ICYMI: World-leading firm, government investors could lose big on Utah oil shale venture

Some oil shale advocates like to point at the nation of Estonia as proof that oil shale can be a viable energy source. Unfortunately, Estonia isn’t saying the same thing about U.S. oil shale.

According to Estonian media reports, opposition members of parliament are challenging the competence of Economic Affairs Minister Juhan Parts in light of a recent report that the Eesti Energia’s Utah venture, known as Enefit American Oil, could lose millions. – Utah oil shale becomes political punching bag in Estonia, Salt Lake Tribune, January 25, 2013

The Director of the Department of Mining at the Tallinn University of Technology (in Estonia) said that he “believes oil production from Utah shale is not a matter of five to six years, as Enefit predicts, but more a question of decades.” – Utah oil shale becomes political punching bag in Estonia, Salt Lake Tribune, January 25, 2013

For several decades Eesti Energia, an Estonian government owned corporation has been extracting oil shale and primarily using it to power their electricity needs. Eesti Energia, known as Enefit in the U.S., is Estonia’s largest employer and considered a world leader in processing oil shale using a proprietary retorting technology. In 2011, Enefit bought the largest privately held oil shale reserve in Utah and has since been working to extract and process oil shale from this reserve.

Recently, Estonian politicians have expressed serious concerns at the prospect of losing $100 million from their government’s heavy investment in Enefit’s Utah project.

“There has been criticism of [Eesti Energia] CEO Sandor Liive’s too-close relationship to Economic Affairs Minister Juhan Parts,” said Steve Roman, Estonian National Public Radio. “Especially in recent months… there has been a lot of questioning of the government’s moves vis-a-vis investments in state-owned companies.” – Estonian press reports Enefit Oil American faces setback developing mine, Vernal Express, January 28, 2013

According to the Vernal Express, an Estonian newspaper has reported that:

Enefit’s Utah project has proven to be “unexpectedly difficult to do,” and that tests indicate that Utah oil shale requires more energy to break down than expected, resulting in higher carbon dioxide emissions.

Unlike oil shale reserves in Estonia, Utah’s reserves are harder and drier and aren’t releasing as much petroleum.

Richard Fink: The Koch Brothers’ Big Tobacco Man Behind the Kochtopus Curtain

 

Richard Fink has long been one of the Koch Brothers’ inner circle, playing the role of both political strategist and close confidante.

Some say the Koch Empire wouldn’t have been nearly as successful without Fink. Without him and his ideas, what is now pejoratively known as the “Kochtopus” probably would not have branched so far into research or political advocacy.  

But relatively few people have heard of Richard Fink. And even fewer know of his connections to Big Tobacco – connections which may have influenced the creation and actions of Koch-funded front groups for decades to come. 

With the Kochs’ support, Fink established the Mercatus Center in 1980, and then co-founded Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE) in 1984, where he served as President and CEO. Later, Fink helped found Americans for Prosperity to succeed CSE in 2004.

Fink sits on the board of the Institute for Humane Studies and is the former President of two Koch Family Foundations. Further, he has served as the Executive Vice-President of Koch Industries since 1989.

The Koch Brothers are best known as a key funder behind the climate denial machine and for their political attacks on President Barack Obama, as Jane Mayer exposed in her must-read New Yorker article.

The Kochs have donated over $25 million to front groups that attack climate science, create doubt and confusion among the public, and otherwise delay accountability for polluters.

Americans for Prosperity has campaigned against efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and amplified the “Climategate” attack on scientists, calling global warming the “biggest hoax the world has ever seen.”

But the Koch front groups’ involvement in the tobacco industry has gone largely unreported.

In 1999, the major tobacco companies were accused of a mass conspiracy to deceive the public about the dangers of smoking. The United States Department of Justice filed a racketeering lawsuit against major cigarette manufacturers, and sought $280 billion in penalties.

To combat this, Big Tobacco called on its allies for support – including the Mercatus Center and Citizens for a Sound Economy – both created by Richard Fink.

THE MOBILIZATION UNIVERSE

In a document called “Mobilization Universe,” as seen on the Tobacco Archives, Philip Morris laid out a plan to call on its allies. The goal: avert White House filing of the federal suit.

Its plan was to leverage third-party relationships to “oppose DOJ appropriations request for federal suit task force, oppose federal legislation enabling cause of action against the industry, and persuade the Administration and Senate and House Democrats of the political liability in a federal suit.”

Philip Morris laid out its key targets and key message points, examples of which include “Assumption of risk,” “Money grab,” and “Bad for Gore and Senate and House Democrats in 2000.” The document calls for third-party surrogates to write op-eds, LTEs and editorials, give speeches or testimonies, create policy reports, join coalitions, and provide access to policymakers, to name several. 

CSE and the Mercatus Center were documented as allies several years before that, as well. In 1991, both CSE and Mercatus were part of a portfolio of organizations Philip Morris had cultivated to support its interests during a federal suit. Many other Koch-funded organizations were also included in this list, including the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation.

A HISTORY OF ALLIANCE

For several years, Fink acted on behalf of Big Tobacco using tactics laid out in their mobilization strategy – dating back from 1985, when he wrote federal representatives urging them to eliminate the US Tobacco Program. In a hand-signed letter, he wrote:

“Dear Representative: On behalf of the 220,000 members of Citizens for a Sound Economy, I urge you to consider the heavy costs of the U.S. tobacco program, and the enormous benefits to consumers and taxpayers which would result from the elimination of that program.”

The elimination of the tobacco tax bill would have lined the pockets of Big Tobacco CEOs, with less taxes and easier access for farmers to grow tobacco. Fink aligned not only himself but the entire membership of CSE with the interests of Big Tobacco.

In 1988, Fink wrote to the Surgeon General to express concern about the Interagency Committee on Smoking and Health’s inquiries into the subject of tobacco and U.S. trade policy. He warned that it would be unwise to suggest any foreign trade barriers, ending, “we hope that you will keep these thoughts in mind as your department discusses U.S. trade policy toward tobacco.” This letter was tracked down by the Checks & Balances Project in the Tobacco Archives, with an addendum from Samuel Chilcote – President of The Tobacco Institute – urging others to follow Fink’s lead and support.

For Fink’s efforts, Chilcote thanked Fink in a hand-signed letter on behalf of the tobacco industry, writing, “When an advisory body such as the Interagency Committee on Smoking and Health ventures into the field of U.S. trade policy, it is vitally important that the public record be balanced by the sound economic views and sensible business judgments that you provided.”

A LEGACY OF LOBBYING

In 1988, Fink testified on behalf of CSE to the National Economic Commission, urging them to avoid tax increases – increases that would have negatively impacted Big Tobacco’s profits.  

Under Fink’s guidance, CSE participated in coalitions and partnered with other tobacco front groups, honing the dirty public relations tactics employed today by the Kochtopus Empire to delay action on combatting climate change.

CSE joined the “Coalition for Fiscal Restraint” (COFIRE) in 1988, along with Koch Industries and Philip Morris. This is the only coalition in which Koch Industries represented itself as a corporation, rather than through its myriad front groups.

CSE also took part in “Get Government Off Our Back,” the front group created in 1994 by RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company to fight federal regulation of the tobacco industry. Its involvement in this group was kept in strict confidence until eventually made public via the Tobacco Archives. During this time, CSE was funded to the tune of at least $400,000 by the tobacco industry for its efforts to limit government regulation.

In 1998, CSE lobbied against California’s Proposition 10, an amendment to raise tobacco taxes in the Sunshine State. Members of CSE wrote letters to legislators and put forth a pledge to vote no. Ultimately, the effort “went up in smoke” and Prop 10 passed. 

In 2004, Citizens for a Sound Economy split into two groups, Americans for Prosperity (AFP) and Freedomworks.

Richard Fink continued to lead Americans for Prosperity as President, and the tobacco lobbying efforts continue under the smoke of a new banner.

The most recent AFP pro-tobacco effort occurred this past summer, when it campaigned to oppose CA’s Proposition 29. If Prop 29 had passed, it would have increased tobacco taxes and directed the money raised from taxes towards cancer research – insidious given the Koch Brothers’ support for cancer research at places like MIT.

AFP, along with the tobacco industry, spent around $40 millionto defeat Prop 29, mostly on anti-Prop 29 television ads.  During that campaign, AFP was also part of a broader coalition of tobacco and anti-tax groups. According to maplight.com, Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds bankrolled almost the entire campaign.  

The arguments made against Prop 29 were very similar to those made by Citizens for a Sound Economy in 1998 when it unsuccessfully campaigned against CA Prop 10. 

This was not AFP’s first attempt to shill for Big Tobacco. 

In 2006 AFP campaigned to oppose tobacco tax increases in several different states – South Dakota, Texas, Kansas, and Indiana. For their work in South Dakota, AFP received money from US Smokeless Tobacco, Retail Tobacco Dealers of America, and Tobacco Warehouse of Rapid City. It also opposed taxes in Texas, Kansas, and Indiana. The following year, in 2007, AFP campaigned to oppose Texas’ smoking ban in indoor workplaces.

Finally, in 2009, AFP and Philip Morris were both asked to react to Virginia’s smoking ban, in an email from Karen Corriere of Altria Group, Inc. (the parent company of Philip Morris). Unsurprisingly, both voiced their opposition quickly. Americans for Prosperity reacted in full, hiring a company to make tens of thousands of calls to the offices of Virginia legislators, pressuring them to vote against the ban.

FISCAL TIES TO BIG TOBACCO

Throughout the years, the alliances were tied together in one of the most politically influential ways – money. The following is just a sample Big Tobacco’s money trail: 

• In 1987, Roger Ream – Vice President of CSE – wrote to the Tobacco Institute asking for funding. Given their alliance, it is likely they achieved their goal.

• For its participation in the “Get Government Off Our Backs” (GGOOB) campaign, CSE received $400,000 in 1994 from RJ Reynolds and other tobacco corporations.  

• In 1995, $250,000 was shelled out to CSE by Philip Morris.

• In 1996, CSE requested a funding increase of $500,000 from Philip Morris. Due to the handwritten “OK $500,000” at the top of the letter, this was almost definitely approved.

• In 1999, Beth Stevens of CSE wrote to Kirk Blalock of Philip Morris requesting $100,000 in funds to support their efforts “to fight increased government spending, taxes, and regulation.”

• In the late 90’s and early 2000’s, the Mercatus Center received public policy grants from Phillip Morris: $10,000 in 1999, and $20,000 in 2000. CSE received a total of $520,000 in 1999.

• In 2000, in a memo to Philip Morris, CSE requested two million dollars to lead the opposition against tax increases and a Medicare suit to fund “big government” initiatives. The plan: “CSE will develop and run print, radio, and television advertising inside the Beltway and in targeted states. They will generate letters and phone calls to Congress from constituents. CSE will also educate Members of Congress and their staffs by preparing and distributing policy papers, conducting congressional education events, and meeting directly with offices.”

HOW DOES FINK TIE INTO ALL THIS?

Richard Fink first formed his alliance with Big Tobacco in 1985 when he urged legislators to eliminate the Tobacco program. But his value to the tobacco industry only increased with time, much like Dick Armey’s did at Freedomworks.

As Fink gained more influence and power, his relationship with the tobacco industry tightened. When asking the Tobacco Institute for funding, Roger Ream of CSE wrote: “Recently, our president, Richard H. Fink, was appointed to the Consumer Advisory Council of the Federal Reserve and to the Department of Transportation’s Amtrak Privatization Commission. This further enhances CSE’s credibility and effectiveness on these issues.”

From the beginning, Fink’s position in the government was used as a selling point to earn funding support from Big Tobacco, exemplifying CSE’s ability to reduce taxes and fight government regulation.

Richard Fink came to the Koch brothers in 1977 to urge them to turn their libertarian ideals and love of “free markets” into political advocacy. In 2009, he advised them to do everything in their power to change the course of the 2012 election.

The Koch Brothers and their allies have funded attacks on climate science, attacked clean energy and stifled the green debate via an army of front groups. Lo and behold, they also worked with Big Tobacco to stop common-sense regulations and public health measures on smoking. In fact, fighting the tobacco file helped them to hone the playbook they would continue to use to fight against accountability for polluting the atmosphere, harming their workers and fenceline communities, and subverting participatory democracy.

Just as the severe health risks of tobacco are no longer up for debate, neither should be the reality of climate change, though the “Merchants of Doubt” shilling for a killing have – in a self-serving manner – maintained a façade of “controversy” over the issue for decades.

ALEC Attacks Clean Energy Standards: Ohio & Virginia

Over the past couple weeks, fossil fuel interests and their allies have ramped up attacks on clean energy on the state level. As the Washington Post reported in November, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a fossil fuel-funded advocacy group, has made it a priority to eliminate clean energy standards across the country.

From the East Coast to the Southwest, ALEC members, alumni and operatives are moving full steam ahead to eliminate clean energy projects and the policies that support them.  However, not all of these attacks are coming from ALEC members sitting in state legislatures.  In Ohio and Virginia, former ALEC legislators, now in other positions, are driving anti-clean energy attacks. Below is part one of our series on former ALEC legislators spearheading fossil fuel-funded attacks on the clean energy industry.

 VIRGINIA

Two weeks ago, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, a former ALEC legislator, struck an agreement with Dominion, one of the largest electric utilities in the U.S., to support legislation effectively eliminating the state’s voluntary clean energy standard. According to the Associated Press, under the agreement, the power companies would no longer have the same financial incentives for using sources of renewable energy in Virginia. Without a legally-binding clean energy standard, killing the financial incentives of the law would stop big utilities from investing in new sources of energy, especially when they can keep profiting off of old coal-fired power plants.

So why is the Attorney General Cuccinelli working to stop clean energy in Virginia? There’s one thing that might show his hand. Attorney General Cuccinelli is running for Governor of Virginia in the 2013 election, and has received over $100,000 from fossil fuel energy interests for his campaign (and over $400,000 from dirty energy interests since 2001) including:

• $50,000 from David H. Koch, co-owner of Koch Industries, a major fossil fuel conglomerate.
• $25,000 from Consol Energy, a coal and natural gas producer.
• $10,000 from Alpha Natural Resources, a coal mining and processing company.
• $10,000 from Appalachian Power, a subsidiary of American Electric Power, one of the largest electric utility companies.
• $10,000 from Dominion, one of the largest electric utility companies.
• $10,000 from Koch Industries, a major fossil fuel conglomerate.

The Attorney General’s office claims that he sought to eliminate the standard because it allowed utilities to buy renewable energy certificates from existing facilities rather than build new clean energy in the state of Virginia. Dominion charged ratepayers $77 million as part of the clean energy law, without building a single clean energy project in the state.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli at an event sponsored by the Koch Brothers’ Americans for Prosperity.

But, Mike Tidwell, of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN), which has worked with lawmakers to propose several bills to improve the incentive program, said that, “The standard is flawed; but there’s a clear way to fix that.” CCAN is working with Delegate Alfonso Lopez to propose a solution that would require Dominion to invest in wind and solar projects in Virginia in order to qualify for financial incentives.

But instead of trying to fix the renewable energy standard, Mr. Cuccinelli is advocating for the elimination of clean energy incentives while also raking in over $100,000 dollars from fossil fuel interests for his gubernatorial campaign. This clear conflict of interest is compounded by the fact that Mr. Cuccinelli was a member of ALEC, which has publicly stated eliminating clean energy laws as one of its goals for 2013. And, it is Mr. Cuccinelli’s fossil fuel donors, most of which are corporate members of ALEC, that stand to profit from killing clean energy laws and slowing the growth of the clean energy economy.

Instead of fighting for Virginia families and small businesses, it appears that Mr. Cuccinnelli is more concerned with the interests of his big, fossil fuel donors. It’s probably a good indication of how he’ll run the state from the governor’s mansion.

OHIO

In Ohio, no legislation has been proposed to rollback the state’s “Alternative Energy Resource Standard,” yet. But three weeks ago, former ALEC legislator Todd Snitchler, now Chairman of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO), and two other commissioners, decided to squash a solar power plant proposed by American Electric Power (AEP) – a move that seems to correlate with ALEC’s agenda to stop the growth of the clean energy market.

AEP planned to build the Turning Point solar power plant, a 50 MW solar power plant comprised of panels from a factory in Ohio. The company planned this project to comply with the requirements of the renewable energy standard according to the PUCO opinion and order. Ohio’s clean energy law calls for 12.5% of the state’s electricity to come from renewable energy resources by 2025.

Todd Snitchler, Chairman of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, with Governor John Kasich. Both politicians are ALEC alumni.

One of the primary opponents arguing against the solar plant in front of the PUCO was FirstEnergy Solutions, an electric utility (that generates 72% of its electricity from fossil fuels) and a major donor to Governor John Kasich, another ALEC alumnus.  Gov. Kasich received over $600,000 from oil, gas and mining interests for his 2010 election campaign and in early 2011, Gov. Kasich appointed Mr. Snitchler to chair the PUCO.

Mr. Snitchler and the two other Republican commissioners voting to stop the Turning Point solar plant disregarded Public Utilities Commission of Ohio staff experts who stated that the project was necessary to comply with the state’s renewable energy standard.

Mr. Snitchler’s Twitter traffic affirms his ideological disdain for clean energy. He consistently attacked clean energy technology and the legitimacy of climate science (ignoring the Pope, United States Military, and every national academy of science in the world) according to a Columbus Dispatch analysis of his twitter traffic over the past year.

With anti-clean energy ALEC alumni in powerful positions in Ohio, pro-clean energy advocates must work to stop attempted rollbacks of the state’s clean energy standard in the state legislature or face a grim future in the Buckeye state.

Op-ed: Former Dinosaur Natl. Monument superintendent calls on BLM to take balanced approach to oil & gas leasing

Today’s Denver Post features an op-ed by former Dinosaur National Monument Superintendent Denny Huffman. Huffman calls on Colorado BLM Director Helen Hankins’ to withdraw oil and gas drilling leases next to Dinosaur and Mesa Verde National Park.

Huffman also ask Hankins to follow the balanced energy development approach outlined in the Administration’s 2010 leasing reforms, and adopted by other state BLMs. He  notes that several of the proposed lease sales are being offered without proper input from agencies, like the National Park Service, that should consult on which lands are best-suited to drilling.

Dinosaur National Park’s current superintendent, Mary Risser, has said that the parks concerns about the lease offerings are the “cumulative impacts on air quality, on groundwater quantity and quality, night skies, soundscapes, migration routes of animals … and potential impacts on the endangered fish species in the rivers.”

Industry-funded oil shale expert conceded higher water use estimates for commercial oil shale production are credible

Over the past year, Dr. Jeremy Boak, Director of the industry-funded Center for Oil Shale Technology and Research at the Colorado School of Mines, has stated that commercial oil shale extraction would use one to three barrels of water per barrel of oil shale produced.

In situ extraction. Source: California Department of Transportation.

However, the independent, non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimated that commercial oil shale production could take five barrels of water per barrel of oil shale produced – especially for in situ technologies being tested in Colorado which melt the rock thousands of feet below ground requiring lots of energy and water for extraction. In more illustrative terms, GAO projected that large-scale oil shale development could require as much as 123 billion gallons of water, or 140 percent the amount that Denver Water provides annually.

Boak has been a vocal critic of the five barrel estimate, but at a Denver City Council committee meeting last month, he conceded that estimates of oil shale requiring as much as five barrels of water for each barrel of oil shale produced are credible. In the meeting, Boak said:

“…There is no credible analysis out there that actually says anything greater than, than, than three actually, five [barrels] at the outside.” [Emphasis added]

So while he dismissed concerns over western water supplies, at the same he actually affirmed these same concerns.

This isn’t the first time that Dr. Boak, who at heart appears to be an academic, has slipped-up and conceded flaws in the rhetoric of oil shale boosters. In 2011, when asked about Rep. Lamborn’s oil shale boondoggle bill (H.R. 3408), Dr. Boak said (subscription):

“It isn’t obvious to me yet that we need to be putting a bunch of commercial leases out there because no one has a commercial process yet. And [industry] admits that. I don’t see anybody eager to go out and lease land now when they’re still running experiments.”

Let us be clear, even if we accept Dr. Boak’s assertion that oil shale development would require a 3-to-1 ratio of water to barrel of oil produced, that too would have considerable impacts to western water supplies requiring 69 billion gallons of water, or 48 percent the amount that Denver Water provides annually.

Colorado and the West are grappling with drought, historic wildfires and growing water demand. In fact, the Bureau of Reclamation proposed meeting water demand by piping water from the Missouri River across Kansas to Denver.

Water providers, local governments, ranchers, sportsmen, and residents have all voiced concerns over how much water large-scale oil shale production would require. While no one is sure of just how much water commercial oil shale would require, many experts believe that it would be a lot.

Given that water is a critical, if not the most critical, resource in the West, we can’t afford to gamble it away on oil shale speculation.

FACT CHECK: Colorado BLM makes misleading statements about impacts of withdrawing North Fork Valley oil and gas leases, data behind environmental assessment

CO BLM says that coal leasing will be impacted if oil and gas leases are withdrawn

“What many people don’t realize is that if the federal government were to cut the parcels to zero, it would also affect all minerals (rights) in the North Fork Valley,” said Shannon Borders, public affairs specialist for the BLM’s Uncompahgre Field Office.

This includes coal development, which has existed in the area since the early 1900s and is a major economic driver for the Western Slope. – Montrose Daily Press, 1/24/13

• The implication here is that if oil and gas parcels in the North Fork Valley are withdrawn, that somehow coal leasing will also be affected. But that’s not true. According to BLM’s own website, coal leasing is managed through a process entirely separate from oil and gas leasing.

CO BLM Director Hankins points to ‘recently completed’ environmental analysis

In reference to the parcels that North Fork Valley residents have requested be withdrawn from the February 2013 oil and gas lease sale, because BLM based its decision on an outdated resource management plan from the 1980s, [Director] Hankins responded that her office ‘recently completed’ an environmental assessment.

• What Hankins didn’t say about their new analysis is that it is based on data from the outdated plan. BLM’s final environmental assessment for the February 2013 oil and gas lease sale in the Uncompahgre Field Office explicitly states that it is based on data from the 1989 resource management plan (see page 19).

Report: 14 Places Poised for Protection

A new report from the Center for Western Priorities highlights 14 Western sites where Congress and the Administration should act to protect public land. The report is based upon more than 50 proposals introduced by Republicans and Democrats. It comes on the heels of the 112^th Congress adjournment without having protected one new acre of public land. They were the first Congress to do so in more than fifty years.

Lamborn staffer joins oil and gas industry lobby group, ties to Big Oil and Gas grow stronger

Just a few weeks after news of a former staffer to Rep. Scott Tipton (R- Colo.) joining the oil and gas lobby group Western Energy Association, an Open Secrets blog has the continuing tale of the exodus from HNRC member offices to oil and gas lobbying groups. Rep. Doug Lamborn’s (R-Colo.) legislative assistant, Mallori McClure, has joined the wildcats over at The Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPPA).

Rep. Lamborn – best known to our readers for his months-long effort to give millions of acres of public land and bargain basement royalty rates to oil shale speculators – has close ties to IPPA. According to Open Secrets, the group has supported him in all three of his elections, putting a total $16,500 from its PAC account into his campaign account (a portion of the $170,462 Open Secrets reports Rep. Lamborn has taken from oil and gas interests).

Since Rep. Lamborn is staying chair of the Energy and Mineral Resources subcommittee, we’re sure it won’t be very long before Ms. McClure is back in his office for a visit.

Oil and gas has more access to Colorado lands than all other Rocky Mountain states

A new analysis by the Wilderness Society shows that Colorado’s oil and gas industry owns access to more federal lands in Colorado than nearly any other state in the Rockies.

Their study finds that 11.8 million acres, (an area the size of Maryland and Connecticut combined) has been opened for oil and gas leasing. This represents a staggering 93% of federally controlled mineral holdings in Colorado.

In fiscal year 2012, protests in Colorado were significantly higher in Colorado than elsewhere in the Rockies and 66 percent higher than the national average of 18 percent.

Helen Hankins, Director of the Colorado Bureau of Land Management – which manages the state’s public lands – has come under fire for failing to implement the leasing reforms aimed at reducing protests. The Department of Interior reforms were put into place to solve conflicts between natural resources such as water, wildlife and oil and gas development.

Read more about the Wilderness Society findings.

 

Big Oil Pays the Bills at Center for Oil Shale Technology and Research

Dr. Jeremy Boak, Director of the Center for Oil Shale Technology and Research (COSTAR) has been working hard this past year, trying to downplay fears about oil shale’s impact on western water supplies. And, while Dr. Boak has plenty to say, he fails to mention that the companies experimenting with oil shale fund his program. This sort of corporate sponsorship for academics isn’t new, but it’s the sort of thing people should know when considering his opinions. After all, the saying “don’t bite the hand that feeds” could be seen to apply here.

COSTAR is a program at Colorado School of Mines, which was started in 2008 with funding from three oil companies – ExxonMobil, Shell and Total Exploration and Production. According to a Colorado School of Mines press release, COSTAR is a $900,000 per year research center.  COSTAR’s website lists corporate money first among its funding sources. So, we think Dr. Boak has a pretty strong incentive to see oil shale speculation and experimentation continue.

The Guardian published a story last week on a similar situation, but with fracking instead of oil shale. According to the article, the gas industry has been buying up academic research so that data will show only the benefits of hydraulic fracturing, not the risks. After all, academic institutions have long been trusted sources for independent, third party research. Some might say, it’s hard to remain independent when the industries institutions studying are paying their bills.

The Guardian calls it “frackademia,” and sometimes the result of these relationships can be pretty obvious. Take this example:

Dr. Charles “Chip” Groat took early retirement from the University of Texas at Austin after his financial ties to the industry became public. The researcher, whose study had concluded that there is “no link between hydraulic fracturing and water contamination”, sits on the board of Plains Exploration and Production Company, a Houston-based fracker. Groat has received over $2m in cash and stock options from the company since 2007.

We don’t know what, if any, financial ties Dr. Boak has to oil shale companies, other than that they subsidize his paycheck as Director of COSTAR. In 2012, Dr. Boak spoke at an API-sponsored briefing on oil shale in Washington, D.C. Was he paid to appear and speak there? Who paid for his plane ticket or hotel room? Did the Colorado School of Mines have to foot the bill for his API press conference appearance? These are questions only Dr. Boak can answer, and maybe he should.

At the very least, the fact that Dr. Boak’s income is funded by oil companies should be mentioned whenever he’s quoted and he shouldn’t be listed as an “academic” source. When Dr. Boak gives his opinion, he’s cashing a check made possible by the same companies promoting oil shale.