Analyzing the case of France, this article aims to explain how the development of enhanced oil recovery techniques over the last decade contributed to politicizing the subsurface, that is putting underground resources at the center of social unrest and political debates. France faced a decline of its oil and gas activity in the 1990s, followed by a renewal with subsurface activity in the late 2000s using enhanced oil recovery techniques. An industrial demonstrator for carbon capture and storage was developed between 2010 and 2013, while projects targeting unconventional oil and gas were pushed forward between 2008 and 2011 before eventually being canceled. We analyze how the credibility, legitimacy, and governance of those techniques were developed and how conflicts made the role of the subsurface for energy transition the target of political choices. The level of political and industrial support and social protest played a key role in building project legitimacy, while the types of narratives and their credibility determined the distinct trajectories of hydraulic fracturing and carbon capture and storage in France. The conflicts over enhanced oil recovery techniques are also explained through the critical assessment of the governance framework that tends to exclude civil society stakeholders. We suggest that these conflicts illustrated a new type of politicization of the subsurface by merging geostrategic concerns with social claims about governance, ecological demands about pollution, and linking local preoccupations to global climate change.
AndrewsEMcCarthyJ (2014)
Scale, shale, and the state: Political ecologies and legal geographies of shale gas development in Pennsylvania.Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences4(1): 7–16.
2.
AnshelmJHanssonA (2016)
Has the grand idea of geoengineering as plan B run out of steam?The Anthropocene Review3(1): 64–74.
3.
Arnaud N, Seranne M and Pistre S (2011) Le gaz de Schiste dans le Sud de la France.
Montpellier:
Université de Montpellier 2.
4.
AykutSCDahanA (2015) Gouverner le Climat?: 20 Ans de Négociations Internationales.
Paris:
Presses de Sciences Po.
5.
AylingJGunninghamN (2017)
Non-state governance and climate policy: The fossil fuel divestment movement.Climate Policy17(2): 131–149.
6.
BartheY (2006) Le Pouvoir D’indécision – La Mise En Politique Des Déchets Nucléaires.
Paris:
Economica.
7.
BazilianMD (2018)
The mineral foundation of the energy transition.The Extractive Industries and Society5(1): 93–97.
8.
BebbingtonABuryJ (2013) Subterranean Struggles: New Dynamics of Mining, Oil, and Gas in Latin America.
Austin:
University of Texas Press.
9.
Bloomfield B and Doolin B (2017) Landfarming: A contested space for the management of waste from oil and gas extraction. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 49(11): 2457–2476.
10.
BoersmaTJordaanSM (2017)
Whatever happened to the golden age of natural gas?Energy Transitions1(2): 1–5.
11.
BonneuilCFressozJ-B (2013) L’ Événement Anthropocène: La Terre, L’histoire et Nous.
Paris:
Éd. du Seuil.
12.
BowkerG (1987)
Pictures from the subsoil, 1939.The Sociological Review35(1): 221–254.
13.
BraunB (2000)
Producing vertical territory: Geology and governmentality in Late Victorian Canada.Ecumene7(1): 7–46.
14.
BrennerN (2004) New State Spaces: Urban Governance and the Rescaling of Statehood.
Oxford and New York:
Oxford University Press.
BridgeGWoodA (2010)
Less is more: Spectres of scarcity and the politics of resource access in the upstream oil sector.Geoforum41(4): 565–576.
17.
BrunstingSde Best-WaldhoberM(Ynke) FeenstraCFJ, et al. (2011)
Stakeholder participation practices and onshore CCS: Lessons from the Dutch CCS Case Barendrecht.Energy Procedia4: 6376–6383.
18.
CalvertK (2016)
From ‘energy geography’ to ‘energy geographies’: Perspectives on a fertile academic borderland.Progress in Human Geography40(1): 105–125.
19.
CarolanMS (2006)
Science, expertise, and the democratization of the decision-making process.Society & Natural Resources19(7): 661–668.
20.
CashDClarkWCAlcockF, et al. (2002) Salience, Credibility, Legitimacy and Boundaries: Linking Research, Assessment and Decision Making. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 372280.
Rochester, NY:
Social Science Research Network.
21.
ChailleuxS (2015) Non Au Gaz de Schiste ! : Cadrages et Débordements de La Controverse Sur Les Hydrocarbures Non Conventionnels En France et Au Québec. Thèse Pour L’obtention du Doctorat en Science Politique, Université de Bordeaux, France.
22.
ChailleuxS (2019)
Strategic ignorance and politics of time: How expert knowledge framed shale gas policies.Critical Policy Studies. Epub ahead of print 1 January 2019. DOI: 10.1080/19460171.2018.1563556.
23.
ChailleuxSMerlinJGunzburgerY (2018)
Unconventional oil and gas in France: From popular distrust to politicization of the underground.The Extractive Industries and Society5(4): 682–690.
24.
ChateauraynaudFDebazJ (2017) Aux Bords de L’irréversible: Sociologie Pragmatique Des Transformations.
Paris:
Petra.
25.
ClarkN (2013)
Geoengineering and geologic politics.Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space45(12): 2825–2832.
26.
CowellREllisGSherry-BrennanF, et al. (2017)
Sub-national government and pathways to sustainable energy.Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space35(7): 1139–1155.
27.
EldenS (2013)
Secure the volume: Vertical geopolitics and the depth of power.Political Geography34: 35–51.
28.
Energy Information Agency (2011) World Shale Gas Resources: An Initial Assessment of 14 Regions Outside the United States.
Washington, DC:
US Department of Energy.
29.
EvensenD (2018)
Yet more ‘fracking’ social science: An overview of unconventional hydrocarbon development globally.The Extractive Industries and Society5(4): 417–421.
30.
Fox J (2010) Gasland.
31.
GunzburgerYAgnolettiM-FDeshaiesM, et al. (2017)
Social perception of unconventional gas extraction on the outskirts of a former coal-mining area in Northeast France.The Extractive Industries and Society4(1): 53–62.
32.
HanssonABryngelssonM (2009)
Expert opinions on carbon dioxide capture and storage – A framing of uncertainties and possibilities.Energy Policy37(6): 2273–2282.
33.
HaydenA (2014) When Green Growth Is Not Enough: Climate Change, Ecological Modernization, and Sufficiency.
Montreal and Kingston:
McGill-Queen’s University Press.
34.
HilgartnerS (2000) Science on Stage: Expert Advice as Public Drama. Writing Science.
Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
35.
HoogheLMarksG (2002) Multi-Level Governance and European Integration.
Lanham, MD:
Rowman and Littlefield.
36.
HotellingH (1931)
The economics of exhaustible resources. Journal of Political Economy39: 137–175.
37.
HuberMT (2009)
Energizing historical materialism: Fossil fuels, space and the capitalist mode of production.Geoforum40(1): 105–115.
38.
Huber MT and Emel J (2009) Fixed minerals, scalar politics: The weight of scale in conflicts over the ‘1872 Mining Law’ in the United States. Environment and Planning A 41(2): 371–388.
39.
HuberMTMcCarthyJ (2017)
Beyond the subterranean energy regime? Fuel, land use and the production of space.Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers42(4): 655–668.
40.
International Energy Agency (2010) The Golden Age of Gas.
Paris:
IEA.
41.
International Energy Agency (2011) World Energy Outlook.
Paris:
IEA.
42.
International Energy Agency (2012) Golden rules for a golden age of gas. Paris: IEA.
43.
International Energy Agency (2016) 20 Years of Carbon Capture and Storage – Accelerating Future Deployment.
Paris:
IEA.
44.
International Panel on Climate Change – Metz Bet al. (2005) Special Report on Carbon Capture and Storage.
Nairobi:
UNEP.
45.
JasanoffS (2004) States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and the Social Order.
London:
Routledge.
46.
KenisALievensM (2017)
Imagining the carbon neutral city: The (post)politics of time and space.Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space49(8): 1762–1778.
47.
KinchyAParksSJalbertK (2016)
Fractured knowledge: Mapping the gaps in public and private water monitoring efforts in areas affected by shale gas development.Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy34(5): 879–899.
48.
LabussièreONadaïA (eds) (2018) Energy Transitions: A Socio-Technical Inquiry. 1st ed. Energy, Climate and the Environment.
Cham:
Palgrave Macmillan.
49.
Le BillonPKristoffersenB (2019) Just cuts for fossil fuels? Supply-side carbon constraints and energy transition. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space. Epub ahead of print 10 January 2019. DOI: 0308518X1881670.
50.
Le BillonPSommervilleM (2017)
Landing capital and assembling ‘investable land’ in the extractive and agricultural sectors.Geoforum82: 212–224.
51.
LidskogRSundqvistG (2004)
On the right track? Technology, geology and society in Swedish Nuclear Waste Management.Journal of Risk Research7(2): 251–268.
52.
Margriet KuijperI (2011)
Public acceptance challenges for onshore CO2 storage in Barendrecht.Energy Procedia4: 6226–6233.
53.
Markusson N, Shackley S and Evar B (2012) The social dynamics of carbon capture and storage: understanding CCS representations, governance and innovation. London: Routledge.
54.
MatthewsJHansenA (2018)
Fracturing debate? A review of research on media coverage of ‘fracking.’Frontiers in Communication3: 1–11.
55.
MetzeT (2018)
Framing the future of fracking: Discursive lock-in or energy degrowth in the Netherlands?Journal of Cleaner Production197: 1737–1745.
56.
MintromMLuetjensJ (2017)
Policy entrepreneurs and problem framing: The case of climate change.Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space35(8): 1362–1377.
57.
MitchellT (2013) Carbon Democracy: Political Power in the Age of Oil.
London:
Verso.
58.
MooreJW (2017)
The Capitalocene, Part I: On the nature and origins of our ecological crisis.The Journal of Peasant Studies44(3): 594–630.
59.
MooreJW (2018)
The Capitalocene Part II: Accumulation by appropriation and the centrality of unpaid work/energy.The Journal of Peasant Studies45(2): 237–279.
60.
NerlichBJaspalR (2013)
UK media representations of carbon capture and storage: Actors, frames and metaphors.Metaphor and the Social World3(1): 35–53.
61.
NevilleKJBakaJGamper-RabindranS, et al. (2017)
Debating unconventional energy: Social, political, and economic implications.Annual Review of Environment and Resources42(1): 241–266.
62.
NewellPMulvaneyD (2013)
The political economy of the ‘just transition’: The political economy of the ‘just transition’.The Geographical Journal179(2): 132–140.
63.
O’NeillRNadaïA (2012)
Risque et Démonstration, La Politique de Capture et de Stockage Du Dioxyde de Carbone (CCS) Dans l’Union Europeenne.Vertigo12(1). Available at: http://journals.openedition.org/vertigo/12172.
64.
PraetoriusBSchumacherK (2009)
Greenhouse gas mitigation in a carbon constrained world: The role of carbon capture and storage.Energy Policy37(12): 5081–5093.
65.
RabeBGBorickC (2013)
Conventional politics for unconventional drilling? Lessons from Pennsylvania’s early move into fracking policy development: Conventional politics for unconventional drilling.Review of Policy Research30(3): 321–340.
66.
RadaelliCM (2005)
Diffusion without convergence: How political context shapes the adoption of regulatory impact assessment.Journal of European Public Policy12(5): 924–943.
RossM (2013) The Oil Curse: How Petroleum Wealth Shapes the Development of Nations.
Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
69.
SchmidtVA (2013)
Democracy and legitimacy in the European Union Revisited: Input, output and ‘throughput’.Political Studies61(1): 2–22.
70.
ScottVGilfillanSMarkussonN, et al. (2012)
Last chance for carbon capture and storage.Nature Climate Change3: 105.
71.
ShadeL (2015)
Sustainable development or sacrifice zone? Politics below the surface in post-neoliberal Ecuador.The Extractive Industries and Society2(4): 775–784.
72.
SheppardESMcMasterRB (eds) (2004) Scale and Geographic Inquiry: Nature, Society, and Method.
Malden, MA:
Blackwell Publishing.
73.
StasikA (2018)
Global controversies in local settings: Anti-fracking activism in the era of web 2.0.Journal of Risk Research21(12): 1562–1578.
74.
Svampa M (2016) Reconfigurations du clivage Nord-Sud et géographie de l'«extraction». Alternatives Sud 23(2): 25–43.
75.
Swyngedouw E (2004) Scaled geographies: Nature, place, and the politics of scale. In: Scale and geographic inquiry: Nature, society, and method. Blackwell Publishing, pp.129–153.
TerralP-M (2012)
La fronde contre le gaz de schiste: Essai d’histoire immédiate d’une mobilisation éclair (2010–2011).Ecologie & Politique45(2): 185.
78.
TopçuS (2013) La France Nucléaire. L’art de Gouverner Une Technologie Contestée.
Paris:
Le Seuil.
79.
WangZKrupnickA (2015)
A retrospective review of shale gas development in the United States.Economics of Energy & Environmental Policy4(1): 5–18.
80.
WeileR (2014)
Beyond the fracking ban in France.Journal of European Management and Public Affairs Studies1(2): 11–16.
81.
WidenerP (2018)
National discovery and citizen experts in Aotearoa New Zealand: Local and global narratives of hydraulic fracturing.The Extractive Industries and Society5(4): 515–523.
