Public Accountability Initiative Produces New Report on SUNY Buffalo's "Shill Gas Study"

picture-7018-1583982147.png
on

The Public Accountability Initiative (PAI) hasย upped the ante on DeSmogBlog’s reporting on what we coined a โ€œShill Gas Studyโ€ recently conducted by SUNYย Buffalo.

In our critique of the โ€œstudyโ€ we pointed out the fact that all of the authors and nearly the entire peer review board of the study, other than one person, was or has been connected to the oil and gasย industry.

Theย study, published by the brand newย SUNYย Buffalo’s Shale Resources and Society Instituteย andย titled โ€œEnvironmental Impacts During Shale Gas Drilling: Causes, Impacts and Remedies,โ€ was also, as we pointed out, based on likely purposefully flawed methodology. Weย wrote:

The Shale Resources and Society Instituteย โ€studyโ€œย concludedย that between Jan. 2008-Aug. 2011,ย โ€1,844 of the [Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)] violations [by the gas industry], or 62 percent, were administrative and preventative in nature. The remaining 1,144 violations, or 38 percent, were environmentalย inย nature.โ€

Left out of the study is the fact that, as aย May 10 Clevelandย Plain Dealerย report shows, a majority of wells are not even inspected in the state of Pennslyvania by theย DEP. In 2009, theย DEPย inspected 23% of its wells, 24% in 2010 and 35% in 2011, with 84 hired inspectors to examine what grew to 69,000 wells by 2011 in theย state.

Taking our reporting a step further, PAI published a study this week titled, โ€œThe UB Shale Play: Distorting the Facts about Fracking,โ€ which offered additional critiques of the methodology of SUNY Buffalo’s โ€œstudy.โ€ PAI explained in a press release:

[We] conducted an analysis of the report and identified a number of problems that undermine its conclusion: data in the report shows that the likelihood of major environmental events has actually gone up, contradicting the reportโ€™s central claim; entire passages were lifted from an explicitly pro-fracking Manhattan Institute report; and reportโ€™s authors and reviewers have extensive ties to the natural gasย industry.

Serious flaws in the report suggest that the brand-new institute is not so much a venue for the independent study of fracking-related issues as it is a vehicle for industry-friendly propaganda, taking advantage of the University at Buffaloโ€™s independent brand in order to advance a very particularย agenda.

Some of the flawed items PAI points out, include:

  • โ€œTwo of the reportโ€™s central claims are false. The report claims that the rate of major environmental violations declined from 2008 to 2011. According to the reportโ€™s own data, the rate of major environmental accidents actually increased 36% from 2008 to 2011. The report also claims that the total number of environmental events declined over the period studied. In fact, the total number of environmental events increased by 189%, and the number of major environmental events increasedย 900%.โ€
  • โ€œA copy and paste job? The report lifts entire passages, without proper attribution, from an explicitly pro-fracking report released last year by the conservative Manhattan Institute and written by three of the four authors of the UBย study.โ€
  • โ€œUse of biased language and industry spin. For instance, the report says that ‘only a fraction’ย of Notices of Violation (NOVs) were issued for environmental violations. That fraction turns out to be 38%, which is technically a fraction, but this kind of language is extremely misleading atย best.โ€

These examples are but the tip of the iceberg and it’d be one thing if no media outfits were reporting on the so-called โ€œfindingsโ€ of the โ€œindependentย study.โ€

But theyย are.

A case in point is an article recently published byย Forbes, titled โ€œFracking Safety Improves Dramatically, Says Independent Study.โ€

โ€œThe reportโ€™s inaccurate and biased analysis and the authorsโ€™ conflicts of interest suggest that the University at Buffalo is being used as an academic front for gas industry misinformation, rather than as a venue for independent, informative analysis,โ€ said Kevin Connor, director of PAI in a press release. โ€œThis is an unfortunate example of industry spin being given much greater weight than it is worth, and the University at Buffalo is implicated in thisย deception.โ€

PAI‘s report is worth reading on theย whole.

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

The new leader of the opposition has regularly criticised the UKโ€™s green ambitions.

The new leader of the opposition has regularly criticised the UKโ€™s green ambitions.
on

Lucy von Sturmer and Duncan Meisel are building communities of creatives dedicated to preventing the advertising and public relations industry from casting polluters as climate saviours.

Lucy von Sturmer and Duncan Meisel are building communities of creatives dedicated to preventing the advertising and public relations industry from casting polluters as climate saviours.
Opinion
on

It's time to come together to collectively work through the anxiety, grief and overwhelm so many of us are experiencing.

It's time to come together to collectively work through the anxiety, grief and overwhelm so many of us are experiencing.
on

UCP pledges to abandon the provinceโ€™s net zero targets, and remove the designation of CO2 as a pollutant.

UCP pledges to abandon the provinceโ€™s net zero targets, and remove the designation of CO2 as a pollutant.