(cc photo: Helen Slottje)
The New York Times had a report yesterday (9/18/13) on a new study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on methane releases associated with natural gas fracking. The study, Times reporter Michael Wines writes, “bolsters the contention by advocates of fracking—and some environmental groups as well—that shale gas is cleaner and better than coal, at least until more renewable-energy sources are developed.”
Wines was upfront about the fact that the study was backed by energy companies with a financial stake in its results. But he suggested that that really wasn’t such a big problem:
The study’s connection to the petroleum industry—among its sponsors and financiers are Shell, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Exxon Mobil and Chevron—may lead some to question its objectivity, some outside experts said. But most said the research and the reputations of the researchers appear solid.
“Previous studies that have gotten a lot of attention have had red flags jumping out all over them. This one didn’t,” said Michael A. Levi, the director of the program on energy security and climate change at the Council on Foreign Relations. In an e-mailed statement, Shell’s president, Marvin Odum, called the study “a prime example of key groups—that may not have the exact same interests—working collaboratively and taking a science-based approach” to the methane problem.
So the president of Shell doesn’t think that Shell’s sponsorship of the study is anything to worry about—that’s not a big surprise. But the guy from the Council on Foreign Relations didn’t see any “red flags”—that’s reassuring, right?
Michael Levi/CFR
That depends on how eager you are to be reassured. CFR, like most establishment think tanks, gets funding from the corporate sector. In the case of CFR, these funders are called “corporate members.” If you look at the roster, under the category of “Founders” (those who give “$100,000+”—per year, I assume, though that isn’t clear), you’ll find Exxon Mobil and Chevron (as well as Hess, another oil company). Included in the “President’s Circle” (donors of at least $60,000) is Shell (along with BP). A number of other oil companies are listed as “Affiliates.”
So to find out whether oil industry funding might have influenced a study, Wines went to someone who works for a think thank with numerous oil industry funders—including at least three of the companies who funded the study in question. And he didn’t see any “red flags.”
But perhaps Michael Levi isn’t aware of his institution’s petroleum backing? Perhaps CFR insulates its scholars from the influence of its funders (though in promoting “corporate membership,” CFR sure gives the impression that corporate donors get the run of the place).
David Rubenstein (cc photo: Monika Flueckiger/WEF)
Well, Levi’s full title is David M. Rubenstein Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment and Director of the Program on Energy Security and Climate Change. And who, you might ask, is David M. Rubenstein?
Aside from being a vice chair of CFR’s board of directors, he’s the co-founder and co-CEO of the Carlyle Group, one of the world’s largest private equity firm, noted for its ties to George W. Bush, James Baker and other high-level political figures. Energy is one of the investment fields Carlyle specializes in, and it recently escalated its energy holdings by buying a $424 million stake in NGP Energy Capital Management (for “Natural Gas Partnership”). Discussing the NGP purchase, Rubenstein (Bloomberg, 12/20/12) explained, “Energy, and particularly carbon-related energy, is the single most attractive global area in which to invest today.”
And his senior fellow for energy and the environment doesn’t think energy-industry backing is a problem for an environmental study. Not much of a surprise there, either.
What might Wines have learned if he had talked to—and quoted—an expert who didn’t have the same kind of energy industry ties that made the study at hand so problematic? Steve Horn of Desmog Blog (9/16/13) might have pointed out to him that “one of the report’s co-authors currently works as a consultant for the oil and gas industry, while another formerly worked as a petroleum engineer before entering academia”—something many people would consider a “red flag.”
Horn could also have pointed him to the critique of the study by Cornell University’s Robert Howarth, who noted that “this study is based only on evaluation of sites and times chosen by industry”:
Many other scientists have proven over the past two years that you can measure methane emissions from gas development without industry cooperation, for instance by using aircraft to fly over operations. Many studies have now been published, and many more presented at national scientific meetings, on methane emissions using techniques which capture the emissions at regional scales and do not require industry permission to sample… All of these studies are reporting upstream [well pad] emission estimates…10- to 20-fold higher than those reported in this new paper….
How can we explain this huge discrepancy?… [Industry does] it better when they know they are being carefully watched. When measurements are made at sites the industry chooses and at times the industry allows, emissions are lower than the norm.
So non-industry-funded studies have consistently found much higher rates of methane release, and there’s reason to believe that those results are more comprehensive. That’s kind of a red flag, wouldn’t you say? Or maybe you wouldn’t—if your salary depends in part on the generosity of Exxon Mobil, Chevron and Shell.
That’s kind of a red flag, wouldn’t you say? Or maybe you wouldn’t–if your salary depends in part on the generosity of Exxon Mobil, Chevron and Shell.
Hay they wouldn’t lie to us, they only have our best interest at heart. Don’t believe me? Just ask them! Well the moron Media Corpse trolls will be out in force tomorrow making the sheeple all bleat the right lines..
This seems an unusually well-written and crushing attack. Educational.
So who funded the “non-industry funded studies”? I want to know it all:-) I don’t trust anyone anymore…who doesn’t have an agenda (or a conveyor belt of ‘grants” lined up from the EPA who wants more power as well:-). Again…we are SO SCREWED since we have to rely on hand picked ‘experts’ across the board these days.
In the end, there will be bad consequences if we frack recklessly and some tin-pot politician decides they would love to have some ‘energy revenue’ to buy some votes (don’t think Obama is beyond that…and it’s pretty much a standard in every socialist/corporatist model to exploit natural resources) AND there will be bad consequences if we don’t because every one against fracking has no better economic idea of how do get out the debt they created to “provide” for everyone…lazy ass or not.
As the Alan Parson’s Project so aptly said:
Where do we go from here now that all other children are growin’ up
And how do we spend our lives if there’s noone to lend us a hand
I don’t wanna live here no more, I don’t wanna stay
Ain’t gonna spend the rest of my life, Quietly fading away
As a faculty member who teaches Medical Anthropology- I use the Shell Oil Company sponsored research on Cancer Alley Louisiana (published in a respected journal) in order to illustrate how scientific research has been manipulated to produce the Sponsor’s desired result. Bad science in the service of capitalism.
This study’s methane emissions results came in lower than previous estimates because it looked mostly at wellsites that are complying with new EPA regulations that require operators to capture those emissions. Previous studies did not. Effective federal regs now kicking in– not partial industry funding — explains the difference. UNiv of Texas and EDF cooperated with energy companies for this study because that is the how the scientists got access to the wells. Otherwise there could be no direct measurements. And folks should know that a broad array of scientists and other experts have been standing up for the integrity of this work. Ralph Cicero, President of National Academy of Sciences, was quoted by the AP calling the study team “some of the very best experts around the country. It doesn’t matter who is paying these people. They’re going to give you the straight scoop.” Others standing up for the work include Dr Bill Chameides, Dean of Duke’s Nicholas School; David Wogan of Scientific American; James Bradbury of the World Resources Institute; and scientists Colm Sweeney and Steve Brown of NOAA, just to name a few. All of the study data have been posted publicly. Other scientists will continue to evaluate the results, and they should. We need many more studies to get to the bottom of this issue, that is why Environmental Defense Fund is coordinating more than a dozen additional studies. Methane emissions from natural gas is a serious problem, and this is a serious contribution to the understanding of it. Bottom line — the EPA got it right. That doesn’t mean there’s no issue — those rules need to be extended, and we have lots to learn about leakage from the rest of the supply chain. Natural gas is not the destination — clean, renewable energy is — but we need to make sure whatever gas we do use does the minimum possible harm and provides maximum possible climate benefit. Measuring and reducing methane leakage is the key to that.
— Eric Pooley, EDF
I would have added something about the bin Laden’s relationship (former at this point I believe) to Carlyle. Maybe slight fear mongering but honest as long as you mention it is former (if it is).
Good article.
Two critiques of the study:
http://blog.shaleshockmedia.org/2013/09/16/environmental-defense-frauds-greenwash-methane/
http://www.slideshare.net/Revkin/howarth-press-release-on-allen-et-al-pnas-2
So you think these studies, and the studies by the EPA ,and the Pa studies are all bogus?Ok well that is an opinion
Big oil and big global banking today are the deciders. Actually going back to Standard Oil Trust and John D. Rockefeller tells you that and the advisors who instruct our politicians and every US “President” like the “Chairman of the American Establishment” John J. McCloy did, is our real history. Brent Scocroft, Kissinger, Z-Big and the Atlantic Council, and the younger people being groomed to take their places for the Rockefellers and friends run things. Fact is the USA is now the largest natural gas producer on earth and soon will be the largest oil producer. That’s good news for America as oil backs the US dollar and Japan will now be importing huge quantities of LNG etc. Better yet the Chinese are now the largest IMPORTERS of oil while we and our military have our thumbs on most of it. China while being a manufacturing powerhouse is holding reserves in US paper!(oil backed) We hold the trump card, they hold our paper and exporting LNG from the USA and refined products will enable the USA to possibly dominate the global economy for the next several decades. Going back to the end of World War 11 it could all have been settled if we let our Generals finish it up but the bankers had other ways. I don’t agree and firing MacArthur was sad., I suppose the glory days of real Generals and romantic battles is gone so we have to play the sick games with the media and other control mechanisms to finish it up. Got Chase?