Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

Campus responds to disputed fracking claims

Senior News Editor

Published: Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Updated: Monday, November 5, 2012 20:11

srsi

Courtesy of the Shale Resources and Society Institute

The Shale Resources and Socitety Institue released this controversial report on May 15. Since the initial report, groups have contested its transparency and the university's involvement in the oil and gas industry and research.


Eighty-three UB faculty and professional staff members are calling for university transparency in relation to the Shale Research and Society Institute (SRSI). After a summer of conflict, controversy and national attention, members of UB continue to respond to questions of the university’s involvement in the oil and gas industry and research.

 But according to Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences Bruce Pitman, SRSI is being transparent, and he is unsure of how to “satisfy the insinuations” that imply the institute received funding from the oil and gas industry.

On Aug. 23 an open letter authored by James Holstun, an English professor; Martha McCluskey, a law professor; and Stephen Halpern, a political science professor, was published in UB Reporter addressed to the UB administration. The letter received the endorsement of 83 UB affiliates. Many of those involved with the letter are also members of the UB Coalition for Leading Ethically in Academic Research (UBCLEAR), an organization formed after a report issued by a political watchdog group raised concerns about the May report SRSI issued.

The SRSI report emphasizes that state oversight has made natural gas drilling safer. Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is the process of extracting natural gas from shale rock through the use of chemicals, sand and water under high pressure.

 The letter’s main request is transparency; it calls for information about the founding, funding, governance and oil industry ties to SRSI.

Information members of UBCLEAR, like Holstun, don’t think has been made apparent. One of the top concerns of members of UBCLEAR is the affiliation the authors of the SRSI report have to the oil industry, and if SRSI was at all funded by the industry.

“People choose not to believe [SRSI received no industry funding] and they keep a story going by insinuation,” Pitman said. “But we are very clear: the institute has received no funding. The report has received no funding from industry. I don’t know what more to say.”

Holstun feels it’s conceivable the money was delivered to the institute with UB taking a cut. The specifics of the funding are still unclear to Holstun and members of UBCLEAR because of the UB Foundation, which handles all donations given to the university and is not subject to the Freedom of Information Law. Which means they don’t have to make any documentation – including funding – public upon request.

 SRSI may take industry funding in the future, according to Pitman. But he said the institute is currently not ready to do so.

It’s hard to see what UB gained in the negative press that followed the university this summer, according to Holstun.

“It’s not like we’re destroyed by this,” Holstun said. “But there has been a great deal of press about UB’s involvement in this controversy, and the low standards of scholarship exhibited by [SRSI’s] first publication, which came out with the name ‘University at Buffalo’ attached to it. Unfortunately, it appears to be an attempt to exploit our name and we didn’t benefit from it. Nobody else has benefited from it either.”

The Public Accountability Initiative (PAI) issued the report that brought negative attention to SRSI in May, about a week after the SRSI report came out. The ties the lead authors of the SRSI report, Timothy Considine of the University of Wyoming and Robert Watson of Pennsylvania State University, have to the oil industries were not fully disclosed, according to PAI.

“Conflict of interest is in the air and it is very much a matter of concern nationally,” Holstun said. “The idea that as universities move more and more toward public/private partnerships there needs to be absolute clarity about the relationship with industry. Unfortunately, we do not yet have that clarity about the Shale Resources and Society Institute.”

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

2 comments

Anonymous
Tue Sep 4 2012 10:04
Dr. Pitman's claim that PAI was somehow doing the calculations differently is entirely disingenuous. In its report, PAI used the same method that the SRSI researchers used and showed that, according to their data, major polluting events increased from 5 in every 1000 wells drilled to 8 in every 1000 wells drilled. An in depth explanation of the methodology used by SRSI AND PAI to come to these conclusions is available at Eyes on the Ties, the blog at LittleSis, PAI's flagship research site:

http://blog.littlesis.org/2012/09/04/nonsense-and-ubs-shale-resources-and-society-institute/

Rob Galbraith
PAI Analyst

Dan Schweitzer
Wed Aug 29 2012 08:24
Dean Pitman's argument that the institute has no funding from industry would be easy to corroborate if the money weren't all put through the UB Foundation, which doesn't have to answer Freedom of Information Law requests.
Anyway, the letter (which I read on the UB Reporter website) doesn't call for the end of the institute - just that everyone involved be open about where the institute came from and where it gets its money from. If there are no secrets, just release the information so we don't have to hear about it anymore. Especially as a NY taxpayer, it's really weird to be told "You're funding something, but we're not going to tell you how it spends the money, where all the money comes from, and anyway, it's none of your business" about a state university project. It's even more insulting as a graduate student at that same institution. Why not just open up and prove there's nothing to hide?




log out