Oil depletion or a market problem? A Framing Analysis of Peak Oil

in The Economist News Magazine

Becken, S. (2014). Oil depletion or a market problem? A Framing Analysis of ‘Peak Oil in The Economist News Magazine. Energy Research and Social Science, 2, 125–134.

Abstract

Despite an increase of oil production from unconventional resources, concerns about the

depletion of ‘cheap oil’ are more imminent than ever. Recognising the importance of media

in influencing public opinion, risk perceptions and policy making, this research presents a

framing analysis of peak oil in The Economists’ news magazine (2008 and 2012). One

hundred and seventy articles, of which 58 focused on energy security and oil production,

were analysed using content and discourse analysis. Coverage was multi-facetted, and

included oil depletion as one storyline within the supply challenge frame, especially during

times of very high oil prices. Oil prices and the rapid growth in ‘fracking’ were found to be

critical discourse moments, influencing the nature of oil coverage in The Economist. Overall,

due to The Economist’s neoliberal ideology and the resulting optimistic framing of market

forces and new technologies, this research found that the news magazine does not contribute

majorly to enhancing the public debate on peak oil.

Keywords: Framing; The Economist; peak oil; public debate; oil depletion

1

Oil depletion or a market problem? A Framing Analysis of Peak Oil

in The Economist News Magazine

1. Introduction

The popular press and financial magazines herald the death of peak oil and a new era of

energy supply [1,2,3]. The main reason for these assertions is the sudden and somewhat

unexpected increase in the production of oil and gas in the United States of America (USA),

coupled with a reduction in demand in North America and Europe following the Global

Financial Crisis [4]. Indeed, according to statistics by the Energy Information Administration

(EIA), the production of crude oil including condensate in the USA increased from 5 million

barrels per day (mb/d) to almost 6.5 mb/d between 2008 and 2012 [5]; an increase of around

30 per cent.

Others argue that the trend of increased output is short-lived and slowing demand in

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries is more than

compensated for by growth in China and emerging economies [4,6]. Thus, concern about a

peaking of global oil production is more imminent than ever. Hughes [7] and Heinberg [8]

emphasise that the significantly decreased energy return on invested energy (EROIE) for non-

conventional liquid fuels, such as those produced in the USA, means that the era of ‘cheap

oil’ is over. Notwithstanding these problems, Heinberg [8] recommends embracing the

current technological advances and greater access to non-conventional oil resources as a short

window of opportunity that prolongs the plateau of global oil production before it enters

terminal decline. Recent modelling published in an International Monetary Fund Working

Paper proposed the possibility of a doubling of oil prices in the next decade [9].

2

Discussions about oil depletion are often “polarised, contentious and confused” [10, p. 5290],

in particular when the term ‘peak oil’ is used. For this reason, some avoid the term peak oil,

and focus on the concepts of depletion or energy security. Others chose to explicitly employ

phrase ‘peak oil’ to describe the phenomenon of a peaking of the maximum global production

of oil [e.g. 6], noting that some analysts distinguish between peaking of conventional oil or

all oil reserves. Importantly, peaking does not imply that the world is “running out of oil”, but

that the economically viable exploitation of known oil reserves is reaching its limits [10]. For

this article, the author chose to use the term peak oil, as it is a well-established concept – and

an umbrella term – that encapsulates wider aspects of oil depletion, increasing costs of oil

production, and risks to energy security.

Despite potentially serious implications of a decline in the global production of (cheap) oil, a

public debate on such peaking is largely absent, especially when compared to other important

environmental risks, such as climate change or water security [11]. Only few studies have

examined lay people’s concern about different energy futures and relatively little is known

about representations held by individuals [12]. In his comparative assessment of how the two

key challenges of climate change and peak oil are approached, Friedrichs [13, p. 472] notes:

Nevertheless, what we observe in the case of energy supply is a bifurcation

between official normal science and unofficial abnormal science. On one hand,

The Economists at the International Energy Administration (IEA) and its national

counterparts such as the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), in unison

with engineers and geologists working for the industry, maintain the trappings of

objectivity and value-neutrality. On the other hand, whistleblowers and dissidents

fill a parallel world in the ‘‘blogosphere’’ where polemics and eschatological

thinking loom large. The wider public tends to avoid the topic altogether. The

moment of truth is thus postponed further.

3

Public debate is heavily influenced by media reporting, which informs societal discussions by

facilitating people’s familiarity with unknown issues and develops a shared meaning of

particular phenomena [14]. The way media or other communication sources present a

particular issue is referred to as framing. Framing of energy issues in an optimistic (e.g. we

will find sufficient alternative energy sources to replace oil) or pessimistic (e.g. conflict over

remaining and dwindling resources) tone-of-voice has been found to impact on attitudes and

behavioural intentions [15]. Media accounts of the European Union Climate and Energy

Package, for example, showed differences in framing depending on the national and social

contexts of different European countries [16]. Media includes many different types of

communication channels, and it was found that print media – especially elite newspapers or

magazines – provide a deeper (and based on expert opinion) coverage of issues compared

with television [17]. Print media are therefore more likely to be agenda-setting for other

media.

Acknowledging the importance of media in influencing public opinion, and understanding

The Economists’ potential role in communicating current affairs to leaders around the world,

this research presents a framing analysis of peak oil (and broader oil-related reporting) for

selected periods of the magazine’s coverage between 2008 and 2012. Magazines have been

relatively less researched in communication studies, and this study contributes to our

understanding of how magazines use frames related to risks such as peak oil [18]. Since the

term peak oil as such is not frequently used in mainstream media, such as The Economist, the

analysis initially included all articles covering oil. In addition, despite being an ambiguous

term in itself, the analysis utilised the concept of ‘energy security’ to identify articles that

addressed energy availability, accessibility, affordability and physical scarcity [19].

Thus, the researcher takes a realist position in which peak oil is seen as an important issue

that is discussed by some in the academic literature (e.g., “With a looming energy crisis, as a

4

result of decade long depletion of energy sources that are non-renewable …” [15]), but not

necessarily represented as an important problem in the media, public debate or policy

making. Two research questions therefore emerge: one, how does The Economist frame the

challenge of peak oil; and two, have frames evolved over time in response to fluctuating oil

prices?

2. Media Framing

Framing has been conceptualised both as a theory and a research approach. Researchers have

investigated media frames as well as individual frames. Individual frames relate to how

audiences interpret information provided by the media or by other sources [16,20,21]. The

focus of this present analysis is on media frames. These are cognitive structures that combine

the use of words, phrases, metaphors, symbols and signs to convey a particular idea or way of

interpreting phenomena, with the aim of capturing the audience and influencing its thinking,

feeling and actions [21,22]. Accordingly, media communication offers an interpretive lens

that assists the receiver to decide what is important or not and what is ‘true’ or not.

The effect of media frames on public perceptions and attitudes, including those related to

climate change, energy security and risks, has been widely discussed by scientists [16,23,24,

25]. Media propose ‘what matters’ and by shaping how the audience engage with a particular

issue they contribute to defining reality [26,27]. Thus, through the written or spoken word, or

other forms of communication, representations of a particular issue are imparted that may not

be pure (or supposedly objective) reflections of an (supposedly) existing reality, but

contribute to the creation of social constructs and behaviours [28]. In the context of peak oil,

the physical problem of resource depletion that exists in the material world only gains

meaning through the discourse surrounding it. Thus, the analysis of discourse goes beyond

5

descriptions of linguistic tools, but focuses on ‘language in use’ that fulfils an important

function in the perception of reality [23,29,30].

The cultural circuit [31] has been discussed as a phenomenon where particular issues are

received and re-communicated in a continuous flow between journalists, media outlets and

information consumers [25,30]. Thus, an emerging discourse is negotiated between the media

and the general public [29]. Understanding how the media frame a particular issue does not

only enable researchers to better understand how journalists translate a phenomenon [16], but

also how wider audience might perceive it.

Boykofff and Boykoff [32] identified five factors that are involved in how a frame develops.

These are: social norms and values; organisational pressure (e.g. pressure by advertising

companies); pressure by interest groups; journalistic routines or norms; and ideological

orientation of the journalist and the outlet (see also [29]). Frames are therefore not

independent of various sources of influence within and external to the media system. It is

therefore important to identify potential ‘frame sponsors’ that have a particular interest in

promoting specific angles to cement power structures and institutionalise knowledge [24]. In

fact, media framing often highlights the dynamics of conflict and how some actors seek to

control views on particular phenomenon [31]. This can be achieved by using a range of tools,

including images, which contain normative messages making a particular aspect of an issue

salient, while potentially marginalising others.

Some frames will resonate more with the audience than others. According to Buijs et al. [21],

cultural resonance exists when a frame corresponds with personal experiences, beliefs and

values, storylines or myths of a specific culture or audience, in the case of media outlets.

Thus, successful frames relate to deeply rooted social representations [33]. The theory of

social representation relates scientific knowledge to public knowledge [30] or ‘common

sense’ [34]. Since the use of symbols, specific descriptions and images are influential in

6

forming social representations, framing is potentially an important mediating process

between expert knowledge and the wider understanding of the public.

Framing analysis as an approach is not clearly defined. It has been described as a form of

content analysis that focuses on content, but also as a method that allows for subjective

interpretation of text and images [24,31]. Methods applied as part of framing analysis

therefore include systematic coding and recognition of key themes [35], and discourse

analysis [20]. Framing analysis can focus on the literal meaning of text or imagery

(denotative content), or it may extend its analysis to studying implied (connotative content) or

ideological meaning [29].

Examination of underlying attitudes and power structures in framing analysis [16] resembles

that of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), based on the seminal work by linguists Norman

Fairclough [36,37], as well as Ruth Wodak [38]. Fairclough proposed that CDA consisted of

three types of analysis: analysis of language in texts (e.g. newspapers), analysis of discourse

practice (processes related to the production and consumption of text, see also cultural circuit

above [31]), and analysis of discursive events. In addition, and in contrast to framing

analysis, CDA focuses more on language as a hegemonic device to establish or maintain

power structures [27,31]. Thus, CDA investigates tensions between competing discourses

[36], and seeks to identify dominant rules and beliefs to deactivate competing, or counter

hegemonic, discourses [25]. The constitutive nature of language as a basic premise in CDA

has been criticised heavily by Jones [21], who argued that there is no evidence for a

correlation between the use of specific grammar or words and power.

This research acknowledges some of the criticisms of CDA, but also recognises that

discourse is often political and influenced by powerful social groups, elites or institutions that

have privileged access to influencing public dialogue [39]. Therefore, this present analysis

aims to unveil critical discourse moments [20], common assumptions and key metaphors or

7

images used to convey strategic messages [24,40] in the context of reporting on oil depletion

or peak oil.

3. The Economist – Overview

The Economist is a weekly international news and business magazine that self-refers as a

newspaper, because its focus is on news reporting. It was established in London in 1843, and

while the head office is still in London, The Economist now maintains a number of global

offices. The news content is the same around the globe, and for the last 10 years articles have

been accessible online. The print circulation is about 1.5 million per week, with most of the

readership being outside Britain [41]. Half of The Economist’s circulation is in the USA

(844,577 in 2011), where it is the third most read magazine after Time and Newsweek [42].

The online visitation of The Economist in the USA was reported to be 761,097 unique visits

per month in 2011; slightly less than half the visitation of Time magazine [42].

In its own words, The Economist was founded to support the “cause of free trade”.

Ideologically, The Economist believes in free market dynamics and considers itself to be

“extreme centre”. At the same time, it has explicitly endorsed liberal positions, including an

opposition to capital punishment, gun control and same-sex marriage. It also recognises

climate change as an important environmental risk [41]. Predominantly, the essence of news

coverage is about finance, business and the economy. Since these are strongly inter-related

with national and international politics and other current affair issues, these also receive

considerable attention.

Research in the USA found that The Economist’s audience is younger and considerably

wealthier compared with the average population and the readership of four other news

magazines [42]. The Economist is characterised by the highest percentage of male readership

amongst these four news magazines at a share of 64%. The Economist states that its target

8

audience is educated readers (or “Ideas People”) who have a basic understanding of

economics (key terms are not explained), and include professional economists and business

people [41,43]. Commentators have also argued that the periodical appeals to more general

readers as “a bible of global affairs for those who wear aspirations of worldliness on their

sleeves”, especially in America [44]. The Economist itself aims that the news magazine is

"read widely in the corridors of power abroad as well as at home" [41].

The reporting style of The Economist is analytical and characterised by the use of plain

language, often in a conversational style and with dry or sardonic humour. Journalists writing

for The Economist use puns, especially in the headlines and in combination with visual

material. The reason for these stylistic tools is to keep the reader interested in what may

otherwise be unexciting material [43]. The use of common language (including

colloquialism) and the avoidance of jargon are designed to help readers to readily absorb

information and identify with the topic. The Economist stylebook recommends to authors to

refrain from the use of tired metaphors that will bore the reader [43]. Clear use of language

may also assist the natural import of news coverage into the wider public discourse.

One of The Economist’s trademarks is that it is written anonymously. This means that

individual authors are not identified, but the articles are meant to ‘speak with a collective

voice’, ensuring some consistency in style, but individuality in coverage. Articles not only

report on salient issues, but also provide recommendations and judgment of possible

solutions. One of The Economist’s advertisements portrayed this idea explicitly by using

billionaire Larry Ellison’s quote: “I used to think. Now, I just read The Economist” [45].

The Economist can be considered an elite news magazine. As a result it is likely to contribute

to agenda setting of current issues and views. It is also a media outlet that, ideologically,

considers itself ‘centre’, although its tendency is towards neoliberalism enhanced by support

of more ‘leftist’ perspectives, including on climate change. Its position on peak oil is

9

unknown, but likely to be a suitable indicator of the wider liberal discourse of key decision

makers. The Economist introduced its annual Innovation Awards to institutionalise its belief

that innovation – stemming from individuals’ creativity, research and development – is a key

to economic growth. One category of awards is “Energy & Environment”. As a result of its

credibility, standing, and focus, The Economist serves as an excellent example of studying

media framing of peak oil – an important environmental risk, but also one that could

undermine the continuity of economic growth.

4. Research Design

4.1. Scope and data collection

The Economist was chosen as a suitable media outlet due to its global circulation and likely

influence on decision makers and social elites. The purpose was to capture the most recent

coverage of oil-related topics. Therefore, all editions from the last twelve months between

March 2012 and March 2013 were included in the analysis. This period reflected global oil

prices of between US$80 to US$100. In addition, it was considered useful that the research

included articles from the period of June, July and August 2008, when oil prices were at a

historically high level. This additional sequence was seen as particularly important to

examine the second research question of how frames evolve. Such a historical-diachronic

approach [28] is useful when there is reason to believe that changing contextual factors

influence how issues are framed.

The procedure was to search the hard copies of all weekly editions in the defined periods for

articles relating to oil. A simple electronic keyword search, or scanning of headlines, was not

sufficient, as reference to oil was often made later in an article in a secondary, yet important,

context. During the process it also became clear that a search for articles discussing oil

needed to be enhanced by coverage on gas. This was particularly important in the latter half

10

of 2012 and early 2013, when gas was frequently discussed as a direct substitute for oil.

Other energy sources, such as coal or uranium, were not included. While relevant in the

bigger picture of energy security, these energy sources are less directly related to oil as

immediate substitutes. Further, letters were excluded, as the material presented was too short

for a meaningful frame analysis [40].

In total, 170 articles were identified that discussed the topic of oil or gas. Fifty-four of these

were published in June to August 2008, and 116 articles appeared in the March 2012 to

March 2013 period. Figure 1 shows that coverage of oil-related articles reached a maximum

in June 2008 during times of high oil prices, and reduced in the latter part of 2012 and early

2013.

Figure 1 Number of oil-related articles in The Economist, relative to monthly oil price

4.2. Analysis

Once identified, articles were downloaded electronically to enable a detailed analysis of text

and imagery. This analysis involved two phases. First, articles were coded openly to identify

broad themes [12]. This was achieved by reading articles in their entirety, identifying

tentative codes, rereading and finalising coding [34]. This inductive analysis resulted in nine

broad themes with a number of categories in each. It became clear that oil coverage in The

Economist is multi-faceted, with only two themes directly relating to the topic under

investigation in this research, namely peak oil. Thus, articles that contained reference to the

themes of ‘energy security’ and ‘oil production’ were selected for further coding and

analysis.

The second phase of analysis then focused on this subset of articles (N=58). Here, as part of

the frame analysis, attention was paid to what aspects of the issue were presented and what

their geographic focus was. In addition articles were coded according to whether a frame was

11

used to portray information in either an optimistic or pessimistic light (tone-of-voice), and

what particular ‘storylines’ underpinned a frame. Storylines are similar to frames, but are

more like a powerful ‘short hand’ of a complex argument ([30] and Hajer, 1995 in [46]). In

addition, articles were coded for the type of illustrations they employed. Imagery was

classified into photos, maps, graphs and tables and cartoons. The process of frame analysis

was iterative with reappearing keywords providing first anchors that helped identify further

concepts associated with a particular frame.

Qualitative analysis of textual and visual elements and the symbolic meaning of imagery was

then undertaken to enhance the quantitative content [18,29]. To this end, further in-depth

reading and systematic coding of text fragments (sentences of paragraphs) that referred

specifically to aspects of energy security or oil production was completed [16]. In total, 256

such text fragments, or quotes [27], were identified and compiled in a spread-sheet. A

particular focus of this part of the analysis was to capture particular emotions that might be

evoked by the use of language or imagery [34].

Limitations of this research include that an analysis of one news magazine only, The

Economist, is not representative of media framing more broadly. Moreover, the framing

observed in the selected time periods is not necessarily representative of the wider discourse

over time. Further analysis of other media outlets, different timeframes and wider public

discourse would be required to gain a more complete picture of the discourse around peak oil

and oil depletion. However, this research is the first to systematically analyse framing of peak

oil in a news magazine and gives first indications of the discourse and social representation of

peak oil. It also makes a contribution in that it examines the context of changing oil prices as

critical discourse events for news coverage.

12

5. Results

The Economist’s coverage of oil is multi-faceted – reflecting the pervasive nature of oil in

today’s economy and society. The open coding process of the 170 oil-related articles

produced nine key themes (Table 1). Some of the themes were more closely inter-related than

others. For example, the theme of politics – with a frequent focus on the geopolitics of oil and

political power that is intimately linked to oil wealth – was often closely connected to

economic issues (e.g. growth) and energy policies such as energy taxes or incentives for

(foreign) investment into oil infrastructure. The two themes of energy security and oil

production shown in Table 1 are central to this article and are analysed in more detail below.

Oil production was chosen as a relatively broad term that includes all aspects of oil

exploration and exploitation, as well as refining capacity or oil-related infrastructure that is

seen to constrain or enhance future production.

Table 1 Nine themes from open coding and key categories within themes (an article could contain more than one theme)

5.1. Content of articles on energy security and oil production

To further elicit if and how the issue of peak oil is discussed in The Economist, articles that

contained content on energy security or oil production (14 articles from 2008 and 44 from

2012) were analysed in more detail (Table 2). These articles were selected as they made

explicit reference to challenges in the supply of oil, even if the concept of oil depletion or the

term peak oil were absent. When analysing the 44 articles from the 2012/2013 period, it

emerged that articles published in March and April 2012 differed substantially in their tone

from those written after that period. Articles from these two months overwhelmingly

reflected a pessimistic tone, and were also more focused on global aspects of oil, compared

with more localised discussions (especially North America) evident in very optimistic

13

coverage in the second half of 2012 and early 2013. The pessimistic and more globally

oriented coverage in March/April 2012 was similar to that of the three-month period in 2008

when oil prices were extremely high (Table 2).

Most articles were enhanced by one or more illustrations, most often in the form of photos

(Table 2). Popular images included oil rigs, pipelines and other oil infrastructure, such as

refineries and petrol stations. The symbol of the flame was used both in the context of energy

being a scarce resource and as evidence of energy availability, for example in relation to new

gas explorations. Images of influential people, including politicians, business people or

experts, were used very sparingly (only four times across all articles), indicating a de-

personification of the issue. The use of photos was dominant during the pessimistic reporting

in 2008 and early 2012; possibly because photos are better suited to convey emotional

messages and create an immediate impact on the reader.

Maps and graphs were also important tools to convey information that can easily be

absorbed, but at the same time provides a sense of objectivity and facts. The content of maps

and graphs changed subtly over time, with periods of high oil prices showing global maps

and graphs (e.g. global energy consumption, or global oil prices), and more recent articles

during times of relatively oil prices focusing on particular geographic areas, for example

North America, Iraq and the Arctic. These were coupled with positive messages on

exploration and discovery. Graphs in more recent articles continued to visualise oil and gas

prices, but also showed revenue for oil companies and shareholders, trends in drilling depth

and number of energy company mergers. The greater importance of maps and graphs in the

more recent time period might reflect the magazine’s desire to appeal to readers’ cognitive

processing of information.

Table 2 Relevant attributes of 58 articles that cover energy security and oil production

14

5.2. Frames and storylines

The analysis of how particular aspects of energy security and oil production are introduced,

what facts are provided, and what ideas are advanced, led to the identification of key frames

for the three points in time (Table 3). Unorthodox frames that dealt with environmental and

social problems were also detected, but are not discussed in more detail in this article. In the

following, the frames of oil dependence (2008) and energy transformation (2012) are

discussed first, followed by the 2008 frame of investment and the frame of supply challenges,

evident in all three periods of analysis. The resource depletion storyline is discussed in

further detail below.

Table 3 Frames identified for the three points in time and the ‘resource depletion’ storyline

The dominant frame in 2008 was one of oil dependence and its inherent political and

economic risks. Articles discussing Western countries’ dependence on “ugly oil-fed regimes”

(31 May 2008) evoke fears that are closely related with issues such as lack of sovereignty and

terrorism. The sub-heading “The end of self-sufficiency is proving painful for British

consumers” (26 July 2008) conveys a negative sensation, similar to that of physical pain.

While energy dependence of Western regimes is not a new topic, the issue has become very

salient due to “soaring oil prices” (a term frequently used by The Economist), and a perceived

inability to take control of the situation (hence the metaphor of an “oil addiction”, 19 July

2008). Concerns about energy dependence and related government policies had disappeared

mid-2012 and were replaced by increasing confidence about energy security and even

independence, due to recent discoveries and exploitation of unconventional resources.

Thus, the frame of energy transformation or “bonanza” (a frequently used allusion to the

large-scale wheat farms in the late 19th century in the USA) was the dominant frame in the

period from May 2012 to March 2013. It closely relates to the USA’s development of large

15

shale gas resources (and to a lesser extent oil), an unconventional source of energy made

accessible through “whizzy” (a term used in four articles) technology, called ‘fracking’ (or

hydrological fracturing [8]). Using appeasing language and providing judgements about the

method’s harmlessness may dilute potential fears about the environmental impacts of

fracking. Humour is also repeatedly used in the context of fracking (“…a fracking long

time…” 2 February 2013).

The excitement and perceived revolutionary impact of shale gas and other unconventional

sources was evident in the use of euphoric expressions (“A world of plenty”, 14 July 2012;

and “Iraq’s production targets are even bolder”, 16 June 2012), superlativism and hyperbolic

language (“…one of the world's mightiest oil rigs...” 30 August 2008), images of bounty (“oil

gushing out of the ground”, 17 November 2012) and mocking of “those who fret about

American energy security” (2 June 2012). “The golden age of gas” was mentioned several

times in reference to a recent report by the IEA on gas resources, but also as an allusion to a

period in Greek Mythology where resource abundance led to peace, harmony and prosperity.

Articles in the second half of 2012 and early 2013 were abound with references to the

availability of new fossil energy resources, even though these were often speculative and

uncertain. Reference to a new “shale club” (possibly a much-hoped-for antidote to the “club”

of oil exporting countries institutionalised through the OECD) was made with evidence of

optimism (see reference to “Saudi America” in Table 4).

Table 4 Quotes illustrating the dominant frame of energy transformation in 2012

In contrast to the optimism of the energy transformation frame, the 2008 frame of oil

investment (Table 3) discussed solutions to the imminent risk of over-dependence during

times of high oil prices. Investment into more “drilling” (e.g. as an important election issue in

the USA, 9 August 2008), facilitated through “technical expertise and the financial muscle”

16

of key oil players (30 August 2008) was propagated, but more investment into renewable

energy sources was discussed as well. Wind and wave energy, alongside biofuels were

explored as possible solutions; often supported by detailed visualisations of technological

solutions. The frame of investment into energy supply became less notable in 2012, but

featured as a sub-ordinate storyline within the frame of supply challenges (Table 3).

The supply challenge of oil emerged in articles across all periods of time. The task of

supplying sufficient quantities of oil to the world market at reasonable prices was pre-

dominantly framed as a market problem, lack of investment into oil-related infrastructure and

the need for new technology. There was no clear threshold of what constitutes ‘low’ or ‘high’

prices, but the articles gave the impression that long-term prices over $100 per barrel might

be problematic. Zalik [47] reminds us that oil prices are shaped by a combination of physical

‘realities’, in combination with insecurities at extraction sites, a complex combination of

market forces and socially constructed discourses that influences the speculative market

(including oil futures markets).

The tone changed from pessimistic in 2008 to more optimistic in 2012/13. As in the 2008

frame of oil dependence discussed earlier, the oil supply challenge is seen to manifest mainly

through “eye-watering high prices of oil” (31 May 2008). In 2008, these were discussed as a

shock, and articles were linguistically enriched by metaphors of war and conflict (“If the

Arab oil-weapon felt like a hammer-blow…”, 31 May 2008; and “the war-dance of the

handmaidens of the oil companies”, 9 August 2008). The cause of high oil prices, according

to the market frame in The Economist, was summarised in the following storyline that was

repeated in different variations across several articles:

Everyone knows why oil prices, at around $125 for a barrel of Brent crude, are so

high. The long-term trends are meagre supply growth and soaring demand from

China and other emerging economies. And in the short term, the market is tight,

17

supplies have been disrupted and Iran is making everyone nervous. (31 March

2012)

To further underpin the importance of ‘the market’ as a key factor of high oil prices, markets

were personified (“Oil markets are edgy, tensions with Iran are high”, 10 March 2012) and

portrayed as a ‘moody’ player (“The oil price remains stubbornly over $100 a barrel…”, 21

April 2012). This technique reinforced that high oil prices constitute an unusual event (“Oil is

expensive because anaemic supply and soaring Asian demand have led to an unusually tight

market…”, 24 March 2012) that is likely to change day-by-day (as a moody person), rather

than a systemic problem.

Uncertainty was a key element of the discourse in the market-focused storyline of the supply

challenge frame: “The cushion of spare supply is thin. Oil stocks in rich countries are at a

five-year low. The extent of OPEC's spare capacity is uncertain” (10 March 2008).

Uncertainty also related to specific reserves, most notably those in the Arab world: “Saudi

Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are thought to be able to increase their output from

today's levels, and even then, there are doubts, since Saudi Arabia, in particular, is secretive

about the state of its oil industry” (31 May 2008). Saudi Arabia’s domestic oil consumption

and energy policies were referred to several times as a reason for reduced availability on the

global market. Uncertainties about reserves and Saudi Arabia’s inability to meet domestic

demand, were predominantly framed as evidence of a market problem, and not as a possible

physical resource constraint in the Arabic oil fields.

Political problems, including increasing nationalism in oil-rich countries, were discussed to

add to the supply challenge of global oil markets. Insufficient oil infrastructure, lack of

(foreign) investment, and technological barriers (e.g. “…firms are scrambling to pump it out

of ever more remote and costly crevices”, 21 July 2008) were also portrayed as contributing

factors to the oil supply challenge. A small number of stories covered new discoveries and

18

technological success stories, and provided speculative statements about future supplies that

might ease the supply challenge.

By the [US] government's own reckoning, there are some 18 billion barrels of oil

to be discovered in the restricted areas—enough to supply all America's needs for

two-and-a-half years. (9 August 2008)

5.3. The resource depletion storyline

While the market-centred storyline dominates the supply challenge frame, a second storyline

focused on oil depletion. With the exception of four articles (including an interview with

Matthew Simmons, author of Twilight in the Desert, 12 July 2008), this secondary storyline

was subtle and only evident in occasional statements about oil depletion or peak oil (Table 5).

For example, an article focusing on foreign investment in Indonesia stated that, “Indonesia's

oilfields are old and running dry” (24 November 2012). Similarly, an article about economic

development in Saudi Arabia noted that, “Saudi Arabia's output, having increased greatly

over the past decade, has reached technical limits that make further jumps unlikely“ (23 June

2012). More explicitly, it was stated elsewhere that “Meanwhile the world's most accessible

oil fields, in the Middle East and elsewhere, are being depleted.” (6 June 2012). Three articles

also made reference to declining production following a peak in the North Sea.

Table 5 Textual and visual elements employed to convey the resource depletion storyline

Peak oil was mentioned explicitly in several articles in 2008 and in March/April 2012,

although in a distanced (for example by inserting “according to believers in "peak oil"”, 31

May 2008) and carefully balanced manner. For example, an article on 31 May 2008 stated:

Others fear that oil is pricey because it is running out. But there is little evidence

to support the doctrine of “peak oil” in its extreme form. The Middle East still

seems to contain a sea of the stuff. Even if new finds elsewhere have been rarer

19

and less accessible than in the past, vast quantities of oil could now be profitably

stripped from tar sands and shale.

While one article was entitled “Feeling Peaky” (21 April 2012), another one discredited peak

oil as an important cause of supply constraints: “Is it "peak oil" or a speculative bubble?

Neither really.” (31 May 2008). One article highlighted that “The concept of peak oil - the

idea that global crude production may be at, or close to, its limit is far from universally

accepted.” (21 April 12). The interview with Mr Simmons was a balance between giving him

voice to alert readers to the risk of peak oil, while at the same time using linguistic tools that

subtly undermined his credibility, for example by referring to him as “The high priest of

"peak oil"” (12 July 2008), which likens peak oil implicitly to a religion rather than a

scientific theory. Mr Simmons’ reported conclusion was that he “concedes [that] the debate

between proponents and critics of “peak oil” boils down to an argument about timing”. By

phrasing Mr Simmons’ summary as compromise around timing, The Economist provided the

peak oil storyline to its readers, without signalling urgency or undermining the status quo

storyline of oil prices being a market problem.

6. Discussion

Peak oil, or the production of affordable oil with a high net energy gain, is a major challenge

facing humankind – impacting on all components of modern life [6,8,48]. Public debate on

this issue is almost absent or left to a number of dedicated online fora and scientific outlets

(e.g. scholarly journals). Considering the enormous implications of constraints in liquid fuels

to any economic activity, it is surprising that the discourse in elite groups seems to rarely

address the issue of peak oil [13]. Possibly this is a result of overly optimistic projections of

future oil production presented by authoritative organisations such as the IEA or the EIA

[6,8,10], in combination with a lack of media reporting on oil depletion.

20

In response to the above gap, this research undertook a framing analysis of The Economist

news magazine, with a particular focus on articles addressing aspects of energy security and

oil production. The Economist was chosen as it represents an elite newspaper popular with

opinion leaders (or those who like to be seen as such) that is available around the world. The

Economist focuses on economic issues and current affairs, including policies relevant to oil or

more broadly energy. The magazine explicitly recognises the importance of addressing global

climate change, and – given the inherent link between fossil fuel consumption and

atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations – it was conceivable that the (business) risk of oil

depletion might also receive attention.

This research found that oil was an issue that was well covered in The Economist, evidenced

in nine very diverse themes. However, the particular risk of oil depletion was given limited

consideration – except during times of extremely high oil prices. Instead, frames of oil

dependence, investment, market dynamics and energy transformation were used to present

information on oil. Researching representation of an issue in the media involves studying

absences just as much as presences [49,50], and the particular concept of peak oil was clearly

not a dominant frame. Instead it emerged as a storyline within a broader frame of oil supply

challenges. How the peak oil storyline gained some prominence in 2008 can be seen as a

critical discourse moment [16] in response to high oil prices, just as the success in producing

unconventional oil resources represents another such moment that led to the disappearance of

framing peak oil as a risk. In 2012, peak oil represented an unorthodox frame that was

presented as an alternative discourse of seemingly little relevance to the readers of The

Economist.

Critical discourse moments are reflected in the oil coverage of The Economist, and confirm

that media coverage is often events-based [51]. Thus, the record-high oil prices in June, July

and August 2008 represent an event of global importance that resulted in substantially greater

21

reporting. According to News Value Theory, such ‘negative’ events and even conflict, lead to

greater publicity and newsworthiness (Schultz, 1976 in [31]). Reporting in 2008 was also

characterised by a high use of photo material, maybe to convey emotional information in an

appealing format (similar to the use of imagery in reporting on climate change [52]). The tone

of oil reporting changed markedly towards a more positive and optimistic one when oil prices

decreased in 2012. The geographic focus of news stories also seemed to be influenced by oil

prices. High oil prices were framed as a global problem, whereas during lower oil prices,

coverage was more regional or local. Here, the focus was particularly on ‘success stories’ of

oil exploration and production and ‘bonanzas’ that these bring with them, especially in

relation to the ‘energy transformation’ in the USA.

The dominance of the USA in The Economist’s coverage of oil was somewhat surprising

given that The Economist originates from the United Kingdom. The importance of the USA

was not only evident in the number of articles focusing on this geographic area, and the

language (‘Saudi America’), but also in the visual material, for example cartoons showing a

muscular businessman wearing a hat with the Stars and Stripes. The great interest the

magazine showed in the USA was apparent both at times of high and lower oil prices. This

highlights that despite the global recession and talks about a new world order in which China

will become much more dominant, the USA is still seen as the global powerhouse of

economic growth and stability. The deeply embedded social representation of the USA as a

global leader symbolising success and prosperity is likely to resonate with the reporting of oil

in The Economist.

Despite the euphoria that The Economist seems to have adopted from agencies such as the

IEA, claims of US energy independence have been questioned by independent analysts (e.g.

[53]). Heinberg [8] makes a compelling case that the production prospects of unconventional

oil and gas are substantially inflated by the industry and readily supported by key players in

22

the financial markets and politics. Heinberg concedes that the oil resources might indeed be

vast, but notes that unconventional resources are foremost restricted by the size of their

“taps” [7]. This means that only a fraction of the resource will be economically recoverable –

often at huge environmental and social costs, something that is downplayed in an unorthodox

frame in The Economist.

The Economist, while advocating the use of plain language, presents information in the

language of capitalism and growth [16]. Statements are often normative and clearly reveal a

neoliberal paradigm (“High prices are seen as proof of some sort of breakdown. Yet the

evidence suggests that, to the contrary, the rising price is beginning to curb demand and

increase supply, just as the textbooks say it should”, 31 May 2008). It is therefore not

surprising that, at least in the more recent coverage, the tone was one of optimism and

technological dominance, similar to that found by conservative newspapers and their climate

change coverage in the United Kingdom [40].

The use of particular language is underpinned by graphs that typically show growth curves,

for example of oil production in the USA or earnings for shareholders of oil companies.

While The Economist may not be explicitly a sceptic of the peak oil theory there may be a

discourse coalition [46,49] where neoliberal economists speak a similar language to anti peak

oil believers, though their values or motivations might be different. Thus the content, tone

and language in The Economist is well aligned with that of the IEA or oil companies, and less

so with that of ‘Neo-Malthusians’ who believe in the finiteness of resources and question that

human ingenuity can provide a technical fix for the oil challenge [13].

Only in a few examples does The Economist deviate from its neoliberal lens of interpretation

and provide a critical statement of alternative views. For example on the matter of net energy

return, The Economist writes:

23

On EROIE: This issue is not much considered by mainstream economists, who are

too busy focusing on monetary policy, the impact of fiscal austerity or the need for

labour-market reforms. But just as the industrial revolution was built on coal, the

post-second-world-war economy was built on cheap oil. There will surely be a

significant impact if it has gone for good. (21 April 2012)

Statements such as this indicate the existence of an anti-hegemonic representation [23], but

also highlight that The Economist steers clear of an alternative oil discourse that would

fundamentally question the nature of the current system (see also [25]). Instead, solutions to

the challenge of global oil prices are sought from within the (capitalist) system building on

established narratives and known concerns [49], such as Western fears of Middle East

countries. Placing risks, such as peak oil, in an economic framework means that opportunities

to restructure current institutional arrangements and power structures are likely to remain

unexplored [16]. While this may not be surprising, given the magazine’s orientation, it still

presents an interesting finding, in that The Economist does not seem to interpret peak oil as a

serious risk that might undermine its declared ideal of free trade and economic growth. It also

shows that peak oil is perceived as a fundamentally different problem than climate change.

Interestingly, most recent research highlights dissipating interest or concern in the climate

change challenge – indicating that the supply of every increasing amounts of information in

itself is not sufficient to create awareness and change [54].

Given the importance of media effects and the influence media might have on public

discourse, social representations and policy making, The Economist’s framing of oil might

constrain alternative perspectives on future pathways of economic development. Durfee [50],

for example, argues that the media acts as a guard dog that maintains status quo rather than

facilitates social change. One reason for this is that the media is typically influenced by a

small number of powerful elites who appear to have no interest in fundamental change [50].

24

As a result, the media strongly shapes risk perceptions both at the societal and individual

levels. However, Entman [51] also reminds us that the ultimate interpretation of information

lies with the audience. Individuals have their own frames of how they absorb or understand

news content. For example, this researcher – being sensitised to the risk of peak oil – was

likely to identify subtle text elements or puns (verbal or through imagery) that those who are

less informed about global oil depletion may not have noticed in the same manner. The

academic debate on the influence of media versus individualistic interpretations is ongoing

and more research into media effects, for example in relation to peak oil, would be useful.

Regardless, the present analysis of oil framing in The Economist indicates the existence of

status quo framing (i.e. reinforcing existing knowledge and structures), although occasional

elements of democracy and inclusiveness (Hajer and Versteed, 2005 in [27]) are evident, for

example by featuring an interview with Matthew Simmons, and by explicitly communicating

uncertainties related to oil resources. Overall, the analysis indicates denial of the peak oil

challenge which is not without irony given the magazine’s latest advertising campaign in the

USA, where two slides are shown; one showing an ostrich with its head in the sand, and a

second one with the ostrich’s head popping through the ground, saying “Get a world view.

Read The Economist.” [43].

7. Conclusion

This research investigated the coverage of oil and gas related issues in The Economist, with a

particular focus on questions of energy security, oil production, and more specifically oil

depletion. Oil was found to be a multifaceted issue, touching all aspects of life, economy and

policy making (e.g. energy policies, investment and foreign policy). Comparing three periods

of different oil prices, it became clear that very high oil prices, as those experienced in 2008,

lead to a pessimistic coverage with a global focus. In the last 12 months, the stance on oil

25

depletion has changed to a more optimistic one with local news coverage. This change was

driven largely by the increasing production of unconventional resources (mainly in the USA)

and relatively lower oil prices. This research therefore highlights how fast media framing can

change in response to external events, especially in relation to new technologies and

developments (e.g. fracking to exploit unconventional oil resources) [55]. It is at those critical

discourse moments, where interest or lobby groups have substantial influence how the media

– and resulting public – discourse evolve.

The key frames identified in this research centred on concerns over energy dependency,

energy transformation and market dynamics. Resulting policies are those that liberalise trade

and investment and spur economic growth. Peak oil was not identified as a dominant frame,

but gained prominence as a risk to Western nations during times of high oil prices. Thus, this

research found that The Economist considered high oil prices as an important news event–

covered amongst others through the peak oil storyline – but it did not discuss the insidious

risk of ongoing production of conventional oil without sufficient discoveries to replenish

reserves (i.e. leading to a peaking). Given the lack of an ongoing and context-independent

critical debate on peak oil in the The Economist, widely acknowledged as the leading news

magazine globally [56], it is possible that the public, too, has limited awareness and

knowledge of this important challenge and how it sits at the core of the “contradictions of

‘fossil capitalism’” [57, p.113]. The public does also include journalists and policy makers,

which reinforces the cultural circuit of peak oil scepticism. This article therefore provides an

important reminder of the importance to study framing as a key mediator between energy

issues and society [55], especially with a view of who dominates and sponsors key frames.

26

Acknowledgement: I would like to thank Professor Joseph Reser for his input into the earlier

phase of this project. I also thank Kiri Stinson for her helpful feedback on the final draft of

the manuscript.

References[1] K. Smith, No peak oil really is dead, Forbes, 17 June 2013. Available (22/11/13)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/modeledbehavior/2013/07/17/no-peak-oil-really-is-dead/

[2] The Boston Company Asset Management, End of an era: The death of peak oil. An

Energy Revolution, American-Style, 2013. Available (22/11/13)

http://www.thebostoncompany.com/assets/pdf/views-insights/Feb13_Death_of_peak_

Oil.pdf

[3] B. Walsh, The IEA says peak oil is dead. That’s bad news for climate policy, Time –

Science & Space, May 15 2013. Available (22/11/13)

http://science.time.com/2013/05/15/the-iea-says-peak-oil-is-dead-thats-bad-news-for-

climate-policy/

[4] International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2012, OECD/IEA, Paris, 2012.

[5] Energy Information Administration, International Energy Statistics, 2013. Available

(01/11/13) http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?

tid=5&pid=57&aid=1&cid=regions,&syid=2008&eyid=2012&unit=TBPD

[6] K. Aleklett, Peeking at peak oil, New York, Heidelberg, Dordrecht, London, Springer,

2012.

[7] J.D. Hughes, Drill, baby drill: Can unconventional fuels ushers in a new era of energy

abundance?, Post Carbon Institute, 2013. Available (12/11/12)

http://www.postcarbon.org/reports/DBD-report-FINAL.pdf

27

[8] R. Heinberg, Snake oil. How fracking’s false promise of plenty imperils our future,

Santa Rosa, Post Carbon Institute, 2013.

[9] J. Benes, M. Chauvet, O. Kamenik, M. Kumhof, D. Laxton, S. Mursula, J. Selody,

The Future of Oil: Geology versus Technology, IMF Working Paper, WP/12/09,

2012.

[10] S. Sorrell, J. Speirs, R. Bentley, A. Brandt, R. Miller, Global oil depletion: A

review of the evidence, Energy Policy, 38(9) (2010) 5290-5295.

[11] P. Wicker, S. Becken, Does concern about energy availability, climate

change, and the economic situation influence consumer behaviour?, Ecological

Economics, 88 (2013) 41–48.

[12] A. Fischer, V. Peters, M. Neebe, J. Vavra, A. Kriel, M. Lapka, B. Megyesi,

Climate change? No, wise resource use is the issue: Social representations of energy,

climate change and the future, Environ. Policy and Gov. 22 (2012) 161-176.

[13] J. Friedrichs, peak energy and climate change: The double bind of post-

normal science, Futures, 43 (2011) 469–477.

[14] K. Gangl, B. Kastlunger, E. Kirchler, M. Voracek, Confidence in the

economy in times of crisis: Social representations of experts and laypeople, The J. of

Socio-Economics, 41 (2012) 603-614.

[15] L. Van de Velde, W. Verbeke, M. Popp, G. van Huylenbroeck, The

importance of message framing for providing information about sustainability and

environmental aspects of energy, Energy Policy, 38 (2010) 5541-5549.

[16] C. Uusi-Rauva, J. Tienari, On the relative nature of adequate measures: Media

representations of the EU energy and climate package, Glob. Environ. Change, 20

(2010) 492-501.

28

[17] S.J. Farnsworth, S.R. Lichter, Scientific assessments of climate change

information in news and entertainment media, Science Commun., 34(4) (2012) 435-

459.

[18] M.S. Meisner, B. Takahashi, The nature of Time: How the covers of the

world’s most widely read weekly news magazine visualise environmental affairs,

Environ. Commun. 7(2) (2013) 255-276.

[19] C. Winzer, Conceptualising energy security, Energy Policy, 46 (2012) 36-48.

[20] S. O’Neill, Image matters: Climate change imagery in the US, UK and

Australian newspapers, Geoforum, 49 (2013) 10-19.

[21] A.E. Buijs, B.J.M. Arts, B.H.M. Elands, J. Lengkee, Beyond environmental

frames: The social representation and cultural resonance of nature in conflicts over a

Dutch woodland, Geoforum, 42 (2011) 329-341.

[22] F. Schultz, J. Kleinnijenhuis, D. Oegema, S. Utz, W. van Atteveldt, Strategic

framing in the BP crisis: A semantic network analysis of associative frames, Public

Relations Rev. 38 (2012) 97-107.

[23] A. Ashlin, R.J. Ladle, ‘Natural disasters’ and newspapers: Post-tsunami

environmental discourse, Environ. Hazards, 7 (2007) 330-341.

[24] P.E. Jones, Why there is no such thing as “critical discourse analysis”, Lang.

and Commun. 27 (2007) 337-368.

[25] D.A. Scheufele, Framing as a theory of media effects, J. of Commun. 49

(1999) 103-122.

[26] A. Brand, A. Brunnengräber, Conflictive knowledge constructions on climate

change through mainstream and alternative media, Transcience, 3(1) (2012) 7-24.

29

[27] R. Zamith, J. Pinto, M.E. Villar, Constructing climate change in the

Americas: An analysis of news coverage in US and South American newspapers.

Science Communication, (2012) DOI 10.1177/1075547012457470

[28] T. Rogers-Hayden, F. Hatton, I. Lorenzoni, ‘Energy security’ and ‘climate

change’: Constructing UK energy discursive realities, Glob. Environ. Change, 21

(2011) 134-142.

[29] G. Brown, G. Yule, Discourse analysis, Cambridge, Cambridge University,

1983.

[30] C. Shaw, Choosing a dangerous limit for climate change: Public

representations of the decision making process, Glob. Environ. Change, 23 (2013)

563-571.

[31] A. Carvalho, J. Burgess, Cultural Circuits of Climate Change in U.K.

Broadsheet Newspapers, 1985–2003, Risk Analysis, 25(6) (2005) 1457-1469.

[32] M.T. Boykoff, J.M. Boykoff, Climate change and journalistic norms: A case

study of US mass-media coverage, Geoforum, 38 (2007) 1190-1204.

[33] S. Moscovici, La psychanalyse, son image et son public, Presses

Universitaires de France, Paris, 1961.

[34] P. Washer, Representations of SARS in the British newspapers, Social Sci.

and Medicine, 59 (2004) 2561-2571.

[35] S. Hsieh, S.E. Shannon, Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis,

Qualitative Health Res. 15(9) (2005) 1277-1288.

[36] N. Fairclough, Language and Power, Longman, London, 1989.

[37] N. Fairclough, Media Discourse, Edward Arnold, London, 1995.

30

[38] R. Wodak, R. de Cillia, M. Reisigl, K. Liebhart (Eds). The Discursive

Construction of National Identity, Edingburgh University Press, Edingburgh, 1999.

[39] T.A. Van Dijk, Critical discourse analysis. Chapter 18, in D. Schiffrin, D.

Tannen, H.E. Hamilton (Eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Blackwell

Publishers, 2005.

[40] H. Doulton, K. Brown, Ten years to prevent catastrophe? Discourses of

climate change and international development in the UK press, Glob. Environ.

Change, 19 (2009) 191-202.

[41] The Economist, Homepage, 2013. Available (01/07/13)

www.economistgroup.com

[42] K. Matsa, J. Sasseen, A. Mitchell, Magazines: By the numbers, The Pew

Research Centre’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, 2012. Available (26/11/13)

http://stateofthemedia.org/2012/magazines-by-the-numbers/#news-magazines

[43] T. Royce, Visual-verbal intersemiotic complementarity in The Economist

magazine, PhD Dissertation, The University of Reading, 1999. Available (19/08/13)

http://www.isfla.org/Systemics/Print/Theses/RoyceThesis/

[44] J. Peters, The Economist tends its sophisticated garden, New York Times, 8

August 2010. Available (02/08/13)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/business/media/09economist.html?

pagewanted=all&_r=0

[45] M. Pressman, Why Time and Newsweek will never be The Economist, Vanity

Fair, 20 April 2009. Available (20/07/13)

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2009/04/when-will-magazines-stop-trying-to-

copy-the-economist

31

[46] C. Espinosa, The riddle of leaving the oil in the soil – Ecuador’s Yasuni-ITT

project from a discourse perspective, Forest Policy and Economics, 36 (2012) 27-36.

[47] A. Zalik, Oil ‘futures’: Shell’s Scenarios and the social constitution of the

global oil market, Geoforum, 41(4) (2010) 553–564.

[48] S. Becken, A Critical Review of Tourism and Oil, Annals of Tour. Res. 38(2)

(2011) 359-379.

[49] G. Curran, Contested energy futures: Shaping renewable energy narratives in

Australia, Glob. Environ. Change, 22 (2012) 236-244.

[50] J.L. Durfee, “Social change” and “status quo” framing effects on risk

perception, An Explanatory Experiment, Sci. Commun. 27(4) (2006) 459-495.

[51] R.M. Entman, Representations in mass media, in: N.J. Smelser, P.B. Baltes

(Eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioural Sciences, Pergamon,

2001.

[52] S. O’Neill, S. Nicholson-Cole, “Fear won’t do it”. Promoting positive

engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations, Sci.

Commun. 30(3) (2009) 355-379.

[53] J. Chanis, U.S. petroleum security and energy independence. American

Foreign Policy Interests, 34 (2012) 20-26.

[54] P. E. Stoknes, “Rethinking Climate Communications and the “Psychological

Climate paradox, Energy Research and Social Science, in press (2014).

[55] P. C. Stern, “Individual and Household Interactions with Energy Systems:

Toward Integrated Understanding”, Energy Research and Social Science, in press

(2014).

32

[56] M. Hirschhorn, “The Newsweekly’s Last Stand: Why The Economist is

thriving while Time and Newsweek fade”, The Atlantic, July/August 2009, Available

(20/03/14) http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/07/the-newsweeklys-

last-stand/307489/

[57] M. T. Huber, Energizing historical materialism: Fossil fuels, space and the

capitalist mode of production, Geoforum, 40(1) (2009) 105-115.

Figure 2

33

Table 6 Nine themes from open coding and key categories within themes (an article could contain more than one theme)

Theme Categories

Conflict Oil wars; Attacks on oil infrastructure; Oil theft; Corruption; Violence;

Organised crime; Social problems in oil producing areas

Consumers Changing consumer behaviour; Smaller cars; Less demand for air travel;

Demand for bicycles

Economy Economic growth or downturn; Inflation; Global oil/Commodity trading;

Terms of trade and foreign exchange rate; Global economic situation

Energy policies Tax revenue from oil; Subsidies; Foreign investment; Relationship

between oil, gas, coal and electricity; Government investment in energy

infrastructure; Clean energy and renewable sources

Energy

security

Self-sufficiency; (In)-Dependence on foreign oil; Changing energy supply

structures; Oil availability

Environment Environmental concerns; Climate change; Environmental policy; Air

pollution; Oil spills; Accidents; Fracking and water pollution

Oil business Corporate conflicts; Government intervention into business deals;

Shareholders

Oil production/

availability

Exploration; Technology; Unconventional sources; Gas; Refining

capacity; Peaking of production; Lack of infrastructure; New discoveries;

Deep sea oil

Politics Geopolitics; Political power (of a leader or party); Stability; Distribution

of oil wealth

34

Table 7 Relevant attributes of 58 articles that cover energy security and oil production

2008 (June, July,

August) (N=14)

2012 (March, April)

(N=6)

2012 (May) -2013

(March) (N=38)

Global oil

prices

Very high oil prices High oil prices Lower oil prices

Geographic

focus

38% global focus

18% North America

11% Middle East

9% South America

33% global focus

17% each for North

America, Asia,

Middle East, Africa

21% North America

17% each for Middle

East and South

America

15% Asia

Valence

frame

10 pessimist/negative

stance

4 optimist/positive

stance

5 pessimist/negative

stance

1 optimist/positive

stance

12

pessimist/negative

stance

26 optimist/positive

stance

Illustrations Total: 27

Photos: 56%

Maps: 11%

Graphs/Tables: 22%

Cartoons: 11%

Total: 10

Photos: 20%

Maps: 20%

Graphs/Tables: 30%

Cartoons: 30%

Total: 63

Photos: 43%

Maps: 19%

Graphs/Tables: 33%

Cartoons: 5%

35

Table 8 Frames identified for the three points in time and the ‘resource depletion’ storyline

2008 (June, July,

August)

2012 (March, April) 2012 (May) -2013 (March)

Dominant

frames

1. Oil dependence

Political

Economic

2. Energy investment

More exploration

Renewable energy

sources

3. Supply challenge

Market issue

Resource depletion

1. Supply challenge

Short term shock

and market issue

Resource

depletion

1. Energy transformation -

Bonanza

Independence

Unconventional resources

and technologies

Economic growth

2. Supply challenge

- Exploitation barriers

- Insufficient infrastructure

Un-

orthodox

frames

- Environmentalism

(“gas guzzling cars”)

and indigenous rights

- Resource depletion

- Environmentalism and

social impacts of oil

wealth

36

Table 9 Quotes illustrating the dominant frame of energy transformation in 2012

Date Quote

7 April 12 “Kenya, the region's biggest economy, was sent into delirium on March

26th by the announcement of a big oil strike in its wild north.”

2 June 12 “America is estimated to have enough gas to sustain its current production

rate for over a century. This is astonishing. Barely five years ago America

was expected to be a big gas importer.”

16 June 12 “The Arctic also has oil and gas, probably lots.”

14 July 12 “Exactly how much unconventional gas lurks outside America is a matter

for conjecture, but the list of countries with potentially large reserves grows

steadily. Canada and Mexico are known to have lots. Australia already

produces coal-bed methane and has plenty of shale and tight gas too. South

Africa also has big deposits, though a fracking moratorium was announced

last year. Argentina and India could join the shale club, and so could

countries that already export conventional gas, such as Algeria and Libya.

Even Russia and Saudi Arabia, the largest conventional oil producers, have

the stuff.”

28 July 12 “Natural gas, thanks to the rapid spread of "fracking", a whizz-bang

technique to extract oil and gas from shale, is cheap and abundant.”

17 November

12

“Thanks to a boom in unconventional energy, America could be churning

out 11.1m barrels a day (b/d) by 2020. More than one jubilant media outlet

has crowed about "Saudi America".”

37

Table 10 Textual and visual elements employed to convey the resource depletion storyline

Date Element Content Comment

21 April

2012

Cartoon Person (looking like

a tourist) sucking

dark liquid out of an

almost empty glass

The tourist looks hot and thirsty and the glass

is almost empty. This cartoon is a metaphor

for shrinking oil supplies that connects to

people’s (physical) experience of feeling

thirsty and increasingly stressed without sign

of relief. The planes and cars in the

background symbolise the cause of the stress

(fossil fuel use)

31 May

2008

Heading “Recoil” World play that sounds like “Peak Oil” and

alludes to the recoil of a gun when it is

discharged; thus highlighting the force and

backward movement that an oil shock inflicts.

31 May

2008

Heading “Drying up” Literal description – albeit scientifically false

– to illustrate the peaking of British oil fields

and appealing to readers’ knowledge of other

liquids drying up or evaporating.

31 May

2008

Photo Silhouette of a petrol

pump head held like

a pistol

Metaphor of a pistol used to visualise the

potentially fatal impacts of an oil shock.

31 May

2008

Photo Protester,

surrounded by

soldiers with masks,

kicking a leaking

barrel of oil

Visualising violence and terror surrounding

the issue of oil, and indicating severe conflict

in the case of Peak Oil.

38