David Farkas_Dissertation_Final

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The energy system of today is outdated, and not sustainable any more.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

David Farkas_Dissertation_Final

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Similar to David Farkas_Dissertation_Final

David Farkas_Dissertation_Final