





































Raised Awareness of Fracking in Pennsylvania


COMMONWEALTH, Volume 19, Issue 1 (2017). © 2017 The Pennsylvania Political Science Association.  
ISSN 2469-7672 (online). http://dx.doi.org/10.15367/com.v19i1.132. All rights reserved.

Raised Awareness of Fracking 
in Pennsylvania

PHILIP J. HAROLD
Robert Morris University

TONY KERZMANN
Robert Morris University

This article presents survey results from 2013 to 2016 that show an increase 
in public awareness of fracking in Pennsylvania. It suggests that the increased 
awareness of fracking is due to the expansion of the industry in the Common-
wealth, lowered gas prices, and increased political discussion following the 2014 
gubernatorial race and that it is also part of a national trend. Results of a Penn-
sylvania survey and three national surveys show opinions split along gender and 
partisan lines.

Increased Public Awareness of Fracking 

Hydraulic fracturing, which the industry refers to as “fracing” and 
much of the media colloquially refer to as “fracking,” is the process 
by which shale deposits far below the surface of the earth are stimu-

lated. The stimulation is used to release natural gas that is trapped within the 
shale deposits. Horizontal drilling was demonstrated as a commercially viable 
technology in the early 1980s and the technology has rapidly progressed ever 
since. Today’s wells can be drilled more than two miles below the earth’s sur-
face and can travel horizontally more than eight miles. The processing, tech-
nology, and chemicals used in the horizontal drilling process took a number of 
years to master until the technology could be considered economically feasible.



34 philip J. harolD anD tony kerzmann

The Marcellus Shale formation lies underground in West Virginia, Ohio, 
and New York, but the largest portion lies in Pennsylvania. In recent years 
drilling of the Marcellus shale has seen a storm of activity. In 2010 gas pro-
duction from this formation was below two billion cubic feet per day (bcf/d), 
and in 2015 production averaged almost 18 bcf/d (U.S. Energy Information 
Administration 2016b). A ninefold increase over a five year period is a sub-
stantial change and with that change came a lot of publicity, awareness, inter-
est, and scrutiny. In the beginning of the gas boom there were many political, 
environmental and even economic concerns associated with the drilling and 
fracking process. The natural gas boom in Pennsylvania brought with it many 
new jobs, a revival of manufacturing in the region, and a new economic stim-
ulus. It also brought about tax and environmental clashes between industry, 
environmental groups and lawmakers.

Nevertheless, in 2012 the public had limited knowledge of many aspects 
of the natural gas production process, including a lack of understanding of 
fracking, horizontal drilling, fracking water disposal, well casing, gas leaks, 
pipeline distribution, environmental issues, taxation, land management, 
land royalties, etc. A national survey conducted by the Pew Research Center 
found that only 26% of the public indicated that they had heard “a lot” about 
fracking. The remainder of the sample was split between those who indicated 
they had heard only “a little” or “nothing at all” (Pew Research Center 2012). 
The September 2012 national Climate Change in the American Mind Survey 
further confirmed just how much the American public was in the dark con-
cerning fracking (Boudet et al. 2014). Those results are presented in Table 1.

In Pennsylvania, the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion 
completed three public opinion polls on fracking (Borick, Rabe, and Lacha-
pelle 2014; Brown et al. 2013; Borick and Rabe 2011). These results are pre-
sented in Table 2.

As can be seen from these polls, the general public’s knowledge about 
fracking was very low when the gas boom began. There is evidence, however, 

table 1. national awareness of Fracking, 2012

how much have you heard about fracking?

Heard “a lot”  9%

Heard “some” 22%

Heard “a little” 16%

Have not heard anything at all 39%

Do not know 13% 

Source: Hilary Boudet et al., “‘Fracking’ Controversy and Communication: Using National Survey Data 
to Understand Public Perceptions of Hydraulic Fracturing,” Energy Policy 65 (2014): 57–67.



Raised Awareness of Fracking in Pennsylvania 35

that in recent years something has changed. From 2013 to 2016 Robert Mor-
ris University conducted several national polls to get opinions on hydraulic 
fracturing. The results from these polls document raised public awareness of 
fracking over that time period (see Table 3).

The RMU polls found that the trend in Pennsylvania was similar to those 
around the country. In May 2014, the RMU poll found that 62.0% of Penn-
sylvanians said they were very and somewhat familiar with fracking, while 
in May 2015, awareness (very and somewhat familiar) increased by 11.7% to 
73.7%. This is a substantial jump in awareness over the course of a single year.

Evidence for raised awareness this decade has also been found in the 
United Kingdom. An October 2014 poll by the U.K. government found that 
15% of respondents “know a lot about” fracking, up from 6% in 2011, and 
76% have heard of it, up from 42% in 2011 (U.K. Department of Energy and 
Climate Change 2014). 

Reasons for Increased Public Awareness  
of Fracking 

This increased awareness of fracking should not be surprising, given the 
expansion of fracking nationwide and in Pennsylvania, the political discussion 

Table 2. Awareness of Fracking in Pennsylvania, 2011–2014

October/November April/May 
October 2011 2012 2014

Following the issue of fracking very 48% 59% 49%
closely or somewhat closely

Heard a lot about fracking  46% 37%

Sources: Christopher Borick, Barry G. Rabe, and Erick Lachapelle, “Issues in Energy and Environmen-
tal Policy, No. 14: Public Perceptions of Shale Gas Extraction and Hydraulic Fracturing in New York 
and Pennsylvania,” National Surveys on Energy and Environment, 2014. Erica Brown et al., “Public 
Opinion on Fracking: Perspectives from Michigan and Pennsylvania,” Report from the Center for Local, 
State, and Urban Policy, National Surveys on Energy and Environment, 2013. Christopher Borick and 
Barry G. Rabe, “Fracking for Natural Gas: Public Opinion on State Policy Options,” Report from the 
Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy, November 2011. 

Table 3. National Awareness of Fracking, 2013–2016 

Very or Somewhat Somewhat or Completely 
Familiar Unfamiliar Unsure

September/October 2013 45.1% 50.6% 4.3% 

May 2015 70.7% 26.4% 2.9% 

February 2016 61.3% 35.0% 3.8%

Sources: Robert Morris University Polling Institute, “National Poll Report,” November 2013, May 
2015, and February 2016. 



36 philip J. harolD anD tony kerzmann

that expansion engendered, and the impact of that expansion on gas prices, 
which has high salience for many people.

With the rapid increase in well drilling and the gigantic increase of natu-
ral gas supply to the market came a substantial drop in natural gas prices. 
This not only led to a lowered cost of living for many Pennsylvania residents 
but also strengthened the discussion about national energy independence 
and contributed to the replacement of coal-f ired electricity production with 
a cleaner burning natural gas alternative to electricity production. Energy 
independence was a big ticket topic in the 2012 presidential debates and was 
therefore inherently a driver for increased awareness all over the nation. Envi-
ronmental concerns related to fracking have been a part of the conversation 
for quite some time, but the widespread replacement of coal for natural gas in 
electricity production is a recent development. Many coal- fired power plants 
that have shut down in recent years have been replaced with natural gas power 
plants. Greenhouse gas emissions from these plants are almost half that of 
coal- fired plants, and the cost of electricity from natural gas is less than coal 
in many instances (U.S. Energy Information Administration 2016a). The 
combination of many different elements has led to an increased understand-
ing and awareness of the numerous topics surrounding the fracking industry. 
The results from a series of polls at the RMU Polling Institute have confirmed 
the rise in understanding within the general public.

Political Discussions of Fracking in Pennsylvania

Public awareness of the risks of fracking started to become more mainstream 
after 2010 with the release of the documentary Gasland, and its nomination 
for an Academy Award (Vasi et al. 2015). In January 2013, Promised Land was 
released. The film is critical of the gas industry and starred Matt Damon as a 
landsman in a small Pennsylvania town. Political discussions in Pennsylva-
nia concerning fracking centered on the governor’s race in 2014. A number 
of other issues and news stories about fracking came out during this election 
cycle as well, including the following:

• June 2013: The Pennsylvania Democratic Party State Committee 
calls for a moratorium on fracking.

• February 2014: A pair of gas wells in Greene County were ignited by 
an explosion, killing one person.

• March 2014: A segment airs on the Daily Show critical of fracking 
in Pennsylvania.

• May 2014: Governor Corbett signs an executive order to allow drill-
ing in state park and forest land.



Raised Awareness of Fracking in Pennsylvania 37

• June 2014: Former state health employees expose how the depart-
ment failed to respond to complaints about fracking.

• July 2014: Former state health secretary Dr. Eli Avila said he believed 
Pennsylvania has failed to address public concerns related to natu-
ral gas development.

• July 2014: The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported Pennsylvania envi-
ronmental regulators documented 209 cases where oil and gas oper-
ations negatively impacted water supplies since late 2007.

• September 2014: The shale gas industry begins a public opinion 
push, which includes election advertisements, a Super Bowl com-
mercial, and a campaign against a shale tax.

• November 2014: Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley proposes 
strict regulations on fracking.

• December 2014: Governor Andrew M. Cuomo’s administration 
announced that it would ban hydraulic fracturing in New York State.

  

The issue was central to the governor’s race. This election was largely a 
referendum on the incumbent, and turned out to have a historic result. Since 
1950 the two political parties in Pennsylvania have alternated the governor’s 
office every eight years, which had been referred to as “the cycle.” The last 
time an incumbent governor lost was in 1854 (governors were limited to one 
term from 1874 to 1968), and Pennsylvanians had voted against the party of 
a sitting president in 18 out of the last 19 contests. The 2014 contest broke 
this historical precedent. However, everyone knew in advance what was going 
to happen—polls showed incumbent governor Tom Corbett was the most 
unpopular governor in the United States (“Corbett Down Double Digits to 
Unknown Democrats” 2013). US News and World Report labeled him “Amer-
ica’s Most Vulnerable Governor,” an RMU poll found favorable impressions 
of the governor to be 29.4% in February 2014, and 30.8% that May (“America’s 
Most Vulnerable Governor” 2014). As a result interest in the election was low; 
for example, an RMU political science professor was scheduled to appear on a 
panel discussion sponsored by the Press Club of Western Pennsylvania, which 
got cancelled due to lack of interest.

The interesting race was the Democratic primary, in which a bevy of tal-
ented Democratic politicians who agreed on almost all the issues vied for atten-
tion and the all- important campaign donations. Some candidates (John Hanger, 
Jo Ellen Litz, Max Myers, Ed Pawlowski, Jack Wagner) failed on the latter and 
dropped out, while those who remained (Rob McCord, Katie McGinty, Allyson 
Schwartz, Thomas Wolf) tried a little too hard to do so, at least in the case of 
State Treasurer Rob McCord, who was caught on tape threatening to use his 
office to hurt people who refused to contribute to his gubernatorial campaign; 



38 philip J. harolD anD tony kerzmann

McCord pled guilty to corruption charges in early 2015. He, McGinty, and the 
insiders’ favorite, Congresswoman Allyson Schwartz, all failed to keep up with 
a political newcomer, York businessman Tom Wolf, who lent his campaign just 
shy of $10 million and used it to buy air time for slick television ads early in the 
political cycle, in February 2014, when the stark “deep freeze” weather condi-
tions had everyone in the state inside watching television. The ads had their 
intended effect—an RMU poll fielded in the middle of February showed Wolf 
with 51.4% support among Democrats, a lead that never waivered. Wolf won 
the four- way race in May with 57.8% of the vote.

All the Democratic candidates supported an extraction tax on natural 
gas. Wolf favored a 5% extraction tax, which during the general election he 
said would raise $1 billion of revenue a year for the Commonwealth. In his 
television commercials, Wolf linked the extraction tax to education funding, 
the top issue for voters in the election. One ad had Wolf in a classroom with 
children, proclaiming that the solution to the problem of school funding lies 
“under our feet,” with tax revenue from natural gas.

The incumbent governor at that time, Tom Corbett was largely unpopular 
because of his stance on education funding. The respondents who had a nega-
tive impression of Governor Corbett in the RMU poll (56.5% in February 2014 
and 60.6% in May 2014) were asked in an open- ended question why they had 
the impression they did. The responses were coded, and the results show the 
dominance of the major issue was in education (see Table 4).

Fracking came up second in both polls, however, showing its importance 
in the negative perceptions of the governor. Corbett oversaw a huge boom in 
natural gas production in Pennsylvania in his tenure as governor, as well as 
the creation of new taxes on the industry. He signed Act 13 in February 2012, 
which created an impact fee, an annual fee for drilling at a well site. A frac-
tion of this tax money went to state agencies, the majority of it to counties and 
cities impacted by the wells. The impact fee generated hundreds of millions 
of dollars in new tax revenue for the Commonwealth. However, two other 
provisions of Act 13—one that allowed state zoning regulations to trump local 
regulations, and one that imposed a medical gag order on doctors, preventing 
them from discussing health risks of fracking—in addition to other actions of 
Corbett, such as his appointment of his Chief of Staff to head the Department 
of Environmental Protection, and receiving large amounts of contributions 
from the gas companies, combined with his refusal to consider a severance 
tax, gave the perception that the governor was too close to the gas industry 
and letting them off easy. This was the tenor of the comments about fracking 
in the open- ended question. One representative comment was that Corbett 
“cut education funding to the bone while selling the rest of the state to his oil 
and gas buddies.” By contrast, the survey indicated that Corbett did a poor 



Raised Awareness of Fracking in Pennsylvania 39

job selling his support for the industry as a positive feature of his tenure, since 
of the 29.4% who had a favorable impression of Corbett, not a single person 
mentioned the governor’s support of the oil and gas industry.

In the November election, Wolf beat Corbett 54%- 45%. At his inaugura-
tion in January, eight anti- fracking protesters disrupted the ceremony. The 
newly sworn- in governor proceeded to impose a moratorium on leasing state 
park and forestland to Marcellus Shale drillers.

In a post- election retrospective survey in December 2014, an RMU 
poll found that voters found it highly likely that an extraction tax would be 
imposed, with those who voted Republican finding it even more likely than 
those voting Democrat or splitting their ticket (see Table 5).

Gas Prices

Another factor contributing to the awareness of fracking is the retail price 
of natural gas on the market. Gas prices in Pennsylvania and nationwide 
rose sharply in 2007. From September 2004 to June 2008, U.S. residential NG 
prices rose 29%, while Pennsylvania prices rose by 32% (U.S. Energy Informa-
tion Administration 2016c). This caused economic hardship for residential 
consumers, exacerbated by the financial crisis. Weak economic conditions 

table 4. reasons for Unfavorable impression of Gov. tom Corbett, 2014

February 2014 may 2014

Education 24% 29%

Fracking 7% 13%

Jerry Sandusky Scandal 6%  4%

Taxes 5%  8%

Budget 4%  4%

Economy and Jobs 7%  3%

Personal Attributes 6% 11%

Medicaid Expansion 5%  5%

Sources: Robert Morris University Polling Institute, “National Poll Report,” February 2014 and 
May 2014.

able 5. t ost-election Views of the p  robability of an p xtraction e ax, 2014t

Democrat republican ven e plit s Didn’t Vote 
 (32.7%) (32.9%) (10.7%) (22.5%)

A state extraction tax will be 76.5% 88% 77.8% 48.2%
imposed on fracking is likely

Source: Robert Morris University Polling Institute, “National Poll Report,” December 2014.



40 philip J. harolD anD tony kerzmann

following the financial crisis led to lowered demand, which, coupled with 
increased fracking production, led to a 28% decline in Pennsylvania prices 
by 2013. After such a dramatic change in prices over a relatively short period 
of time on a key element of household economics, people began to take inter-
est. Therefore, it is not surprising that the awareness of fracking grew over 
the same period of time that fracking contributed to significant reductions 
in natural gas costs. The importance of this change in gas prices leading to 
increased awareness of fracking would be consistent with the Muhlenberg 
Institute Poll of Pennsylvania (Table 2), which showed a lower level of aware-
ness in the Commonwealth as late as April/May 2014.

Opinions of Fracking 

The RMU Polling Institute conducted public opinion surveys from 2014 to 
2016 for the most part on a quarterly basis. The Center for Research and Pub-
lic Policy (CRPP) was contracted to run the polls. Polls were conducted online, 
and included national samples and Pennsylvania samples.1 Each quarterly poll 
had four topical areas that were polled within the same survey. Respondents 
did not know the questions in advance of taking the poll, only the broad areas 
of investigation, and were incentivized by the panel vendor with a $1 credit on 
Amazon.com for taking the poll. Every survey was in the field no longer than 
a week. Each national poll included around 1,000 respondents; each Pennsyl-
vania poll included around 500 Pennsylvania residents.

There has been evidence of a nationwide decline in support for fracking. 
The Pew Research Center, found a drop in support for the “increased use of 
fracking.” In March 2013, 48% of people favored the increased use of fracking 
while 38% opposed it. That result reversed itself by September of that year, 
with 49% of people opposing the increased use of fracking and 44% support-
ing it, a result that held steady for two polls conducted by Pew in 2014—oppo-
sition to expanding fracking 51–39 in August and 47–41 in November (Pew 
Research Center 2015). Gallup also conducted two nationwide surveys, one 
in March 2015, which showed 40% favored and 40% opposed fracking “as a 
means of increasing the production of natural gas and oil in the US,” while one 
year later, in 2016, the numbers were 36% favoring fracking and 51% opposing 
it (Gallup 2016).

The three nationwide polls conducted by the RMU Polling Institute on 
fracking, in October/November 2013, May 2015, and February 2016, showed 
opposition to fracking creeping upward, with support increasing from 2013 to 
2015, and then going down in 2016. Results for the statewide breakout of the 
2015 poll are included in the right column of Table 6, and the phrasing of the 
question is provided in the Appendix.



Raised Awareness of Fracking in Pennsylvania 41

These polls also asked respondents to indicate their agreement with state-
ments about fracking. Interestingly, the results show an increase in favor-
ability from 2013 to 2015 and then a decrease in 2016, where the results were 
almost the same as in 2013 (see Table 7).

The RMU poll also asked respondents if they would support fracking 
in their hometown. Notably, nationally from 2013 to 2016, the percentage of 
respondents saying they are “strongly opposed” to fracking in their home-
town went up from 34.7% to 46.5%. The full results are presented in Table 8.

The 2016 responses to support for fracking were approximately 7% higher 
than the responses to support of fracking in one’s own hometown, potentially 
showing a “not in my backyard mentality” for a portion of respondents.

Generally speaking, the Pennsylvania results all track the national results 
closely, with the exception of less support for fracking in one’s hometown in 
the May 2015 poll. Support for fracking was 55.8% in that poll, compared to 

table 6. opinions on Fracking, nationally and in pennsylvania, 2013–2016

october/
november 
2013 may 2015

February 
2016

may 2015—
pennsylvania

Strongly or somewhat 
support fracking

42.3% 55.8% 46.9% 57.1%

Strongly or somewhat 
oppose fracking

32.8% 34.5% 39.0% 35.6%

Sources: Robert Morris University Polling Institute, “National Poll Report,” November 2013, May 2015, and 
February 2016. 

table 7. opinions on Fracking Benefits, nationally and in pennsylvania, 2013–2016

october/
november 
2013
strongly and 
somewhat 
agree

may 2015
strongly and 
somewhat 
agree

February 
2016
strongly and 
somewhat 
agree

may 2015—
pennsylvania
strongly and 
somewhat 
agree

The new drilling 
technologies that allow 
fracking will help move the 
United States to energy 
independence

57.7% 68.9% 59.8% 69.9%

Fracking has the potential 
to help the U.S. economy

63.3% 73.3% 63.9% 74.3%

Sources: Robert Morris University Polling Institute, “National Poll Report,” November 2013, May 2015, and 
February 2016. 



42 philip J. harolD anD tony kerzmann

table 9. support for Fracking by Familiarity, nationally and in pennsylvania, 2013–2016

october/november 
2013 may 2015 February 2016

may 2015—
pennsylvania

all

Very or 
somewhat 
Familiar 
(44.5%) all

Very or 
somewhat 
Familiar 
(70.7%) all

Very or 
somewhat 
Familiar 
(61.3%) all

Very or 
somewhat 
Familiar
(73.7%)

Strongly or 
somewhat 
support 
fracking

42.3% 54.1% 55.8% 60.2% 46.9% 51.7% 57.1% 60.3%

Strongly or 
somewhat 
oppose 
fracking

32.8% 38.8% 34.5% 36.0% 39.0% 44.4% 35.6% 37.5%

Sources: Robert Morris University Polling Institute, “National Poll Report,” November 2013, May 2015, and Febru-
ary 2016. 

table 8. opinions on Fracking in hometown, nationally and in pennsylvania, 2013–2016

october/
november 
2013 may 2015

February 
2016

pennsylvania—
may 2015

Strongly or somewhat support 
fracking in hometown

40% 59.2% 40.2% 48.2%

Strongly or somewhat oppose 
fracking in hometown

34.7% 41.7% 46.5% 43.3% 

Sources: Robert Morris University Polling Institute, “National Poll Report,” November 2013, May 2015, and Febru-
ary 2016. 

the previous and subsequent results of 42.3% and 46.9%. Similarly, higher 
percentages were recorded in the 2015 poll for the questions about fracking 
helping energy independence and the U.S. economy overall, and supporting 
fracking in one’s own hometown. The natural gas prices had recently dropped 
over the years leading up to the 2015 poll, and that could have influenced the 
positive opinion shift. It is the change in fuel prices, not the price itself, that is 
associated with changes in public opinion.2

The Pew Research Center found in 2012 that those who indicated that 
they have heard about fracking supported it to a greater degree: 52% of them 
favored fracking, while 35% were opposed (Pew Research Center 2012). Like-
wise, our poll showed increased support for fracking among those indicating 
they were familiar with it (see Table 9).

Opinions form along party lines, with Republicans (R) heavily in favor of 
fracking, and Democrats (D) and Independents (I) split (see Table 10).



ta
bl

e 
1

0
. 

s
up

po
rt

 f
or

 F
ra

ck
in

g 
by

 p
ar

ty
 i

D
, 

n
at

io
na

lly
 a

nd
 i

n 
p

en
ns

yl
va

ni
a,

 2
0

1
3

–2
0

1
6

o
ct

ob
er

/n
ov

em
be

r 
2

0
1

3
m

ay
 2

0
1

5
Fe

br
ua

ry
 2

0
1

6
m

ay
 2

0
1

5
—

p
en

ns
yl

va
ni

a

r (2
5

.3
%

)
D

 
(3

0
.6

%
)

i (3
8

.4
%

)
r (2

5
.4

%
)

D (3
1

.1
%

)
i (3

6
.4

%
)

r
 

(2
8

.8
%

)
D (2

9
.9

%
)

i (3
3

.0
%

)
r (3

1
.4

%
)

D (4
6

.1
%

)
i (1

2
.7

%
)

S
tr

on
gl

y 
or

 
so

m
ew

ha
t 

su
pp

or
t 

fr
ac

ki
ng

6
3

.9
%

3
5

.6
%

3
7

.3
%

7
6

.1
%

4
8

.4
%

4
8

.8
%

6
3

.1
%

4
7

.2
%

4
3

.%
7

2
.3

%
5

1
.2

%
4

0
.3

%

S
tr

on
gl

y 
or

 
so

m
ew

ha
t 

op
po

se
 f

ra
ck

in
g

1
6

.3
%

4
1

.2
%

3
7

.4
%

1
8

.4
%

4
3

.0
%

4
1

.6
%

2
5

.2
%

4
7

.5
%

4
5

.2
%

2
4

.7
%

4
1

.8
%

4
6

.2
%

So
ur

ce
s:

 R
ob

er
t 

M
or

ri
s 

U
ni

ve
rs

it
y 

P
ol

lin
g 

In
st

it
ut

e,
 “

N
at

io
na

l P
ol

l R
ep

or
t,”

 N
ov

em
be

r 
2

01
3
, 

M
ay

 2
01

5
, 

an
d 

Fe
br

ua
ry

 2
01

6
. 



44 philip J. harolD anD tony kerzmann

Opinions on fracking are also split along gender lines, with men favoring 
fracking to a greater degree (see Table 11).

The gender difference is more pronounced in 2013 when familiarity with 
fracking was less prevalent. Women are less familiar with fracking, a result 
that was found in the United Kingdom as well.3 See Table 12.

Conclusion 

In recent years hydraulic fracturing has become a hot topic for discussion and 
debate. The United States has seen a widespread transition in energy consump-
tion to the cleaner burning, and in many instances cheaper, natural gas. With 
the increase in awareness about fracking has come an increase in familiarity 
of the fracking process. Our polling found as high as 70.7% that are “very or 
somewhat familiar” with fracking. There are numerous contributors to this 
increased awareness, including the increased publicity of environmental issues 
and the corresponding debates between industry and environmental groups, 
debates that boiled over into the political arena, especially in Pennsylvania, 

table 12. Familiarity with Fracking by Gender, nationally and in pennsylvania,  
2013–2016

october/november 
2013 may 2015 February 2016

may 2015—
pennsylvania

Percent of men very or 
somewhat familiar 

59.1% 75.5% 72.8% 79.3%

Percent of women very 
or somewhat familiar

31.0% 65.5% 48.1% 67.6%

Sources: Robert Morris University Polling Institute, “National Poll Report,” November 2013, May 2015, and 
February 2016.

table 11. support for Fracking by Gender, nationally and in pennsylvania, 2013–2016

october/november 
2013 may 2015 February 2016

may 2015—
pennsylvania

men 
(49.9%)

Women 
(49.9%)

men
(51.4%)

Women
(48.3%)

men 
(53.3%)

Women 
(46.7%)

men
(52.2%)

Women
(47.8%)

Strongly or 
somewhat 
support 
fracking

53.5% 31.4% 62.8% 48.5% 53.6% 39.2% 58.7% 55.3%

Strongly or 
somewhat 
oppose 
fracking

30.6% 34.8% 29.7% 39.7% 37.6% 40.6% 35.1% 40.0%

Sources: Robert Morris University Polling Institute, “National Poll Report,” November 2013, May 2015, and 
February 2016. 



Raised Awareness of Fracking in Pennsylvania 45

and onto the big screen, with Gasland and Promised Land. The national dis-
cussion about U.S. energy independence relied heavily on increased natural 
gas production and played a key role in the publicizing of natural gas as well. 
Finally, the public saw firsthand the economic advantages to fracking when 
a flood of natural gas hit the market and prices significantly dropped as a 
consequence. As our polling shows, public familiarity and awareness grew.

Our polling shows that opinions on fracking in Pennsylvania do not devi-
ate from opinions nationally. It also provides some insights on how national 
respondents view fracking. Opinions are divided along party and gender lines, 
with Republicans and men favoring fracking to a greater degree than Demo-
crats and women. The overall opposition to fracking has nudged upwards 
over this period of increasing awareness, as those who “Strongly or Somewhat 
Oppose Fracking” went from 32.8% in 2013, to 34.5% in 2015, and to 39.0% 
in 2016. A lower retail gas price became normal by 2016, and there were fewer 
positive responses from 2015 on whether fracking is helping U.S. energy inde-
pendence (9.1% less), and whether it will help the U.S. economy (9.4%).

APPENDIX: TEXT OF POLL QUESTION ON FRACKING AWARENESS 
AND FAVORABILITY

How familiar would you say you are with Hydraulic Fracturing or more com-
monly known as “Fracing” (pronounced “Fracking”)—a process to bring 
more natural gas to the earth surface for consumer use?

Very familiar
Somewhat familiar
Somewhat unfamiliar
Not at all familiar
Unsure/Don’t know

Both energy groups and environmental groups would likely agree on a 
definition of hydraulic fracturing or “fracing” as pressuring fluids under-
ground through pipes to force open small cracks or fractures, typically less 
than 1 millimeter in size, in the rock. The sand in the fluids is used to keep 
the cracks open. Chemicals in the fluids help maintain the thickness of the 
released natural gas. The goal is to force the gas out of the shale rock and up 
the pipe for consumer use.

Energy groups suggest hydraulic fracturing or “fracing” will help in 
many ways, such as by reducing dependence on foreign oils and by lowering 
energy costs at home by providing another, sometimes less expensive, natural 
gas resource. Environmental groups suggest that “fracing” has the potential 
for contaminating our water supplies and disrupting the environment.



46 philip J. harolD anD tony kerzmann

Based on all that you know or have just learned, would you say you strongly 
support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose “fracing”?

Strongly support
Somewhat support
Somewhat oppose
Strongly oppose
Don’t know/Unsure

NOTES

1. While telephone polling remains the standard method for public opinion research, 
we are currently in a period in which Internet polling will eventually overtake telephone 
surveys, just as in the 1970s telephone polling overtook mail and face- to- face surveys. 
Polling is cheaper and faster online, and Internet polling has come a long way since it 
began in the 1990s: Internet penetration in the United States is now close to 90%, and 
panel vendors have recruited millions of participants to take polls online, allowing sur-
veys to be sent to a random group, addressing the problem of representativeness that 
originally existed for opt- in straw polls. Over the past 15 years, online surveys have been 
performed much more often, and in higher caliber research. See Simmons and Bobo 2015.

2. For an example of presidential approval, see Sides 2012.
3. “Interestingly in all of our surveys men are much more likely to identify shale 

gas than women with the level of recognition in our March 2012 survey being 50.3% for 
men and 26.4% for women. In January 2014 the figures were 74% and 57.7% respectively” 
(O’Hara et al. 2014).

REFERENCES

Borick, Christopher, Barry G. Rabe, and Erick Lachapelle. 2014. “Public Perceptions of 
Shale Gas Extraction and Hydraulic Fracturing in New York and Pennsylvania.” 
Issues in Energy and Environmental Policy 14 (September): 1–16. 

Boudet, Hilary, Christopher Clarke, Dylan Bugden, Edward Maibach, Connie Roser- 
Renouf, and Anthony Leiserowitz. 2014. “‘Fracking’ Controversy and Communica-
tion: Using National Survey Data to Understand Public Perceptions of Hydraulic 
Fracturing.” Energy Policy 65 (February): 57–67.

Brown, Erica, Kristine Hartman, Christopher Borick, Barry G. Rabe, and Thomas Ivacko. 
2013. “Public Opinion on Fracking: Perspectives from Michigan and Pennsylvania.” 
Issues in Energy and Environmental Policy 3 (May): 1–26.

Catanese, David. 2014. “America’s Most Vulnerable Governor: Unapologetic and Unde-
terred, Pennsylvania’s Tom Corbett Faces a Daunting Path to Re- election,” US 
News and World Report, February 25. Available at www.usnews.com/news/articles/ 
2014/02/25/americas- most- vulnerable- governor- unapologetic- and- undeterred. 
Accessed January 9, 2017. 

“Corbett Down Double Digits to Unknown Democrats.” 2013. Public Policy Polling, 
November 26. Available at www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2013/PPP_Release_
PA_112613.pdf. Accessed January 9, 2017. 

Gallup. 2016. “Opposition to Fracking Mounts in the U.S.” March 30. Available at http://
www.gallup.com/poll/190355/opposition- fracking- mounts.aspx. Accessed January 9, 
2017. 



Raised Awareness of Fracking in Pennsylvania 47

O’Hara, Sarah, Mathew Humphrey, Rusi Jaspal, Brigitte Nerlich, and Wil Knight. 2014. 
“Public Perception of Shale Gas Extraction in the UK: Is the Balcombe Effect Taking 
Hold?” University of Nottingham, January 28.

Pew Research Center. 2012. “As Gas Prices Pinch, Support for Oil and Gas Production 
Grows,” March 19. 

———. 2015. “Americans, Politics and Science Issues,” July 1. 
Rabe, Barry G., and Christopher Borick. 2011. “Fracking for Natural Gas: Public Opinion 

on State Policy Options.” Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy, 
Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan. 

Robert Morris University Polling Institute. 2013. “National Poll Report,” November. 
———. 2014a. “National Poll Report,” February. 
———. 2014b. “National Poll Report,” May. 
———. 2014c. “National Poll Report,” December. 
———. 2015. “National Poll Report,” May. 
———. 2016. “National Poll Report,” February.
Sides, John. 2012. “The Political Consequences of Gas Prices.” Monkey Cage, March 12. 

Available at http://themonkeycage.org/2012/03/the- political- consequences- of- gas 
- prices/. Accessed January 9, 2017. 

Simmons, Alicia D., and Lawrence D. Bobo. 2015. “Can Non- Full- Probability Internet 
Surveys Yield Useful Data? A Comparison with Full- Probability Face- to- Face Surveys 
in the Domain of Race and Social Inequality Attitudes.” Sociological Methodology 45 
(August): 357–387.

U.K. Department of Energy and Climate Change. 2014. “Public Attitudes Tracking Sur-
vey: Wave 11.” 

U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2016a. “How Much Carbon Dioxide Is Pro-
duced When Different Fuels Are Burned.” Available at www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/ 
faq.cfm?id=73&t=11. Accessed September 30, 2016. 

———. 2016b. “Marcellus Region Drilling Productivity Report.” September. Available at 
www.eia.gov/petroleum/drilling/pdf/marcellus.pdf. Accessed January 9, 2017. 

———. 2016c. “U.S. Prices of Natural Gas Delivered to Residential Consumers.” Available 
at www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n3010us3a.htm. Accessed September 30, 2016.

Vasi, Ion Bogdan, Edward T. Walker, John S. Johnson, and Hui Fen Tan. 2015. “‘No 
Fracking Way!’ Documentary Film, Discursive Opportunity, and Local Opposition 
against Hydraulic Fracturing in the United States, 2010 to 2013.” American Sociologi-
cal Review 80 (October): 934–959.

philip J. harold, PhD, is a professor of political science, the co-director of the Honors 
Program, and the associate dean of the School of Education and Social Sciences at Robert 
Morris University in Pittsburgh. He was a Fulbright Scholar in Germany in 2010, and he 
is the author of Prophetic Politics (2009) from Ohio University Press. 

tony kerzmann, PhD, is an associate professor of engineering at Robert Morris Univer-
sity (RMU) and the coordinator for mechanical engineering. He is also the coordinator for 
RMU’s energy and sustainability minor and has conducted research in concentrating pho-
tovoltaic systems, PV system life-cycle assessment, and alternative fueling station location 
optimization. His research interests include hybrid concentrating photovoltaic systems, 
life-cycle assessment, sustainable product development, engineering entrepreneurship, 
alternative energy systems, renewable energy education, and active learning.




