iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Wenonah Hauter

GET UPDATES FROM Wenonah Hauter

MIT's Fracking Report Backs Its Donors: Gas Companies

Posted: 06/21/11 07:34 PM ET

I almost gagged on my coffee when I finally got around to reading the corporate sponsored pro-fracking propaganda by MIT on natural gas, entitled, "The Future of Natural Gas." Isn't this academic institution embarrassed to sell its reputation to corporations?

I guess not, because right on its website, MIT advertises its enormous corporate funding for research and its proud affiliation with the oil and gas industry. Read its philosophy for yourself:

Since its founding, MIT has actively sought industry partnerships and brought its students into real-world projects with corporations. In FY 2010, MIT's industry-sponsored research totaled $111 million. More than 800 firms now work with MIT, both in Institute-wide programs such as the Industrial Liaison Program and the MIT Energy Initiative and in smaller collaborations... More than 180 companies partner with the program to improve their access to MIT and advance their research agendas. Launched in 2006 to pursue innovative technologies for sustainable energy, the MIT Energy Initiative fosters collaboration between industry and MIT researchers from across the campus. More than 50 corporate members support multidisciplinary research programs, contribute seed money, and provide support and research opportunities for MIT students.

Now really, do you trust the objectivity on natural gas of the "founding members" of MIT's Energy Initiative: BP, Shell and ENI (the Italian energy giant)? All three multinational corporations have an economic interest in expanding the use of fracking to extract hard to reach deposits of natural gas across the country. Here in the United States, BP -- not known for their corporate responsibility -- is the 4th largest natural gas producer. Shell is the 9th largest U.S. Producer, and activists in South Africa are fighting Shell's attempt to frack in one of the driest places on earth. ENI is attempting to frack 760 square miles of Poland.

Most of the "sustaining members" of the MIT energy initiative have an economic interest in drilling for natural gas too. ABB is a leader in supplying electrical system solutions for drilling rigs, drilling ships, jack-ups and semi-submersible drilling rigs. A division of Bosch provides equipment for oil and gas fields. Siemens provides systems to treat fracking wastewater. We could go on and on.

"The Future of Natural Gas" proudly acknowledged that the American Clean Skies Foundation was a funder, along with other fossil fuel oriented companies (Hess Corporation, Gas Technology Institute, and Exelon). This foundation was formed by Aubrey McClendon, the billionaire CEO of Chesapeake Energy Corporation, the second largest producer of natural gas in the United States in 2010. He has been a slick promoter of fracked gas, using a combination of tried and true influence pedaling tactics -- from campaign contributions to truth-challenged PR campaigns.

Anthony Meggs, one of three co-chairs of the study, was formerly the Head of Technology for BP. While there, he worked to rebuild the technical capacity of the company by creating a Technology Advisory Council that included Ernest Moniz, a second co-chair of MIT's study. It would take pages to disclose the study participant's ties to the oil and gas industry.

Needless to say, the recommendations of this report appear to bolster the interests of the multinational energy companies who stand to benefit from natural gas drilling over the well being of public health, air and water quality and the future of the planet. It's time to challenge industry sponsored reports like this and not let them get away with manipulating the truth or pedaling industry PR as sound science.

 
 
 

Follow Wenonah Hauter on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@foodandwater

I almost gagged on my coffee when I finally got around to reading the corporate sponsored pro-fracking propaganda by MIT on natural gas, entitled, "The Future of Natural Gas." Isn't this academic inst...
I almost gagged on my coffee when I finally got around to reading the corporate sponsored pro-fracking propaganda by MIT on natural gas, entitled, "The Future of Natural Gas." Isn't this academic inst...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 222
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
deridaa
08:15 AM on 06/29/2011
Thank you for your position on MIT and energy. The writer is an anthropology major from Univ of Maryland and she is a lobbyist. Interesting piece speaking of dollars I wonder how much she made on this thoughtful piece direct from the think tanks of Univ of Maryland? Speaking of money and lobbying btw...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PAGasDriller
08:37 PM on 06/24/2011
What an obnoxious piece. Like MIT is hard up for money and is whoring themselves out to the gas industry by performing false studies. MIT is one of the most respected institutes in the country, if not the world. The author should be ashamed, and HuffPo should be ashamed for publishing it.
06:53 PM on 06/24/2011
This is no surprise. Most "experts" will produce any result for the right price. The Chicago School of economics was bought and paid for by industries and plutocrats who would benefit from the policies called for by the so-called "independent" economists. Most "scientists" who dispute anthropogenic climate change are in the pay of the petrochemical and coal industries. Both the asbestos and tobacco industries created "research centers" to hide the hazards caused by their products. MIT, like most large universities, has been in bed with large corporations for years.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PAGasDriller
08:38 PM on 06/24/2011
Do you have any proof to back up your statement?
10:30 PM on 07/03/2011
Besides common sense and a belief that corporate interests are not in the best interest?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Moose Luck 99
GEOENGINEERINGWATCH DOT ORG
06:09 PM on 06/24/2011
http://www.drillingahead.com/profiles/blogs/fracing-with-propane-anyone

Obvious benefits of LP fracs from the investor presentation include:

LPG fracturing is a sustainable process for oil & gas operators by using products they produce to produce more hydrocarbons

LPG fracturing eliminates the use of millions of gallons of potable water per well.

LPG reduces the need to flare production to clean up the traditional fracturing fluids,eliminating thousands of tons of C02 emissions generating carbon credits that have a substantial dollar value

Eliminates the disposal of millions of gallons of non potable frac water

Eliminates the need for biocide chemicals that are required in fracturing

The list of possible benefits goes on-but I am wondering what the downside to fracing well with LPG might be. Depending on EPA rulings, this could turn into big business overnight.

I look forward to comments on this discussion
D-Driller
my micro-bio is empty
08:40 PM on 07/04/2011
I agree. There are so many different types of stim jobs that could possibly take up the slack. maybe that is the answer?
11:48 AM on 06/24/2011
Can you point to any parts of the report that are inaccurate.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Brooke123456
God is ....(fill in the blank how you like)
10:44 AM on 06/24/2011
I have not seen ANY proposal for fracking that has no environmental dangers that really don't outweigh the benefits. Natural gas is not a clean energy solution, it may burn cleaner, but the damage to get at it just doesn't not seem worth it in the long run. Better to go with solar or nuclear (using NEW nuclear plant designs like the Trans Wave Reactors) Bill Gates is backing TWRs, and they at least seem like something we should investigate.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PAGasDriller
08:45 PM on 06/24/2011
There are thousands and thousands of wells completed without any environmental damage whatsoever. Cases of damage are extremely rare, rather innocuous and easily remediated. You say it may burn cleaner. That is an understatement. Here's a quote from a blog published today by democrat environmentalist former PA DEP secretary John Hanger, who last year cracked down on the natural gas industry harder than any regulator since regulations were first adopted:

"Natural gas power plants emit no toxic air pollution and owners of old coal plants are refueling with gas or building new gas plants to replace 40 plus year old coal plants. 90% of toxic air pollutants (mercury, lead, arsenic) comes from especially old, coal burning power plants. "

Natural gas is going to be one of the biggest environmental positives the earth has ever seen. As one who lives in Western PA, where the air quality is terrible, it will literally save thousands of lives. The EPA says that the emissions from the aforementioned old coal plants kill between 17,000 and 50,000 people per year. That's a hockey arena worth of people ON THE LOW ESTIMATE.
09:50 PM on 06/23/2011
Well, so much for time honored academic freedom that is so cherished by scholars and used to justify their right to tenure. Clearly, all corporate funding should be pooled in blind trusts that support research without implicit or explicit obligations to the companies. Reasonable people have a difficult time believing that under current arrangements and partnerships that research is independent and objective, even if true.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PAGasDriller
08:48 PM on 06/24/2011
So, if you're the natural gas industry, how do you suppose you can set out to prove your practices and the fuel you harvest is clean and safe? If you do it in house, it will of course be immediately dismissed.
photo
Coffee4Me
To those who waited 6 hrs to vote, THANK YOU!
05:45 AM on 06/23/2011
Here in Fracklyvania, Our public water is awful from the brine. Unfortunately, I don't feel that any of these reports can be trusted, due to the heavy influence the industry has been allowed. In my house we don't use reports, we know that when the rashes come back, it is time to change the water filter on the showerhead. And when the landman calls, don't answer.
05:39 AM on 06/23/2011
Sad. I expected more from MIT.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
spriddler
10:05 AM on 06/24/2011
So all industry paid research is apriori inaccurate? The author gave us absolutely no reason to doubt the researchers findings. Who would you like to have pay for this research?
10:30 AM on 06/24/2011
I'm not saying all industry-paid research is inaccurate....but extremely suspect. It's called "conflict of interest". Oh, and as far as paying for research - I don't know....maybe MIT could use some of that billion dollar bank account they have from all that expensive tuition?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
olitenup
07:46 PM on 06/22/2011
Just in case we thought universities are not in bed when the profiteers.
photo
Liberals Are Intolerant
fiscal conservative, social libertarian
04:22 PM on 06/22/2011
My alma mater, Penn State, got caught changing numbers to inflate climate change data. So nothing really surprises me.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:49 PM on 06/22/2011
No it didn't. Give us a link to prove otherwise.
photo
Liberals Are Intolerant
fiscal conservative, social libertarian
11:18 PM on 06/22/2011
http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/08/penn-state-whitewashed-climategate/

They refused to conduct a credible investigation.
03:26 PM on 06/22/2011
Ms. Hauter,
The green community is losing the fight over fracking because it refuses to consider an alternative to hydrofracking that is more environmentally friendly. LPG fracking removes most of the environmental pitfalls of hydrofracking because it uses no water and recovers all fracking fluids as well as limiting greenhouse gas emissions .This proprietary precess is used by only one company Gasfrac Energy Services Inc. Look at it! If nothing else ,[ if required by law in New York state ] it could slow the development of gas drilling because the drilling companies have booked up all the company's fracking rigs in canada and Texas for the next year. It is the method you do not hear drillers talking because they want to continue using hydrofracking. Jack Otto
photo
Troutguy
A bad day fishing is better than a good day workin
08:57 PM on 06/22/2011
I've read a little about it, and it sounds intriguing. Living here in Colorado, where "whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting over, normal fracking methods just won't fly. Gas companies are already buying up water rights at an alarming rate. Maybe this LPG method could be a good middle ground between the environmentalists and the drill baby drill contingent. And not at the expense of our rivers.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PAGasDriller
08:52 PM on 06/24/2011
There are also nitrogen based "foam fracs" that use about 80% less water than standard hydraulic fracturing. It's more expensive, but the technology seems to have worked out nicely on quite a few vertical Marcellus shale wells we have drilled.
01:50 PM on 06/22/2011
The autor probably has no background in science. If the report uses sound science and analysis, it is valid regardless of who sponsors it. But you see, the author does not challenge the report on substance just general innuendos. That is the problem these days. Too many liberal arts majors trying to save the world. Following her logic all reports are invalid because all of them have a sponsor. If govt. has a sponsor you can argue that the report automatically contains the biases of that govt department. You would be wrong. Peer review by other scientists is the only way to decide on the validity of studies.
10:36 PM on 07/03/2011
And peer reviewed work can be just as wrong as slogged propaganda. The easiest form of disinformation is to pay "peers" to review project analysis. Voila! Instant validity. Happens all the time in academia...ask any decent grad student who's worked in a pharma lab.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:48 PM on 06/22/2011
How about universities and organizations that profit from the Global Warming hoax? Even NASA officials got in on this payoff to the tune of $1.2 million. Where is that story?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/22/nasa-scientist-accused-using-celeb-status-among-environmental-groups-to-enrich/
02:00 PM on 06/22/2011
The consensus is in. There is no hoax.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:37 PM on 06/22/2011
Looks like that consensus is changing and quickly.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/126560/americans-global-warming-concerns-continue-drop.aspx
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dkrypt
Unencumbered by political correctness
08:04 PM on 06/22/2011
There is no "consensus" in science.
photo
wwilcox
Laws are made by people, not gods.
04:43 PM on 06/22/2011
It's on Faux News. Even if it were true, it can't be believed because of Faux's rep. Better they stick to lies.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:07 PM on 06/22/2011
Do you honestly think a left leaning media source will bring it to the public? It won't because it hurts their agenda. How about this one: Due to the moratorium on Gulf drilling, they are removing the platform destroying the ecosystem under it. I know it is from a right wing site but will the left bring it to light? no

http://townhall.com/columnists/humbertofontova/2011/06/20/obama%e2%80%99s_environmentalists_destroy_marine_environment
photo
Fez
Ignorance is no excuse for the law.
12:44 PM on 06/22/2011
Folks, you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows, or to know that drilling into hard shale, fracturing it with explosives, and injecting billions of gallons of solvents, surfactants, polymers, acids and other chemicals over tens of thousands of square miles will cause serious environmental problems. Just as conventional science was wrong about the safety of nuclear power and uranium mining, conventional science that tries to defend fracking is dangerously wrong. So light up your tap water and don your oxygen mask to deal with the ozone levels because here comes hydro-fracking, shoved down your throats for your own good.