A review issued today by the Public Accountability Initiative (PAI) skewers the “Environmental Impacts During Marcellus Shale Gas Drilling” report released just nine days ago by the fledgling UB Shale Resources and Society Institute (SRSI).

The review shows two of the report’s central claims to be false, and reveals that whole sections were lifted from an earlier pro-fracking report written by the same authors, without attribution. The earlier report was commissioned by the conservative Manhattan Institute—which receives substantial funding from energy companies like Exxon Mobil.

The report employs flawed methodology, biased language, and industry spin. It also relied on an artificial “peer review” process, according to authors Kevin Connor, Robert Galbraith, and Benjamin Nelson.

Using data included in the UB report, they bust the claim that major fracking-related environmental violations declined from 2008-2011. In fact, such violations increased 36% during that time period. The evidence is damning.

Calls and emails to UB spokesperson John Della Contrada, and institute co-director John Martin—seeking comment on the review—were not returned. SIHI co-director Robert Jacobi sent a brief reply: “The comments on the paper I will leave to the authors. A very small point: I am actually a consultant (senior geology advisor) to EQT , not employed in the usual sense with benefits and all that good stuff.” Jacobi, a UB geologist, is listed as being “on long-term, 85% leave” according to the department website.

The review also illustrates how the authors of the UB report are intertwined with the energy industry. Also, Martin is retired from the New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA), and collects a state pension from his 17 years there—as he mentioned in a pro-fracking presentation at UB last year.

Click here to read PAI’s “The UB Shale Play: Distorting the Facts about Fracking.” Funding for the report came from the 11th Hour Project of the Schmidt Family Foundation.

Meanwhile, SRSI’s presence has quietly been scaled back at UB Partner’s Day, scheduled for June 13. According to this archived page, Martin and Marcy Werth of Ecology and Environment were scheduled to give a presentation at the event. Not anymore. Given the institute’s train-wreck of a debut this past week, wanting to keep a low-profile is perfectly understandable.

“The errors in this report really undermine its conclusions. The degree of bias and extensive ties to the natural gas industry suggest that UB is being used as an academic front for industry misinformation,” said lead author of the PAI study, Kevin Connor.

The review concludes: “Will the University at Buffalo and its parent system, the State University of New York, continue to participate in this deception?”

That’s a good question.

Our shadowy informants have sent us this link to the the new website for the UB Shale Resources and Society Institute (SRSI). Click here if you’d like to fund it through the office of Corporate and Foundation relations.

Here’s their commitment to integrity, from the website: Since SRSI will receive funding from many private and government sources, the institute is committed to sustaining an environment of scientific integrity, honest investigation, and freedom from interference. SRSI will ensure that supported data and research undergo independent peer review by qualified experts. SRSI will rely on a research steering committee comprised of competent research and technology experts of both internal and external experts to evaluate research objectivity and assess research quality. Also, it is SRSI policy to encourage its researchers to publish their research findings in peer-reviewed, professional, or scholarly journals. Investigators who rely on SRSI support are expected to share their results with their peers and colleagues at professional meetings, conferences, and other venues.

They must mean going forward, since their first paper was not peer reviewed, nor was it published in a scholarly journal—although it was authored by gas industry shills.

As for being “guided by science,” check out some “Outcomes and Measures of Success” envisioned by the institute:

• Improved communications: The Institute’s external communications should help inform fact-based decision-making by public officials and well-educated citizens. By providing multidisciplinary, data-validated information relating to shale gas development, the quality of related reporting and public understanding should improve.
• Informing industry advances: The Institute will maintain transparent, impartial communications with its industry partners, provide access to new knowledge, and facilitate dialogue with policymakers — so that industry participants can help develop and implement best practices that have been identified through research.
• Outreach initiatives: Drawing upon faculty expertise in environmental anthropology, public anthropology, cultural studies, and archaeology, the Institute offers unique opportunities for outreach and collaboration with diverse groups affected by shale resource development, including Native American communities.

Contributing to economic growth in New York State: The Public Policy Institute (the research arm of the Business Council of New York State) has estimated that the economic impact for New York of drilling 500 unconventional gas wells per year includes the potential creation of 15,500 direct jobs and up to 47,000 other jobs using a standard jobs model.  These jobs would pay double the upstate New York salary average, and tax revenue for New York and local government of $214 M would be generated in 2015.  Although some have disputed these numbers, the facts from neighboring Pennsylvania cannot be disputed.  In 2009-2010 alone, just two of the Marcellus industries (extraction and mining support activities) resulted in the creation of 4,355 new jobs.   There is no other potential source of job creation, economic growth or tax base growth for New York State that comes anywhere near the potential impact of gas development.  The return on investment the Shale Resources and Society Institute will be thousands of times if the Institute is supported with the necessary resources, and is allowed to play a major role in shaping the regulatory and policy debate for New York.  This return will be expressed not only in increased grant and external support, but also in the increased ability of UB students to find jobs and remain in Western New York State.

So, SRSI “is an independent, non-partisan, non-lobbying group” with the stated goal of “contributing to economic growth in New York State” through hydrofracking—as recommended by the Business Council of NYS—”if it’s allowed to play a major role in shaping the regulatory and policy debate for New York”?

What could possibly go wrong with a plan like this?

The UB Reporter online newspaper has amended its story about the university’s new Shale Resources and Society Institute to make it clear that the institute’s first study was not “peer reviewed,” as originally claimed. Here’s the language:

Editor’s note: An earlier version of this story described the report as “peer-reviewed.” This description may have given readers an incorrect impression. The story has been edited to more accurately describe the process by which the report’s authors gathered comments before finalizing their report.

Click here to read the revised story.

The report was issued only six days ago. It took just one day for Scott Anderson—senior policy advisor with the Environmental Defense Fund’s Energy Program—one of the report’s “reviewers” to distance himself from the study.

Susan Arbetter, host of WCNY’s Capitol Pressroom, kindly allowed me some time on her show this morning to talk about the UB Shale Resources and Society Institute and the proposed legislation that would open the SUNY Research Foundation as well as the various campus foundations to the Freedom of Information Law.

The program is scheduled to air locally at 8pm tonight on WBFO 88.7FM, or you can listen here at the WCNY website.

Scott Anderson, a senior policy advisor for the Environmental Defense Fund’s energy program was called on to review “Environmental Impacts During Shale Gas Drilling: Causes, Impacts and Remedies,” the first report issued by the State University of New York at Buffalo’s new Shale Resources and Society Institute.

The report was released on Tuesday (5/15). On Wednesday (5/16), Anderson posted this disclaimer.

“While I was a reviewer, this does not mean that all of my suggestions were taken or that I agree with all of the report’s opinions and conclusions,” he writes.

It’s been a rough couple of days for the fledgeling institute. First they come out touting their “peer reviewed” paper. Next, they get jeers for hiring corporate shills to author a slanted PR piece. Now, one of the “peers” is distancing himself from the whole sordid mess.

Now, even the Buffalo News is admitting that something might be rotten.

Click here to read the first report spat out by the recently announced Shale Resources and Society Institute at the State University of New York at Buffalo. The authors of the report include Robert W. Watson, Timothy J. Considine, and Institute co-director John P. Martin.

Martin is being quoted in the press claiming “the study was funded entirely by the University at Buffalo with no industry support.” That would be a reassuring statement if only it was accurate.

UB spokesperson John DellaContrada told us a few weeks back that “philanthropic support [for the institute] is pending from a variety of potential funders.” Today we left a message asking him about the new report. He sent a three-word email reply. “Funded by UB.” We asked for a little more clarity. He then told us that the new report wasn’t funded by UB, but in fact the money came from the University at Buffalo Foundation.

Since the various UB Foundations exist beyond the reach of the Freedom of Information Law, the public can’t know which gas industry companies may or may not have donated to the UB Foundation, or the amount of those donations. All we’re told is the money for the study came from the UB Foundation.

Isn’t that a nice way to launder money, my fellow New Yorkers?

Well, at least the State University of New York at Buffalo is standing by the research coming out of its new institute, right? Check out the following disclaimer found on page 2 of the report released today:

The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in the report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the University at Buffalo. University at Buffalo does not make any warranty, expressed or implied, or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe upon privately owned rights. Trademarks and copyrights mentioned with this report are the ownership of their respective companies.

The thing has more disclaimers than a pharmaceutical ad.

At any rate, two of the authors, Watson and Considine, have a proven track record of producing feel-good fracking stories funded by pro-fracking groups—and they put them out on Penn State letterhead.

Click here to read “The Economic Impacts of the Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale Natural Gas Play: An Update.” That one came out May 24, 2010. Here’s the page 2 disclaimer:

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the Marcellus Shale
Coalition. Neither the Department of Energy and Mineral Engineering at Penn State nor
the Marcellus Shale Coalition, nor any person acting on behalf thereof, makes any
warranty or representation, express or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness
or usefulness of the information contained in the report nor that its use may not infringe
privately owned rights, or assumes any liability with respect to the use of, or for damages
resulting from the use of, any information, apparatus, method or process disclosed in this
report. This report was written and produced for the Marcellus Shale Coalition by the
Department of Energy and Mineral Engineering, Penn State University. The opinions,
findings, and conclusions expressed in the report are those of the authors and are not
necessarily those of The Pennsylvania State University or the Marcellus Shale Coalition.
To obtain additional copies of the report or with questions regarding the content, contact
Tim Considine at tconsidi@uwyo.edu or (307) 760-8400, or Robert Watson at
rww1@psu.edu or (814) 865-0531.

I left messages with Watson and Considine regarding the funding of this report, but heard nothing back.

Watson and Considine also collaborated on the follow-up: “The Pennsylvania Marcellus Natural Gas Industry: Status, Economic Impacts and Future Potential.” Click here to read that one. It was also paid for by the Marcellus Shale Coalition and came out last year.

Unfamiliar with the Marcellus Shale Coalition? Click here to see who’s on the board:

(more…)

Aubrey McClendon has been removed from his position as chairman of the board of Chesapeake Energy, the company he founded. Click here to read an account from the Guardian, describing how Chesapeake’s shady dealings have now drawn the curiosity of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

From the article:

“A company in the vanguard of the American shale gas revolution has been “fracked” by a regulatory investigation amid controversy over its founder using his personal stakes in corporate wells to borrow nearly $1bn (£618m).

The board of Chesapeake Energy has removed founder Aubrey McClendon as chairman – he remains chief executive – and scrapped highly unusual remuneration arrangements which led to his borrowing $846m.

Chesapeake also confirmed that the US securities and exchange commission (SEC) has started an “informal” investigation into both the company and McLendon, with which it said they would all co-operate.

The company was an early beneficiary of shale drilling but the slump in the price of US natural gas has driven the business into a first quarter financial loss and halved its share price this year.

The second largest gas producer in the US has been forced to admit it may run out of money in 2013.”

Time magazine also wrote about the “rapidly-unfolding imbroglio” yesterday. Click here to read.

Chesapeake Energy is one of the sponsors of the SUNY Fredonia Shale Resources Institute, as evidenced by this screen shot:

Since we drew attention to the Fredonia institute (and its big brother the UB Shale Resources and Society Institute) in this blog post, the Fredonia institute’s website has been taken down.

SUNY Fredonia spokesperson Michael Barone told us he had no idea why the website was down, and stressed that he did not direct that it be taken down. He also confirmed what we reported here—that since the institute’s funding is filtered through the Fredonia College Foundation, all information pertaining to the corporate funding is beyond the reach of the Freedom of Information Law.

We can only presume the new institute at UB will be funded the same way. UB spokesperson John DellaContrada is tight-lipped about it. On April 30, we sent him the following email:

Hi John,

Can you share the list of sponsors/donors/funders of the new  
institute, along with the dollar amounts?

Also, I’ve been told that at Fredonia’s Shale Institute, the money was  
given to the school’s foundation. Is that how it’s set up at UB? If  
so, which foundation at UB receives the money?

Thanks,
Buck

On May 1, he sent the following reply:

Hi Buck,

Philanthropic support is pending from a variety of potential funders.  

John

Apparently, anonymity is highly prized by corporate donors that are under investigation for securities fraud.

Meanwhile NYS Senate Bill 5797—which would make the foundations of SUNY schools subject to FOIL—continues to move through the Education Committee.

At the University at Buffalo, foundations have been shown to be used for a variety of activities beyond their mission statements. We wrote about it last year. If S5797 were to become law, it might help the reputations of SUNY foundations—as well as the reputation of the State University of New York as a whole.

Let’s gaze into the crystal ball, shall we?

As the push to allow high-volume horizontal fracking in New York State continues, funded by the natural gas industry that is at once buying off state politicians while purchasing its way into the SUNY system in an effort to add a patina of validity to claims that the decision will be “guided by science”—let’s take a moment to consider what’s going down in Pennsylvania, where the practice is currently allowed, to the detriment of public health.

Among other things, freewheeling Pennsylvania has these distinctions when it comes to fracking policy:

1. One of only two states without a gas production tax

2. The only state where gas wells are exempt from property tax

3. One of only two states where zoning does not apply to gas wells

4. The only state where physicians are under a gag order when it comes to gas drilling chemicals

On this last point, here is a press release issued yesterday:

In Fracking Secrecy Court Case, Newspapers Get Support From Doctors, Scientists, Advocates  

Group files legal brief arguing public, journalists are entitled to fracking health impact info

PITTSBURGH, PA – In a court case over gas industry secrecy, doctors, scientists, researchers and advocates are lending support to newspapers fighting for access to information that could shed light on the health impacts of gas development, including the controversial process known as hydraulic fracturing or fracking.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Observer-Reporter are seeking to overturn a court order sealing the record in a case in which a Pennsylvania family sued several gas companies over health impacts related to air and water pollution from nearby natural gas development operations. The companies are fighting to keep the records out of the public eye.

Represented by the nonprofit environmental law firm Earthjustice, the group — Philadelphia Physicians for Social Responsibility, Physicians, Scientists, and Engineers for Healthy Energy, Dr. Bernard D. Goldstein, Dr. Walter Tsou, Dr. Jerome A. Paulson, Dr. William Rom, Dr. Mehernosh P. Khan, Dr. Sandra Steingraber, Dr. Simona Perry, Dr. Robert Oswald, Dr. Michelle Bamberger, Kathryn Vennie, and Earthworks — filed an amicus brief today supporting the newspapers. The newspapers also filed briefs in the case today.

“Understanding and preventing any health risks from gas development depends on public access to information on the industry.” said Earthjustice attorney Matthew Gerhart, who filed the brief on behalf of the group.  “The gas industry should spend less time trying to conceal information and more time disclosing information necessary to understand the true risks of fracking and gas development.”

The initial case against the gas industry was brought by Stephanie and Chris Hallowich, who after moving their family to a farm in Mount Pleasant, PA found themselves surrounded by the expanding natural gas industry as companies built wells on their property and gas processing facilities nearby. The health of the parents and children quickly deteriorated and they began suffering unexplained headaches, nosebleeds, burning eyes, and sore throats.

“In order to treat patients exposed to toxins from gas development, doctors need access to a wide range of information,” said Dr. Jerome Paulson, Children’s National Medical Center. “The gas industry has information that could prove vital to our patient’s health and we are asking the court to make it available.”

After unsuccessfully trying to get state regulators and nearby companies to address the problem, the family sued, eventually settling with the companies and abandoning their home. As a condition of the settlement, the companies insisted that the Hallowiches sign a non-disclosure agreement. These types of non-disclosure agreements have proven to be the norm in such lawsuits against the gas industry, as this chart of related cases in Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana , Pennsylvania, Texas, and West Virginia demonstrates.

Prior to the agreement, the Hallowiches had been outspoken critics of gas industry abuses. But like so many others bound by industry-mandated non-disclosure agreements, the family has not been able to speak out about the case since the court settlement.

“People living in communities where the gas industry operates have important firsthand knowledge of the impacts of gas development. But time and again, these people are silenced by industry-mandated non-disclosure agreements in lawsuits as well as leases,” said Dr. Simona Perry, Research Scientist, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. “As their neighbors struggle to contend with these impacts, they are unable to share their knowledge. Whole communities are impacted as a result.”

These nondisclosure agreements are just one example of a wide-ranging pattern of industry secrecy. Industry has lobbied for, and won, exemptions from portions of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, and other federal laws with important right-to-know requirements. In Wyoming, the gas industry has fought against a state law requiring that it disclose the identities of chemicals used in fracking, submitting claims to keep secret more than a hundred chemicals. In Pennsylvania, industry lobbied for Act 13 which, among other things, seeks to limit information doctors can share about health problems linked to gas development activities.

“From Wyoming to Pennsylvania and Colorado to Louisiana, the gas industry is fighting to keep the toxic secrets of drilling out of the public eye and to retain special exemptions to the laws that protect public health and the environment,” said Bruce Baizel, Staff Attorney, Earthworks. “They claim that what they do is safe, but if it is, why do they have so much to hide? We intend to find out.”

The case comes as the nation undergoes a fracking-enabled gas drilling boom. Along with this boom have come troubling reports of poisoned drinking water, polluted air, mysterious animal deaths, and sick families. But industry loopholes in right-to-know laws have made it difficult for researchers to study health and environmental impacts.

“Scientists studying the health and environmental impacts of fracking and gas development need data in order to do their job,” said Stan Scobie, PhD, Senior Fellow, Physicians, Scientists, and Engineers for Healthy Energy. “The gas industry may prefer that we not have the information we need, but the public good clearly outweighs industry’s preference for secrecy.”

In instances where individuals prefer to keep the details of their court settlement sealed, they will typically intervene in any legal challenges to unseal the records. In this case, the Hallowiches  have not intervened in the appeal.

Click here to download a PDF of the 48-page brief.

Where are the calls for industry transparency from our elected officials, as they accept funding from gas companies?

Meanwhile, the Associated Press reports how Gas Drilling Job-Training Programs Pop up in NY. From UB Law school to community colleges, training programs are up and running to train people for possible employment once the natural gas boom comes to New York.

Let’s ask the Magic 8 Ball. Is hydrofracking on its way to New York?

You could pose the same question to NYS Senator Mark Grisanti—chair of the senate environmental committee—when he appears from 6-8pm on Thursday, May 10 at the NOCO Pavillion (450 Ensminger Road, Town of Tonawanda).

Is the whole thing making you feel concerned? Want to get involved before it’s too late? Attend the People’s Hearing on Fracking, June 2 at the Burchfield Penney Art Center.