The extraction of unconventional hydrocarbons, particularly through hydraulic fracturing (‘fracking’), has generated both support and opposition in many countries around the globe. Along with arguments about economic benefits, decarbonisation, transition fuels and groundwater contamination, etc., the rapid expansion of this industry presents a pressing problem as regards the disposal of the resultant waste – including drilling and cutting material, oil and gas residues, various chemicals used in the process, salts and produced water. One putative solution – ‘landfarming’ – is a disposal process that involves spreading oil and gas waste on to land and mixing it with topsoil to allow bioremediation of the hydrocarbons. This paper examines the case of landfarming in New Zealand where the practice has proved controversial due to its association with fracking, fears about the contamination of agricultural land and potential danger to milk supplies. Drawing upon Gieryn’s notion of cultural cartography and boundary work as well as the literature on the politics of scale it analyses the struggles for epistemic authority regarding the safety of landfarming. The paper concludes that scalar practices were central to the production of knowledge (and ignorance) in these credibility struggles, and that the prevailing cultural cartography of knowledge remained the arbiter and basis for policy. The case has wider implications in terms of the management of waste from unconventional hydrocarbons as well as other environmental issues in which the politics of scale figure in contested knowledge claims.
BallASStewartRJSchliephakeK (2012) A review of the current options for the treatment and safe disposal of drill cuttings. Waste Management & Research30(5): 457–473.
4.
BeckU (1992) Risk Society, London: Sage.
5.
BerbrierM (2002) Making minorities: Cultural space, stigma transformation frames, and the categorical status claims of deaf, gay, and white supremacist activists in late twentieth century America. Sociological Forum17(4): 553–591.
6.
BickerstaffKSimmonsP (2004) The right tool for the job? Modeling, spatial relationships, and styles of scientific practice in the UK foot and mouth crisis. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space22(3): 393–412.
7.
BoyleM (2002) Cleaning up after the Celtic Tiger: Scalar ‘fixes’ in the political ecology of Tiger economies. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers27(2): 172–194.
CohenA (2012) Rescaling environmental governance: Watersheds as boundary objects at the intersection of science, neoliberalism, and participation. Environment and Planning A44(9): 2207–2224.
16.
CoxKR (1998) Spaces of dependence, spaces of engagement and the politics of scale, or: Looking for local politics. Political Geography17(1): 1–23.
17.
DelaneyDLeitnerH (1997) The political construction of scale. Political Geography16(2): 93–97.
18.
De RijkeK (2013) Hydraulically fractured: Unconventional gas and anthropology. Anthropology Today29(2): 13–17.
19.
DodgeJMetzeT (2017) Hydraulic fracturing as an interpretive policy problem: Lessons on energy controversies in Europe and the U.S.A. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning19(1): 1–13.
20.
EdenSDonaldsonAWalkerG (2006) Green groups and grey areas: Scientific boundary-work, nongovernmental organisations, and environmental knowledge. Environment and Planning A38(6): 1061–1076.
21.
EdmeadesDC (2013) The Taranaki Landfarms: Are they “Fit for Purpose”?, Hamilton: agKnowledge Ltd.
Funtowicz S and Ravetz J (2003) Post-normal science. Internet Encyclopaedia of Ecological Economics. International Society for Ecological Economics. Available at: http://isecoeco.org/pdf/pstnormsc.pdf (accessed 8 March 2017).
28.
GierynTF (1999) Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
29.
GierynTF (2008) Cultural boundaries: Settled and unsettled. In: MeusburgerPWelkerMWunderE (eds) Clashes of Knowledge: Orthodoxies and Heterodoxies in Science and Religion, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 91–99.
HarrisonJL (2006) ‘Accidents’ and invisibilities: Scaled discourse and the naturalization of regulatory neglect in California’s pesticide drift conflict. Political Geography25(5): 506–529.
HerodAWrightMW (2002) Placing scale: An introduction. In: HerodAWrightMW (eds) Geographies of Power: Placing Scale, Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 1–14.
35.
HuberMTEmel J (2009) Fixed minerals, scalar politics: The weight of scale in conflicts over the ‘1872 Mining Law’ in the United States. Environment and Planning A41(2): 371–388.
36.
JasanoffSS (1987) Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Social Studies of Science17(2): 195–230.
37.
JonesKT (1998) Scale as epistemology. Political Geography17(1): 25–28.
38.
KinchyAJ (2014) Political scale and conflicts over knowledge production. In: KleinmanDLMooreK (eds) Routledge Handbook of Science, Technology, and Society, Abingdon and New York: Routledge, pp. 246–262.
39.
KinchyAJKleinmanDL (2003) Organizing credibility: Discursive and organizational orthodoxy on the borders of ecology and politics. Social Studies of Science33(6): 869–896.
40.
KurtzHE (2003) Scale frames and counter-scale frames: Constructing the problem of environmental injustice. Political Geography22(8): 887–916.
41.
LatourB (1987) Science in Action, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
LindsethG (2006) Scalar strategies in climate-change politics: Debating the environmental consequences of a natural gas project. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy24(5): 739–754.
McCarthyJ (2005) Scale, sovereignty, and strategy in environmental governance. Antipode37(4): 731–753.
46.
McCauleySMMurphyJT (2013) Smart growth and the scalar politics of land management in the Greater Boston region, USA. Environment and Planning A45(12): 2852–2867.
47.
MacKinnonD (2011) Reconstructing scale: Towards a new scalar politics. Progress in Human Geography35(1): 21–36.
48.
MailaMPCloeteTE (2004) Bioremediation of petroleum hydrocarbons through landfarming: Are simplicity and cost-effectiveness the only advantages?Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology3(4): 349–360.
49.
MaloneyKOYoxtheimerDA (2012) Production and disposal of waste materials from gas and oil extraction from the Marcellus Shale play in Pennsylvania. Environmental Practice14(4): 278–287.
50.
MansfieldBHaasJ (2006) Scale framing of scientific uncertainty in controversy over the endangered Steller sea lion. Environmental Politics15(1): 78–94.
MarstonSA (2000) The social construction of scale. Progress in Human Geography24(2): 219–242.
53.
MeashamTGFlemingDASchandlH (2016) A conceptual model of the socioeconomic impacts of unconventional fossil fuel extraction. Global Environmental Change36: 101–110.
54.
MetzeT (2017) Fracking the debate: Frame shifts and boundary work in Dutch decision making on shale gas. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning19(1): 35–52.
55.
MetzeTDodgeJ (2016) Dynamic discourse coalitions on hydro-fracking in Europe and the United States. Environmental Communication10(3): 365–379.
56.
Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) (2014) Targeted Surveillance of Milk from Animals Potentially Exposed to Petrochemical Mining Wastes. MPI Technical Paper No: 2014/24. Wellington: Ministry for Primary Industries.
Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) (2015b) Food Safety and Animal Welfare Guidance if Spreading Rocks and Minerals from Drilling Oil and Gas Wells on Land, Wellington: Ministry for Primary Industries.
59.
Ministry for the Environment (MFE) (2014) Managing Environmental Effects of Onshore Petroleum Development Activities (Including Hydraulic Fracturing): Guidelines for Local Government, Wellington: Ministry for the Environment.
60.
NeumannRP (2009) Political ecology: Theorizing scale. Progress in Human Geography33(3): 398–406.
61.
New South Wales Environment Protection Authority (NSW EPA) (2014) Best Practice Note: Landfarming, Sydney: New South Wales Environment Protection Authority.
Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE) (2012) Evaluating the Environmental Impacts of Fracking in New Zealand: An Interim Report, Wellington: Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.
64.
Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE) (2014) Drilling for Oil and Gas in New Zealand: Environmental Oversight and Regulation, Wellington: Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.
RawlinsR (2014) Planning for fracking on the Barnett Shale: Soil and water contamination concerns, and the role of local government. Environmental Law44(1): 135–199.
SmithN (1992) Contours of a spatialized politics: Homeless vehicles and the production of geographical scale. Social Text33: 54–81.
82.
SteinzorNBaizelB (2015) Wasting Away: Four States’ Failure to Manage Gas and Oil Field Waste from the Marcellus and Utica Shale, Washington, DC: Earthworks.
83.
SwyngedouwE (2004) Scaled geographies: Nature, place, and the politics of scale. In: SheppardEMcMasterRB (eds) Scale and Geographic Inquiry: Nature, Society, and Method, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 129–153.
84.
Taranaki Regional Council (TRC) (2013) Guide to Regulating Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities under the Resource Management Act, New Plymouth: Taranaki Regional Council.
TomeiMCDaugulisAJ (2013) Ex situ bioremediation of contaminated soils: An overview of conventional and innovative technologies. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology43(20): 2107–2139.
