PAI statement on Energy in Depth’s response to “Frackademia in Depth”

For the amount of money the oil and gas industry pays FTI Consulting to run its Energy in Depth campaign, the quality of work it gets in return is remarkably poor.

PAI’s latest report, released last week, examined a list of research compiled and disseminated by Energy in Depth to support the industry’s claim that there is a settled scientific consensus on the safety and benefit of hydraulic fracturing. We reported how the industry’s case for fracking, as managed by EID, was marred by conflicts of interest and a lack of peer-reviewed research. We also found that the list of research that EID produced for its clients, and which was used by the industry to influence policymakers, was sloppily composed, listing several studies multiple times and relying on studies that had been discredited and retracted by the institutions that issued them.

That shoddy workmanship has carried forward to EID’s response to our report. In their response, EID claims that PAI singled out “only four studies that EID has used in the past,” bizarrely criticizes PAI for scrutinizing a study led by current Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, and accuses PAI of “trying to instill doubt about scientific concepts” rather than “exposing real conflicts of interest.” EID did not provide its readers a link to “Frackademia in Depth,” and was either unwilling or unable to address any of the actual findings in the report, which we stand by.

Regarding EID’s first claim, in preparing our report we examined over 130 documents that EID included in its list “Hydraulic Fracturing: Tightly Regulated, Extensively Studied,” not four. What EID calls our “blanket statement” about most of their studies being industry tied is our finding that 104 of the studies EID listed had oil and gas industry connections. We documented those connections and released a data table along with our report with detailed notes on the type and extent of the industry ties in every study where they were found. That table is available here:

EID’s assertion that “PAI suggests that conclusions from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Energy, the National Academy of Sciences, and even the president himself are all incorrect because they have some sort of ‘industry’ connection” is harder to make sense of because it is patently false. PAI reported no oil and gas industry ties among the reports we reviewed from the EPA, the U.S. Geological Survey, the DOE, or from the National Research Council, which was pointed out by EnergyWire’s Pamela King in her coverage of our report. We did profile a study from EID’s list that was led by Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz before his appointment to that post. That study, funded by the oil and gas front group American Clean Skies Foundation and released by the oil and gas-funded MIT Energy Initiative, had enough industry conflicts of interest that we devoted an entire report to it in 2013. To imply, as EID does, that conflicts of interest are not worth considering if they occur at the highest levels of government demonstrates a shallow comprehension of the concept, indeed.

Finally, Energy in Depth accuses PAI of “trying to instill doubt about scientific concepts” rather than “exposing real conflicts of interest.” It is a bold claim for EID to make considering its response spends more than 300 words attempting to convince readers to ignore the conflicts of interest that PAI reported. In saying that PAI is trying to instill doubt about scientific concepts, EID seems to be standing by the content of its research list as scientific, even those studies which could not be called such by the most charitable of spin doctors. PAI has been covering this issue for nearly three years and has uncovered far more than the peer review issues EID uses to frame its attempted smear. It is the height of arrogance (or perhaps of sloppy, inattentive work) for EID to repeatedly ignore the gross conflicts that have compromised the research they peddle as science and then accuse PAI of not doing enough to expose conflicts of interest.

Click here to read “Frackademia in Depth: An analysis of the oil and gas industry’s case for fracking”

Click here to view the data table detailing the industry ties and peer review among EID’s studies

Posted in blog | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Conflicts of interest in new fracking emissions study

A new study of the methane emissions associated with hydraulic fracturing for natural gas, or fracking, is being published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The study claims that methane emissions associated with fracking are 0.42% of gross gas production. Other studies have previously contended that leakage rates are much higher, and therefore destructive from a climate perspective.

While a full review of the methodology and results of the latest study is in order, a preliminary look at the key players involved suggests an improper degree of industry influence and an insufficient level of conflict of interest disclosure.

Most significantly, at least one author of the study has a significant conflict of interest that went undisclosed in the article. The authors of the study declared no conflicts of interest, according to the article, but one author, Jennifer Miskimins, is currently the employee of a petroleum engineering firm, Barree & Associates, and has been since 2012. The firm offers a range of consulting services related to fracking. The paper lists her affiliation as Colorado School of Mines. The lack of disclosure is a red flag that suggests that the authors of the study did not adhere to PNAS’s conflict of interest policy, and that other authors may have consulting arrangements and other industry connections that should have been disclosed in the article. According to PNAS’s conflict of interest policy, the journal may publish an erratum or restrict authors from publishing in the journal for a period of time if they are found to be in violation of the conflict of interest policy.

Beyond authorship, the industry sponsorship of the study raises conflict of interest questions, as well. While the sponsors are disclosed in the body of the article, no information is offered about how conflicts of interest were managed to assure the independence of the research. The involvement of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), is also cause for concern, given its role in endorsing flawed pro-fracking studies from the University at Buffalo and the University at Texas. Sponsors of EDF’s methane emissions work also have industry ties and deserve critical scrutiny.

This article offers preliminary information about each of these issues.

I. Undisclosed Conflict of Interest & Possible Violation of PNAS Policy

a. Authors & Industry Ties

The PNAS article states that “The authors declare no conflict of interest,” but at least one author appears to have a significant financial conflict of interest: Jennifer Miskimins is currently a senior consulting engineer at Barree & Associates, a petroleum engineering firm which offers “consulting services for companies worldwide, specializing in stimulation and well performance optimization.” The firm offers fracturing related services, including “performance optimization,” “horizontal well stimulation design,” and “fluid and proppant selection.”

Miskimins joined the firm in 2012, prior to the completion and submission of the study, but her affiliation is listed only as “Department of Petroleum Engineering, Colorado School of Mines” in PNAS. According to LinkedIn, her associate professorship at the school was not current as of 2012.

At the Colorado School of Mines, Miskimins was the director of the Fracturing Acidizing Stimulation Technology (FAST) Consortium from 2004 until joining Barree & Associates. (Miskimins still has a Colorado School of Mines website that lists her as the FAST Consortium director). The FAST Consortium is a joint industry and university research center focused on oil and gas well stimulation. Membership in the consortium costs $15,000 plus an unspecified initial buy-in, according to Miskimins’s bio, for which companies receive “access to all FAST Consortium project results through annual meetings and executive style reports.” Member companies come from all oil and gas industry sectors and include Anadarko Petrolum, BG Group, Barree & Associates, Encana Oil & Gas, and Shell.

Other authors also have industry ties, though Miskimins’ industry connection is the most significant on its face. According to University of Texas conflict of interest disclosure forms which PAI obtained through a freedom of information request, lead author David T. Allen reports some industry compensation, including travel sponsored by ExxonMobil, apparently to advise it on its “corporate strategic research” program. ExxonMobil’s fracking subsidiary XTO Energy is a sponsor of the study.

Two study authors, Matthew Harrison and Al Hendler, work as project managers for URS Corporation, a service provider to the oil and gas industry. In 2012, URS acquired Flint Energy Services, an oil and gas construction firm. On its website URS identifies itself as “a leading provider of of design, construction and production services across the upstream, midstream and downstream supply chain,” with expertise in conventional and unconventional plays, including shales and oil sands, as well as “established long-term relationships with some of the world’s largest oil and gas companies.” Hendler is a specialist in air quality monitoring and data analysis and Harrison is a senior greenhouse gas project manager according to their LinkedIn profiles.

Another study author, A. Daniel Hill, is chair of the petroleum engineering department at Texas A&M. His online profile lists a number of fracking-related “research and consulting” activities, but it does not say whether he is consulting for any industry entities. His profile also states that he holds five patents for various “oil recovery and well injection processes.”

b. PNAS Conflict of Interest Policy

The failure to disclose Miskimins’ conflict of interest and other industry ties may constitute a violation of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences conflict of interest policy. The policy states:

Authors are required during submission of their manuscripts to complete the online declaration form and to disclose any conflict of interest. The corresponding author must ensure that all authors have been asked to disclose any conflicts of interest.

PNAS’s definition of a potential conflict is broad, including everything from honoraria to personal friendships and public associations, and would appear to cover many of the relationships detailed above:

Divulging a potential conflict usually does not invalidate the research or the comments of a referee or editor; it simply provides the reader information necessary to independently assess the work. A conflict of interest includes a financial association or relationship that could influence the objectivity, integrity, or interpretation of a publication. Such conflicts of interest include relationships with corporations whose products or services are related to the subject matter of the article. These relations include employment, substantive ownership of stock, membership on a standing advisory council or committee, service on the board of directors, or public association with the company or its products. Other areas of conflict of interest could include receiving consulting fees, patent filings, serving as a paid spokesperson, or providing services in exchange for honoraria. Other examples of possible conflicts include a close personal friendship, past or present association as thesis advisor or thesis student, or a family relationship.

According to the policy, when conflicts of interest are disclosed, a footnote is added to the published article:

When a conflict of interest is disclosed either by the author or editor, a footnote describing the conflict will be included with the published article.

The conflict of interest policy also outlines sanctions for authors who fail to comply:

PNAS reserves the right to publish an erratum disclosing conflict(s) of interest related to a previously published paper. Authors, referees, or editors who have deliberately or recklessly failed to disclose conflicts of interest may receive sanctions, including being banned from publishing in PNAS for a period of time.

It seems that the disclosure of Miskimins’ consulting work would be required by PNAS’s policy, and that other relationships may have warranted disclosure, as well. The circumstances may require the publication of erratum or sanctions on the authors of this study.

II. Environmental Defense Fund

a. Role in “Frackademia”

EDF has played a significant role in two scandals, at the University of Texas and the State University of New York at Buffalo, wherein public universities lent their names to scholarship of questionable merit that downplayed the environmental impacts from fracking, while failing to disclose conflicts of interest. In both cases, EDF acted as a reviewer, offering its environmentalist brand to the seriously flawed reports.

At the University of Texas, the school’s Energy Institute published a report in February 2012 that made the claim that fracking posed no threat to groundwater. The Energy Institute claimed the study was peer-reviewed, and it was presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Later that year it was revealed that the report’s study of fracking’s environmental impacts was still in draft form, not meant for public release. Moreover, the study’s prinicipal investigator had failed to disclose, both to the school at to the public, that he was on the board of directors of Plains Exploration & Production, a natural gas company. When these issues were made public, UT convened a panel that, after reviewing the study for impropriety, slammed it for its poor scholarship and conflicts of interest. UT retracted the study in December 2012, the director of the energy institute resigned, and the study’s principal investigator retired.

In March of 2012, the Shale Resources and Society Institute at the State University of New York at Buffalo published a study that claimed fracking was becoming safer thanks to increased regulation and improved gas industry practices. This claim was not supported by the researchers data, which actually showed that the rate of environmental impacts attributable to fracking in Pennsylvania had increased in the period studied. After SUNY trustees opened an investigation, UB closed the Shale Resources and Society Institute in November 2012.

Both of these studies were reviewed by Scott Anderson, EDF’s “point person on policies related to natural gas development.” In Texas, Anderson “helped the University of Texas at Austin define its scope of work and reviewed drafts during the course of the project,” and at Buffalo he reviewed the report, though noted in a blog post that “this does not mean that all of [his] suggestions were taken or that [he] agree[d] with all of the report’s findings or conclusions.” Regardless, it seems that in both cases Anderson either missed or ignored fundamental problems with the reports that led to their later retraction. In both cases, the reports were released with the imprimatur of their respective universities and with EDF’s implied approval.

b. Oil and Gas Ties

According to the PNAS article, EDF’s methane emissions work is funded by the following individuals: “Fiona and Stan Druckenmiller, Heising-Simons Foundation, Bill and Susan Oberndorf, Betsy and Sam Reeves, Robertson Foundation, Tom Steyer, Kat Taylor, and the Walton Family Foundation.”

Several of these individuals have ties to the fracking industry:

Additionally, EDF has ties to the oil and gas industry through its board. Katherine Lorenz, the granddaughter of the “father of fracking,” George Mitchell, serves on its board, and other board members are active oil and gas investors.

III. Industry Sponsorship

The study was sponsored by a number of industry sources, in addition to the Environmental Defense Fund: Anadarko Petroleum, BG Group, Chevron, Encana Oil & Gas, Pioneer Natural Resources, Shell’s subsidiary SWEPI LP, Southwestern Energy, Talisman Energy USA, and ExxonMobil’s subsidiary XTO Energy. In addition to providing financial support, the companies gave the researchers access to the well sites and provided technical advice.

These companies, of course, have a significant financial stake in ensuring that fracking continues in the United States. Their sponsorship of and influence over the study constitutes a clear conflict interest. Disclosure of this sponsorship, on its own, does not equate to adequate management of this conflict. The non-random, industry participant-selected location and time of well evaluations and small sample size are two potential issues with the study’s gas industry sponsorship raised by the group, Physicians Scientists & Engineers for Healthy Energy.

Did the various players behind the study take steps to manage this basic conflict of interest, and ensure that the industry sponsors did not exercise improper influence over the study? Were industry sponsors given a first look at the preliminary results from the study?

Posted in blog | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

New disclosures raise more questions about Obama’s Energy pick

Recently-released financial disclosures are shedding additional light on the severity of conflicts of interest surrounding an influential MIT natural gas study led by Ernest Moniz, President Obama’s choice to lead the Department of Energy. The Public Accountability Initiative first raised questions about the widely-publicized study, titled “The Future of Natural Gas,” in a report released last month. In that report (available here), PAI examined “The Future of Natural Gas” and found that the study promoted fracking and gas exports without noting that several key report authors, including Moniz, had paid industry positions. The PAI report prompted responses from the White House and MIT last month.

Now, on the eve of Moniz’s confirmation hearing, new disclosures are raising further questions about the independence of the MIT study:

* In financial disclosure forms filed with the Obama administration, Moniz reported paid consulting jobs for BP, GE, and energy private equity firm Riverstone Equity Holdings in addition to his lucrative board membership at ICF International. Moniz has consulted for Riverstone since 2008, and received $75,000 in compensation from the firm in 2012. As the Boston Globe reported, Riverstone is a major oil and gas investor, with more than $1.5 billion invested in fossil fuel companies worldwide. Moniz also made $5,850 consulting for BP; “more than $5,000″ from General Electric, which announced today that it was purchasing the oil pump maker Lufkin; $15,000 combined from Schlumberger and the IHS; and more than $13,000 from a non-profit foundation created by the Italian petroleum company Eni, which is also a sponsor of the Moniz-directed MIT Energy Initiative.

* Canadian financial filings show that the gas company Talisman Energy paid MIT study co-chair Anthony Meggs $4.5 million in 2012. (Source: see Talisman Management Information Circular, available here.) Meggs downplayed fracking’s environmental impacts at the press conference announcing the MIT report, but failed to disclose that he had taken the lucrative position at Talisman the month prior. PAI’s review of the MIT study’s environmental impacts section found little scientific data to back his claims, which Moniz echoed in congressional testimony. Meanwhile, Talisman has racked up numerous violations from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection for its operations in the Marcellus Shale. The recent Talisman filing shows that about half of Meggs’ $4,482,708 compensation package from 2012 was clawed back when he left the company in January 2013. However, he did “receive a severance amount as determined by the terms of his employment contract.” Talisman’s financial filing suggests that Meggs was entitled to a severance payment of over $2.5 million.

Some press reports have downplayed Moniz’s oversight of fracking as energy secretary, but he will play a critical role in doling out research funding and overseeing the federal permitting process for liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports. The oil and gas industry is clamoring for expanded exports, which will allow it to access markets where natural gas fetches a higher price. The MIT report argued for expanded LNG exports on the basis of thin evidence, but failed to disclose that study author John Deutch sits on the board of directors of Cheniere Energy, which was awarded the first (and so far only) permit to export liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the lower 48 states. Deutch currently owns Cheniere stock worth $1.7 million. Cheniere’s stock price has risen over 150% since the MIT report was released in June 2011.

The report argued firmly for LNG exports, contending that an integrated global gas market “advances [U.S.] security interests through diversity of supply and resilience to disruption,” which Moniz repeated when he testified before a Senate committee. However, PAI found that the report provided little justification for this conclusion and offered no serious analysis of the economic consequences of market integration.

Moniz is being introduced at his nomination hearing by Brent Scowcroft, who has strong ties to the MIT natural gas study’s advisory chair, Mack McLarty. Scowcroft manages a business advisory firm, the Scowcroft Group, which lists McLarty Associates, managed by Mack McLarty, as one of two principal partners on its website. McLarty Associates lists Chevron and London-based oil and gas company Chevron among its clients and the Scowcroft Group advertises an energy and mining lobbying practice. Former Senator Jeff Bingaman is also introducing Moniz.

Press Release »

Posted in blog | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment