Frack-Friendly New Report Debunked

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/mtsofan/6853284879/sizes/m/in/photostream/">mtsofan</a>/Flickr

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.


Earlier this month, the State University of New York at Buffalo released a report concluding that fracking is getting safer, as both industry and regulators are doing a better job. The study got plenty of coverage—the Associated Press, Forbes, WGRZ, Buffalo News—but in the week since it was released, it’s been attacked for a number of flaws.

Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is the process by which a blast of chemicals, water, and sand are used to tap into natural gas reserves. It’s also highly controversial, as many have raised concerns about the environmental and health impacts for people living near drilling sites. So it’s not surprising that this report, the first from Buffalo’s new Shale Resources and Society Institute, drew a lot of attention. 

But on Wednesday the university was forced to remove the “peer-reviewed” description it gave to the report, since it was not. And a reviewer from the Environmental Defense Fund notes that the paper draws some questionable conclusions that he did not actually endorse. On Thursday, the watchdog group Public Accountability Initiative (PAI) released a scathing review of the report, concluding that the data actually shows that the number of environmental problems related to fracking increased by 189 percent from 2008 to 2011.

PAI also found that two of the report authors had previously written a report paid for by the natural gas industry, and a third works for an environmental consulting firm involved in the natural gas industry. They also revealed that large portions of the paper were lifted, word-for-word, from a pro-fracking paper that three of the authors had written for the conservative think tank Manhattan Institute.

The University at Buffalo’s Shale Resources and Society Institute is also getting more scrutiny for its own relationship to the energy industry. As PAI points out, a University at Buffalo spokesman told WGRZ News that the Shale Institute “does not have any external funding.” But the institute’s website notes that it is currently seeking future funding from outside grants, contracts, and memberships.

“Taken together,” concludes PAI, “the serious flaws in the report, industry-friendly spin, strong industry ties, and fundraising plans raise serious questions about the Shale Resources and Society Institute’s independence and the University at Buffalo’s decision to lend its independent, academic authority to the Institute’s work.”

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest