Conflict of interests charges surround two pro-fracking studies

The executive summary of the PAI’s second reports says that there were significant flaws in the study, just as there were with the UB report. In particular, there is a disconnect between the press release’s bold pronouncements and the actual content of the UT study:

— A rough draft, not ready for public release. Though the study was introduced at an academic conference, the UT study does not appear to have been ready for public release. Two of the study’s main sections are marked as rough drafts. In the “Environmental Impacts” section, numerous citations are missing, including some that are marked in red ink.

— Industry-friendly groundwater contamination claim rests on misleading, selective language. The finding highlighted in the press release — that hydraulic fracturing itself has not been linked to groundwater contamination — relies on a semantic sleight of hand that the student newspaper at the University of Texas, the Daily Texan, has recently criticized for contributing to “misreporting” of the issue (“Baking & fracking,” Daily Texan, 2 July 2012). The claim ignores a number of contamination incidents related to aspects of fracking other than the actual fracturing of the rocks. The study itself also raises nearly two dozen significant environmental issues related to fracking that are largely ignored in the press release.

— Inaccurate claims of peer review. The Energy Institute’s director, Ray Orbach, in the Energy Institute’s annual report, claimed that the study was “the first peer-reviewed analysis” of the environmental impacts of fracking, but the study did not undergo an adequate editing process, much less conventional peer review. Similarly, UB claimed that its study was “peer-reviewed” in its press release, but later retracted that claim. Both studies, incidentally, were reviewed by representatives of the Environmental Defense Fund.

PAI says that the question here is whether conflicts of interest are driving an industry-friendly message.

There are similarities between the UT and UB studies: bold, definitive, industry-friendly claims highlighted in the press release but not supported by the underlying study; evidence of poor scholarship and industry bias; and inaccurate claims of peer review.

The authors of each study also have strong industry ties, raising questions about whether the studies’ industry-friendly message is being driven by these conflicts of interest. PAI says that these ties may be even stronger in the case of the UT study; its principal investigator, who presented the study and appears to have shaped the message highlighted for the press, has a clear conflict of interest that may have affected the overall reception of the study if it had been properly disclosed:

— Undisclosed conflict of interest. The UT study’s principal investigator, Charles “Chip” Groat, failed to disclose in his study bio or in his presentations on the study that he is a board member of Plains Exploration and Production (PXP), an oil and gas company which is involved in fracking. Groat earned more than double his University of Texas salary as a PXP board member in 2011 — $413,900 as opposed to $173,273 — and he has amassed over $1.6 million in stock during his tenure there.

PAI notes that Groat has been linked to unreliable research in the past. He resigned as head of the U.S. Geological Survey in 2005 during a major research scandal surrounding a study of the possibility of water infiltration at Yucca Mountain.

— PXP’s fracking. PXP is currently participating in a joint venture with Chesapeake Energy in Louisiana’s Haynesville Shale, which is studied in the UT study, and is also mired in controversy in Los Angeles, where it is fracking the largest urban oil and gas field in the country. 300,000 people live within three miles of the field, heightening the possibilities of public health risks. As part of litigation surrounding its Inglewood oilfield, PXP has been required to conduct a study of fracking that includes a section on groundwater contamination.

— Advisory board industry ties. PAI notes that UT’s Energy Institute also has strong ties to industry through its advisory board. Advisory board members have ties to Hess, ConocoPhillips, Laredo Petroleum, and other companies involved in fracking. ConocoPhillips recently donated $1.5 million to the University of Texas, which is being administered through the Energy Institute. Energy Institute documents suggest that it also attempted to recruit ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, who recently blamed “lazy” journalists for “not doing their homework” about fracking.

UT repeatedly claimed that its study was independent of industry. UB made similar claims, despite the study author’s industry ties. “These universities clearly see their independent brand as a valuable tool in establishing the credibility of their research, and these claims likely gave the studies more media traction than they otherwise deserved,’ PAI says. PAI adds:

But when research is authored by someone who is on the industry’s payroll, as was the case with Groat, such claims are grossly misleading. The lapse is significant in the case of the UT report, given the public importance of the issue, the report’s bold, industry-friendly claim on such a controversial topic of inquiry, and the disconnect between the report’s dismissal of groundwater concerns and the completeness and quality of the underlying research.

PAI says that the University of Texas bears special responsibility for touting the study’s supposed independence and promoting its industry-friendly message. “By making an extensive public relations push around the report, it advanced misinformation, misled the public, and ultimately abused the public trust of universities,” PAI says. “Reports such as these may help to support fundraising operations at these universities, but they come at significant public expense. UT would do well to safeguard against such abuses in the future, rather than further forfeit its institutional credibility.”

In response to the harsh criticism contained in the PAI report, the University of Texas Austin issues this statement:

The most important asset we have as an institution is the public’s trust. If that is in question, then that is something we need to address. We will identify a group of outside experts to review the Energy Institute’s report on the effects of hydraulic fracturing. We hope to have that group identified and the results back within a few weeks. We believe that the research meets our standards, but it is important to let an outside group of experts take an independent look.
Dr. Groat has been reminded of his obligations to report all outside employment per university policy. If the university had known about Dr. Groat’s board involvement, the Energy Institute would have included that information in the report.

— Read more in Contaminated Inquiry: How a University of Texas Fracking Study Led by a Gas Industry Insider Spun the Facts and Misled the Public (Public Accountability Initiative, July 2012), The UB Shale Play: Distorting the Facts about Fracking (Public Accounting Initiative, May 2012); “Industry money and questionable ethics contaminate UT Austin fracking study,” Scientific American, 24 July 2012; Jim Efstathiou Jr., “Frackers Fund University Research That Proves Their Case,” Bloomberg (23 July 2012); ; Andrew C. Revkin, “When Agendas Meet Science in the Gas Drilling Fight,” New York Times, 23 July 2012; and Revkin, “University of Texas Will Review Gas Study After Conflict Questions Raised,” New York Times, 24 July 2012