UB CLEAR Press Conference Talk - June 28, 2012

David Kowalski

John P. Martin, Director of UB's new Shale Institute, is a co-author of their study released on May 15th. A major mistake in the study was the failure to disclose the authors' funding sources. Martin owns a consulting company that produces public relations reports for oil and gas interests, and his co-authors have received past support from gas industry groups. Their industry ties raise obvious concern about conflicts of interest. The absence of transparency on funding sources is intolerable in an academic setting. Earlier, Martin said of the new Institute: "W e're really trying to provide fact-based, objective information. W e're guided by science." However, his Institute's study failed on all three counts: facts, objectivity and science. The authors' claimed incorrectly that the study was "peer reviewed", giving it an aura of scientific authenticity that it certainly did not deserve. That claim in the UB press release helped attract media attention to the study's conclusions, which were flawed, resulting in misleading newspaper headlines. The "peer reviewed" claim was later retracted by the university, but the damage in the press had already been done. Objectivity of the study was severely compromised in favor of the gas drilling industry. In fact, the authors' conclusion that environmental violations were declining in Pennsylvania was not drawn from their data. Based on their data, and contrary to the reports claims, the rate of major environmental violations actually increased during the period studied. This and the fact that the study made no attempt to demonstrate a cause and effect relationship between state regulations and environmental violations, invalidates the conclusion in the press release which read: "This study presents a compelling case that state oversight of oil and gas regulation has been effective." In contrast to the Institute's conclusion, an independent study of environmental violations in Pennsylvania concluded that gas drilling companies are "either unable or unwilling to comply with basic environmental laws." The authors responsible for the Institute's study are certainly not representative of UB's excellent research faculty. The university should protect its reputation and re-evaluate its sponsorship of the Shale Institute.