Colorado Oil and Gas Association CEO Describes PR Strategies to Deal with "Nuts"

COGA's Tisha Conoly-SchullerThe President and CEO of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, Tisha Conoly Schuller, told attendees at a drilling industry conference in Denver, Colorado, that attention drawn to the practice of fracking by films like Gasland have caused "a heightened public awareness about hydraulic fracturing and an increase in active opposition" to the practice. She credited Gasland with changing the public conversation about fracking. While still denying that fracking contributes to contamination of drinking water, Conoly-Schuller told the audience that the industry needs to change its messaging around fracking. She outlined a list of recommendations for the industry to improve public perception of its practices, including use of more credible third-party messengers -- like university professors -- to convey positive messages about the industry to the public, making the drilling industry "hipper" so it  appeals to young people and reframing the debate about hydraulic fracturing in economic terms, for example by calling energy the "building block of the economy" -- all PR techniques first used by the tobacco industry to bolster public perception and delay regulation of their products. Commenting on environmental advocates and people who claim they have been physically sickened by exposure to drilling chemicals and practices, Conoly-Schuller said, "These nuts make up about 90 percent of our population, so we can't really call them nuts any more. They're the mainstream."


Yes, she has it right, 90% of Americans are against it and we will not let up. She'll be hard pressed to find scientists who will agree that its good unless they pay them off!

Sometimes I feel like a nut - sometimes I don't!

And right now I am SO glad to be a 90%er!


Conoly-Schuller said, 'These nuts make up about 90 percent of our population, so we can't really call them nuts any more. They're the mainstream.'"

Where does that leave Conoly-Schuller? :-)

It appears to me that the attitude is "I think it is bad therefore anyone who doesn't agree with me must be on the take from the industry." This is pretty similar to people who feel they are doing God's work and if someone disgarees with them that person is doing Satan's work.

Also, it seems that some opponents of fracking are not taking that position because of any oparticular fears or consrns about public health but see this as an issue with which to beat the oil and gas industry over the head. Their goal may be that if they can restrict/ban fracking that will eliminate or greatly reduce available fossil fuels and alternative energy souces will be advanced. I'd like to know how many of the vocal opponents of fracking have an interest or are funded by wind turbine manufaturers or have stock in photovoltaic cell producing companies.

And people who can no longer drink the water from their wells, who can maybe even light it on fire, should just buzz off?

They don't need any windmill money to say, "Screw that!"

I'd like to know how many of the vocal proponents of fracking have an interest in or are funded by the oil and gas industry and/or have stock in the oil and gas industry?

Are/do you?

I understand your argument, but could you elaborate? Some people may be using it as a weapon against the oil/gas industry, but how does that make a difference? Hasn't the majority of scientific inquiry shown that most of the products of the oil/gas industry hurt the environment?

Honestly, I don't see how people's reasons for arguing is a major issue. Pumping hundreds of chemicals, many of which are harmful, some of which are known carcinogens and human nuerotoxins, into the water table is bad no matter which way you say it.

Finally, while some people may be on the payroll of the alternative energy industry, I GUARANTEE that many of fracking proponents are on the payroll of the oil/gas industry, so I feel like that argument is short-sighted.

Go watch Gasland or read some scientific articles on fracking