulic fracturing. Philadelphia Inquirer,. Retrieved from http://www.philly.
com/philly/news/special packages/inquirer/marcellus-shale/20100319 Federal EPA to study hydraulic fracturing.html
Maykuth, A. (April 2011). Gas drilling going deep. Philadelphia Inquirer,. Retrieved from http://www.philly.com/philly/news/special packages/inquirer/
marcellus-shale/20100314 Gas Drilling Going Deep.html
MSC letter to EPA on recent Shale gas development, hydraulic fracturing actions. (February 2012). Retrieved from http://marcelluscoalition.
org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/02-28-12-MSC-Letter-to-EPA.pdf.
MSC: New, fact-based DEP water results Encouraging. (March 2011). Retrieved from http://marcelluscoalition.org/2011/03/msc-new-fact-based-depwater-results-%E2%80%9Cencouraging%E2%80%9D/.
MSC statement on EPA study of hydraulic fracturing. (March 2010). Retrieved from http://marcelluscoalition.org/2010/03/msc-statement-on-epa-studyof-hydraulic-fracturing.
MSC statement on proposed EPA air regulations. (July 2011). Retrieved from http://marcelluscoalition.org/2011/07/msc-statement-on-proposed-epa-airregulations/.
Olson, L. (June 2012). Act 13 lawsuit argued in Commonwealth Court. Retrieved from http://pipeline.post-gazette.com/news/archives/24596-act-13-lawsuitargued-in-commonwealth-court
Pa. to Fed. Govt.: were doing our job in tightly regulating energy development. (June 2012). Retrieved from http://marcelluscoalition.
org/2012/06/pennsylvania-to-federal-government-were-doing-our-job-in-tightly-regulating-energy-development/.
Parkinson, J. (2003). Legitimacy problems in deliberative democracy. Political Studies, 51, 180196.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. (2012). 2012-Permits issued and wells drilled maps. Retrieved from
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/marcellus shale/20296
Pennsylvania passes Gov. Corbetts legislation on unconventional gas wells. (March 2012). Marcellus Monthly, 1. Retrieved from
http://www.marcellusprotest.org/sites/marcellusprotest.org/les/March 2012.pdf.
Pennsylvania Geological Survey, n.d. Marcellus Shale q & a. Retrieved from http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo/oilandgas/marcellus shale.aspx.
Pennsylvania State University, n.d. Issues and impacts. Retrieved from http://extension.psu.edu/natural-resources/natural-gas/issues.
Pittsburgh City Council to le an Amicus brief with PA Supreme Court in Act 13 case C. (September 2012). Retrieved from
http://www.marcellusprotest.org/content/pittsburgh-city-council-le-amicus-brief-pa-supreme-court-act-13-case.
Reasons to be hopeful. (February 2011). Retrieved from http://les.marcellusprotest.org/frackingbrochure-2-11.pdf.
Reuther, M. (July 2010). Watchdog group: Gas drilling industry supports politicians with big money gifts. Williamsport Sun-Gazette,. Retrieved from
http://www.marcellusprotest.org/content/watchdog-group-gas-drilling-industry-%E2%80%98supports%E2%80%99-politicians-big-money-gifts
Rice, P., & Ezzy, D. (1999). Qualitative research methods: a health focus. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Rosenfeld, S. (March 2012). Fracking democracy: why Pennsylvanias Act 13 may be the nations worst corporate giveaway. Retrieved from
http://www.alternet.org/story/154459
Saad, L. (October 2011). In U.S., local and state governments retain positive ratings. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/149888/Local-StateGovernments-Retain-Positive-Ratings.aspx
Sjolander, S. A., Clark, J., Rizzo, D., & Turack, J. (2011). Water facts #31: introduction to hydrofracturing. State College, PA: The Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved from http://extension.psu.edu/water/marcellus-shale/hydrofracturing/introduction-to-hydrofracturing-1/copy of introduction-tohydrofracturing/view
Small town versus city/national media. (Summer 2011). Marcellus Quarterly, 1, 89.
Smith, M., & Ferguson, D. (2010). Activism 2. 0. In R. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 395408). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Smydo, J. (August 2010). Pittsburgh councilman wants to protect city against drilling. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette,. Retrieved from
http://www.marcellusprotest.org/content/pittsburgh-councilman-wants-protect-city-against-drilling
Southwest PA residents join statewide opposition to Act 13. (October 2012). Retrieved from http://www.marcellusprotest.org/content/south-west-pa-residentsjoin-statewide-opposition-act-13.
Stack, J. (2010). Ruffalo panel on fracking was informative, a little scary. In Pipe dream. Binghamton, NY: Binghamton University. Retrieved from
http://www.bupipedream.com/archive/4824/ruffalo-panel-on-fracking-was-informative-a-little-scary/
The Pennsylvania DEP, another red herring? (August 2011). Retrieved from http://www.marcellusprotest.org/content/pennsylvania-dep-another-red-herring.
The permitting process. (February 2012). Retrieved from http://www.marcellusprotest.org/sites/marcellusprotest.org/les/Marcellus101- Part.2.
RevisedFeb2012.pdf.
The pipelines are coming! Public conference (March 20) on Marcellus Midstream development. (2012) Marcellus Monthly, 1. Retrieved from
http://www.marcellusprotest.org/sites/marcellusprotest.org/les/March 2012.pdf.
Toohey, B. C., Dailida, M., & Bartholomew, L. C. (2003). Intersection of 21st century technology with 20th century laws: A case study in proactive issues
management. Journal of Public Affairs, 3, 232237.
Top 10 quotes from PA DEP on promise, potential of Marcellus Shale. (April 2010). Retrieved from http://marcelluscoalition.org/2010/04/top-10-quotes-frompa-dep-on-promise-potential-of-marcellus-shale/.
Toth, E. L. (2006). Building public affairs theory. In C. Botan, & V. Hazleton (Eds.), Public relations theory II (pp. 499522). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
United we produce: preserving local and municipal autonomywhile expanding opportunities for natural gas in the Commonwealth. (May 2010). Retrieved from
http://marcelluscoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/msc-united-we-produce.pdf.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. (May 2012). Horizontal drilling boosts Pennsylvanias natural gas production. U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Retrieved from http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=6390
Weber, M. (1969). In A. M. , Trans. Hendeson, & T. , Trans. Parsons (Eds.), The theory of social and economic organization. New York: Free Press.
What the gas industry doesnt want you to know. (2011). Retrieved from http://les.marcellusprotest.org/frackingbrochure-2-11.pdf.
Will City of Pittsburgh stand up to toxic trespass? (November 2011). Retrieved from http://www.marcellusprotest.org/content/will-city-pittsburgh-standtoxic-trespass.
Women give Obama 6-point lead in Pennsylvania, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; Gov. Corbett job approval at lowest point ever. (June 2012). Retrieved
from http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-andenters/pollinginstitute/pennsylvania/release-detail?ReleaseID=1761.