START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

Gas Drillers’ Cozy Relationship With Universities

  • 2 of 2

Dr Charles “Chip” Groat took early retirement from the University of Texas at Austin after his financial ties to the industry became public. The researcher, whose study had concluded that there is “no link between hydraulic fracturing and water contamination”, sits on the board of Plains Exploration and Production Company, a Houston-based fracker. Groat has received over $2m in cash and stock options from the company since 2007.

The State University of New York at Buffalo shut down its shale resources and society institute in November after “extensive ties” were revealed between its researchers and the gas industry. Kevin Connor, the director of the Public Accountability Initiative, a Buffalo-based nonprofit, said the closing of the institute “sends a strong message to the oil and gas industry that our universities are not for sale”.

But the fact is, big corporations that can afford to pay for it have always pretty much dictated how research dollars get spent. Amy Mall, a senior policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told me that this means that almost all of the scientific work on fracking is directed toward finding more efficient and cheaper ways of getting the gas out of the ground. Virtually none of the studies focuses on the critical environmental and public health effects.

Mall insists that we need truly independent research on all aspects of fracking’s impact. But with fracking technology now largely unregulated, industry has little incentive to demonstrate scientifically that their drilling is safe. As she says:

“We just don’t have the data.”

One critical area where the data is inadequate is in assessing leakage rates. Natural gas is largely composed of methane, which is a greenhouse gas with 25 times the global warming potential of CO2.

The problem is that a significant amount of methane escapes into the atmosphere during the fracking process, and also later due to leaks from pipelines and from storage facilities. The journal Nature reported last week that studies in Colorado and Utah conducted jointly by scientists affiliated with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the University of Colorado at Boulder, found leakage rates ranging from 4% and 9% – far more than the current Environment Protection Agency estimate of 2.3%.

If methane loss turns out to be as high as the initial NOAA studies suggest, it could mean that fracking is as bad, or possibly even worse, for the climate than burning conventional fossil fuels. It is too early right now to make that determination. The Environmental Defense Fund has partnered with academic and industry scientists to assess leak rates in other parts of the country. The first of three reports is due out in February.

The natural gas boom has been fabulously lucrative, injecting new life into the nation’s flagging fossil fuel industry, and reviving rural communities with seemingly miraculous infusions of cash. The glut of cheap natural gas has also helped to cut US CO2 emissions to their lowest level in 20 years, as scores of coal-fueled power plants have switched over to the cleaner burning gas.

These clear benefits have made fracking a tough call for some mainstream environmental groups. Environmentalists are split between those who would like to see the natural gas drilling continue – albeit strictly regulated and restricted to safe zones – and others who see the gas boom as a disaster for the air and water, as well as a distraction of the real work of switching over to renewable energy sources like wind, biofuels and solar.

Public Citizen’s Tyson Slocum calls the boom “a mirage”, which will vanish once gas prices start rising above their current bargain-basement levels, as he says is sure to happen in the years ahead. With untold billions of dollars yet to be made from fracking, however, it is not going away any time soon.

What we can do, in the meantime, is make fracking safer and limit it to places where it won’t poison vital aquifers. We will also need to cut harmful methane leaks to a minimum. To accomplish these goals, our universities will have to start conducting some demonstrably impartial research – for a change.

This article appeared originally in Comment is Free, The Guardian, UK

 

Related Stories:

Top 3 Dirty Energy Battles to Watch in 2013

3 Catastrophes Linked to Natural Gas Fracking

5 States Leading the Fight Against Fracking

 

  • 2 of 2

Read more: , ,

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it

58 comments

+ add your own
6:56AM PST on Jan 30, 2013

thanks for sharing :)

9:44PM PST on Jan 21, 2013

Interesting, thanks for the heads up.

3:56PM PST on Jan 21, 2013

This is just another fact of the present that makes me want to puke!

2:32PM PST on Jan 21, 2013

Noted.

9:34AM PST on Jan 21, 2013

How better to win a nation than win the minds of our youth.

6:35AM PST on Jan 21, 2013

ty

11:30AM PST on Jan 20, 2013

Przykre to, ale człowiek nie liczy się z przyrodą, gdy w grę wchodzą pieniądze.

5:17AM PST on Jan 20, 2013

Noted...

4:49AM PST on Jan 20, 2013

Noted.....

2:50AM PST on Jan 20, 2013

Thanks

add your comment



Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Care2 - Be Extraordinary - Start a Care2 Petition
ads keep care2 free
CONTACT THE EDITORS

Recent Comments from Causes

its not so much the choice as it is the direct killing that's involved. regardless, animals suffer greatly.…

A very caring and compassionate man we need many more like him.

meet our writers

Beth Buczynski Beth is a freelance writer and editor living in the Rocky Mountain West. So far, Beth has lived in... more
ads keep care2 free



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.