EnergyConflict of interests charges surround two pro-fracking studies
Two recent studies — by research institutes at the University of Buffalo and the University of Texas — on the relationship between fracking and the contamination of groundwater, offered what was claimed to be scientific, peer-reviewed research which concluded that fracking does not contribute to such contamination; an examination of the two reports reveals that they were not properly reviewed according to accepted academic standards, and that their authors, and the research institutes which sponsored them, are heavily involved with companies which conduct fracking operations; the author of the University of Texas report sits on the board of a leading fracking company, where his compensation is more than twice as large as his UT salary; he did not disclose this fact in the study — or inform UT of this connection; UT is investigating
Schematic diagram of hydrofracking operation // Source: savingwater.co.za
The Buffalo, New York-based Public Accountability Initiative (PAI) says that universities have an important role to play in critical public policy debates. They can serve as trusted, independent sources of information. The scholarship they produce can help to guide policymakers, inform public opinion, and ultimately shape policy.
Unfortunately, PAI says, when it comes to the issue of horizontal hydraulic fracturing for natural gas, or “fracking,” there are signs that this public trust — and the extraordinary influence that goes with it — is being abused by universities around the country.
PAI says that it has been analyzing this trend in a series of reports on the gas industry’s influence on academic scholarship, and has just published the second report in the series.
In the first report, PAI analyzed a study issued by the University at Buffalo’s Shale Resources and Society Institute (SRSI) on fracking’s environmental risks and found that it suffered from a number of critical shortcomings. The study stated that the incidence of major fracking-related environmental impacts had gone down, when it had actually gone up; lifted entire passages from a pro-fracking report the same authors had written for the Manhattan Institute; and displayed pro-industry bias. PAI also noted that the report’s authors had strong industry ties.
The second report examines another university study of fracking, issued by the Energy Institute at the University of Texas (UT). The February 2012 study, “Fact-Based Regulation for Environmental Protection in Shale Gas Development,” analyzed various aspects of the fracking issue, including environmental impacts, regulation, and public perception.
The study was given major billing by UT, promoted as independent of industry, and presented at a prominent academic conference. The press release accompanying the study made strong claims about the study’s findings, with the headline “New Study Shows No Evidence of Groundwater Contamination from Hydraulic Fracturing.” Media outlets followed this lead, printing headlines such as “Study: Fracturing no threat to groundwater” (Houston Chronicle, 16 February 2012). The natural gas industry cheered the study’s findings.
Fracking’s threat to groundwater is one of the most controversial issues in the debate surrounding the drilling practice. however.
