Boulder Weekly "Frackademia" Investigation Reveals University of Colorado for Sale to Oil and Gas Industry

picture-7018-1583982147.png
on

Boulder Weekly, a Boulder, Colorado alternative weekly newspaper, has published a 10,000 wordย โ€frackademiaโ€ investigation in a special edition of theย newspaper.ย 

The long-form investigation by Joel Dyerย โ€”ย based on thousands of documents obtained by Greenpeace USA โ€” exposes the ongoing partnership between the University of Colorado-Boulder’sย Leeds School of Business and the Common Sense Policy Roundtable (CSPR), the latter an oil and gas industry front group. The investigation reveals connections to Koch Industries, American Petroleum Institute, andย Encana, amongย others.

University of Colorado, in this case, sat in the center of a tight-knit network of Colorado movers-and-shakers with ties to the oil and gas companies and public relations firms maintaining them as clients. That network is well-displayed in the LittleSis mapย created below by Greenpeace USA researcher Jesse Coleman and Boulder Weekly has created seven influence maps of its own.

The story begins in April 2013, when CSPR signed an agreement with University of Colorado for the latter โ€œto provide unbiased, third-party researchโ€ on behalf of CSPR, as seen in the proposal obtained by Coleman. While self-serving as a principle, the research ended up as anything butย โ€œunbiased.โ€

The โ€œDocumentsโ€ฆreveal that the studies were conceived of, edited and strategically used by PR firms to influence fracking policy in Colorado, yet CSPRโ€™s financial ties to the oil and gas industry were not disclosed to the media or in the published studies,โ€ wrote Coleman in an article piggy-backing off of the Boulder Weekly investigation. โ€œCSPR set priorities for the researchers, prioritizing oil and gas work. The studies were aimed at politically contentious topics, like local regulation over frackingย wells.โ€

Other topics covered in CSPR reports done with University of Colorado’s stamp on them including the economic impact of a fracking ban, the economic impact of fracking in Colorado, an economic assessment of Colorado’s oil and gas pricesย and fracking and job creation in Colorado.ย 

CSPR describes itself on its website as, โ€œfree-enterprise think tank dedicated to the protection and promotion of Coloradoโ€™s economyโ€ and has a Board of Directors featuringย Lem Smith, a lobbyist for hydraulic fracturing (โ€œfrackingโ€) giant Encana, a fracking company listed as a โ€œpartnerโ€ in its 2011 annual report. Smith is also on the Board of Directors of Western Energy Alliance, an oil and gas industry frontย group.ย 

Shady MOU

Perhaps the most damning part of the Boulder Weekly deep-dive pertains to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed between the Leeds School of Business and CSPR. It is a document that wasn’t forked over under the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA), but eventually handed over after he hounded the University for documentย now published online by Greenpeace USA.

University of Colorado Frackademia MOU

Image Credit: University ofย Colorado-Boulder

Dyer had to hound the University for the document even though it contains language reading,ย โ€œThis agreement is not considered confidential and is subject to disclosure under CORA.โ€

โ€œWhat I got from CU in the original request was an old email exchange from Strohm saying the MOU was attached along with five pages of giant black squares. They were 100 percent redacted,โ€ he explained. โ€œClearly there was something fishy going on. Why black out a document that actually says it is sharable under CORA? The answer is someone at CU didnโ€™t want us to see the MOU for a reason known only to CU.โ€

In the case of the MOU itself, the dirt is in the fineย print.

โ€œThe MOU leaves no doubt who is running theโ€ฆshow. Whatever management committee powers CSPR grants to its funders, in the end even those are subject to CSPR board oversight,โ€ wrote Dyer, who alsoย explained:ย 

And how about this jewel: No work productโ€ฆincluding reports, can be disclosed by any participating member unless the management committee approves the release. Ever. Let me translateย that.

CSPR and its funders can research any issue they choose, but they have no obligation to release any reports that donโ€™t match their political purposes. CSPR and its funding partners may not be able to significantly influence the Leeds researchersโ€™ findings, but by holding the power over what does and doesnโ€™t get released, they still ultimately control theโ€ฆproject outcomes in thatย fashion.

The terms of the MOU, unsurprisingly, paid off in terms of the deliverables that wouldย follow.ย 

API Buysย Study

Enter a University of Colorado studyย conceived of byย API research analyst Marcus Kobilz.

Emails and other documents obtained by Greenpeace reveal API had a heavy hand in editing the study and contributed to the media roll-out plan after the study API funded was published. University of Coloradoโ€™s Brian Lewandowski โ€” head researcher for the project โ€”at one point revised the report and sent it back to API, writing in an email, โ€œI hope this new version is in line with what you envisioned.โ€

American Petroleum Institute University of Colorado

Image Credit: University ofย Colorado-Boulder

Originally the study had a huge API stamp at the top and the current version of it, up on API‘s website, lists it as a โ€œReport for the American Petroleum Instituteโ€ in a smallerย font.ย 

The Kochย Connection

At the heart of the story are the people and public relations firms who made the collaborative effortย possible.

โ€œCSPR was created by the Starboard Group and staffed in part by EIS Solutions โ€“ two PR firms with close ties to the oil and gas industry, including the billionaire Koch brothers,โ€ explained Coleman. โ€œEarlier this year, the two firms were revealed to be behind a web of front groups in Colorado that oppose regulations onย fracking.โ€

One of Starboard Group’s clients is Americans for Prosperityย (AFP), the front group founded and funded by Koch Industries and the Koch brothers.ย Starboard was founded by Kristin Strohm, who also heads up CSPR. CSPR, more or less, is just a Starboard Groupย front.

โ€œWhile Strohm is listed as the executive director of CSPR, she isnโ€™t paid by CSPR,โ€ wrote Dyer. โ€œAccording to the organizationโ€™s Form 990 return, CSPR appears to pay no full-time staff. Instead, CSPR actually pays $60,000 a year to the Starboard Group for administrative duties. Strohm is paid to administrate CSPR by the Starboardย Group.โ€

But the connections run even deeper than that, as Coleman’s article laysย out:ย 

As a political fundraiser, Kristin Strohm has successfully solicited major funding from the Koch brothers. While Strohm was the finance director for [U.S. Rep.] Mike Coffmanโ€™s [R-CO] congressional campaign, in which Coffman benefited from ads run by Americans for Prosperity, the Koch brotherโ€™s flagship political group. Through Strohm, Coffman also received the maximum possible donation allowed by law from Davidย Koch

(Snip)ย 

With Strohm at the helm, CSPR works hand in glove with the Koch political apparatus. CSPR lists โ€œfinalizing plans for 2014โ€ with Americans for Prosperity Foundation as a โ€œStrategicย Objective.โ€

Further,ย Dustin Zvonekย โ€” former head of AFP in Colorado and now AFP Regional Directorย โ€” formerly served as CSPR‘s policy advisor.

ย Policyย Impact

Of course, โ€œfrackademiaโ€ is all for naught unless it gets results. And results โ€œfrackademiaโ€ got at University of Colorado in the form of its โ€œHydraulic Fracturing Ban: The Economic Impact of a Statewide Fracking Ban in Coloradoโ€ย report published inย 2014.

That report was published in the middle of Colorado’sย ballot initiative fight, in which many localities attempted to assert local control overย fracking.

โ€œThe studyโ€™s release was strategically planned by Starboard Group and EIS Solutions, two influential PR firms with oil and gas clients,โ€ explained Coleman. โ€œCSRPโ€™s own literature claims the study had a profound impact, boasting that the report was cited in all debatesโ€™ on fracking ballotย initiatives.โ€

Eventually, with the acquiescence of Coloradoโ€™s Democratic Party establishment, the ballot initiative died a slow death and actually never even made the ballot for the November 2014ย election.

โ€œItโ€™s difficult to understand how [this]ย wasnโ€™t more cause for concern,โ€ย wrote Dyer. โ€œBut that appears to be the case. Nothing in the CORA documents indicates that anyone at CU or the Leeds School ever raised an issue over how [the] research was being used in the realย world.โ€

Frackademia Alive andย Well

As a recent report published by Public Accountability Initiative has made clear and as Boulder Weekly and Greenpeace USA have made crystal clear, โ€œfrackademiaโ€ is alive and well as fall semester 2015 getsย underway.

In this case, API and other vested interests used University of Colorado to perform the well-honed propaganda โ€œthird party technique.โ€

At the end of the day, itโ€™s just another sordid chapter in the ever-developing contemporary history book that is universities for sale to the frackers.ย ย 

Photo Credit: Shutterstock |ย Sopotnicki

picture-7018-1583982147.png
Steve Horn is the owner of the consultancy Horn Communications & Research Services, which provides public relations, content writing, and investigative research work products to a wide range of nonprofit and for-profit clients across the world. He is an investigative reporter on the climate beat for over a decade and former Research Fellow for DeSmog.

Related Posts

on

Policymakers and industry say the Midwest Hydrogen Hub will create green jobs and slash emissions, but environmentalists see a ploy to keep fossil fuels in use.

Policymakers and industry say the Midwest Hydrogen Hub will create green jobs and slash emissions, but environmentalists see a ploy to keep fossil fuels in use.
on

Is the Gulf of Mexico the "single best opportunity" to store climate-warming gas โ€” or an existential threat to wildlife and people?

Is the Gulf of Mexico the "single best opportunity" to store climate-warming gas โ€” or an existential threat to wildlife and people?
on

DeSmog reflects on some of the major moments in U.S. LNG policy, the courts, and protest in a turbulent year for this fossil fuel.

DeSmog reflects on some of the major moments in U.S. LNG policy, the courts, and protest in a turbulent year for this fossil fuel.
Analysis
on

Our editors and reporters weigh in on a year of seismic political events, and what theyโ€™re paying close attention to in 2025.

Our editors and reporters weigh in on a year of seismic political events, and what theyโ€™re paying close attention to in 2025.