SUNY Buffalo Shuts Down its Frack-Happy Shale Institute

Photo Illustration: <a href="http://adops.motherjones.com/authors/dave-gilson">Dave Gilson</a>; <a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&searchterm=college+campus+girls+bench&search_group=&orient=&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&commercial_ok=&color=&show_color_wheel=1#id=85571599&src=30d981fe624f7591fe605aaa7d20a25d-1-4">Tyler Olson</a>/Shutterstock.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Remember that questionable study put out by the State University at Buffalo earlier this year, the one that claimed Pennsylvania was doing a good job at regulating the fracking industry? This week SUNY Buffalo’s president announced his decision to shutter its publisher, the school’s own Shale Resources and Society Institute (SRSI).

University president Satish Tripathi did not mince words when it came to explaining why. “Conflicts—both actual and perceived—can arise between sources of research funding and expectations of independence when reporting research results,” he wrote in a public letter released to the university community on Monday. “This, in turn, impacted the appearance of independence and integrity of the institute’s research.”

In May, the study released by the university’s newly created institute claimed that the likelihood of natural gas industry violations in the Marcellus region had decreased between 2008 and 2011, a tribute to Pennsylvania’s regulating efforts. In fact, the rate of major environmental accidents increased by 36 percent, as later pointed out by corporate and government watchdog, the Public Accountability Initiative (PAI).

The PAI’s followup was also quick to highlight passages patently lifted from the authors’ previous reports, the study’s failure to disclose the authors’ relationships to the natural gas industry, a fudged peer-review process, and blatant “industry spin.” In the days following the PAI report, Timothy Considine, one of the study authors, told the Washington Times he stood by his interpretation of the numbers, while the university promised to “examine all relevant concerns.” After an investigation requested by the school’s Board of Trustees and a 10,000-plus signature petition led by faculty and students calling for the institute’s closure, it now appears that SUNY Buffalo has taken down the institute’s old online domain for good.

Tripathi’s decision to close the SRSI came in the midst of increased scrutiny over industry-funded academic reports. Last month, the industry-backed Marcellus Shale Coalition canceled its funding of a Penn State hydraulic fracturing study after faculty members declined to take part. The project’s earlier publications had been co-written by former Penn State professor Tim Considine, one of the co-authors of the SUNY report. The University of Texas at Austin has also launched a probe into its controversial research on groundwater contamination—though the chair of that investigation previously served almost two decades as a ConocoPhillips boardmember.

Is this a small victory for academic accountability? Sure, an “institute” did break under the weight of incisive coverage and public criticism. But maybe the SRSI’s brief lifespan had more to do with industry deadlines than anything else. The SRSI met its end a week-and-a-half shy of New York state’s due date for a decision about regulating hydraulic fracturing within its borders—and if the state fails to meet this deadline on November 29, it’ll have to draft a new set of regulations and usher in another round of public comments. Yesterday, Governor Cuomo announced that the deadline is likely to be extended (again), which could push the decision to end the state’s fracking moratorium back several months. That, as Bloomberg points out, could mean it’s already “too late” for New York to snag some of the Marcellus’ fading winnings. In the end, the Shale Institute just might not have been worth the effort. At least they gave it a college try.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate