The Biofuels Deception. Okbazghi Yohannes

fracturing techniques are safe and would not pose harm of any kind. BP, Shell, Saudi Aramco, and Italy’s ENI contributed $25 million each to make MITEI an effective mouthpiece for the exploitation of shale formations; another ten companies agreed to pay $5 million each to win seats on MITEI’s board.⁴⁷ With the urgency to counter ecological objections to hydraulic fracking in mind, the study group produced a lengthy document titled The Future of Natural Gas. In keeping with their mission, the authors of the document boldly assert there is no evidence that horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracking cause environmental, hydrological, and health harm. If spills or leaks occur, these are the result of “substandard well completion by some operators” rather than fracking techniques themselves.⁴⁸ The authors counsel that if these spills or water contamination occur, they are problems of management alone. Therefore, they argue, if small and big operators follow the best practices, shale gas can be safely exploited without environmental and hydrological cost. They see a big role for government to sponsor research in waste water management, reducing fracturing water use, and cost-effective waste water recycling technology in the shale gas sector, meaning heavy subsidies, courtesy of taxpayers.⁴⁹ They contend that since natural gas is inexpensive and clean, providing a bridge to low-carbon economy, shale gas resources must be part of a strategic U.S. energy policy.

      The oil and gas industry has also mobilized the academic resources of Penn State, the State University of New York, Buffalo, and the University of Texas at Austin to launch a vigorous counteroffensive that uses questionable research products against environmental objections to shale fracking operations. All three institutions presented natural gas as the most essential bridge to a low-carbon world. The Penn State paper described shale gas as the dynamic engine of growth, whose operators are worthy of generous government support in the form of subsidies and relief from taxes. The Buffalo report extolled shale drillers as efficient and cautious under stringent state regulations and the vigilant supervision of regulators. The researchers at the University of Texas were even more assertive in their claim that there was no evidence of water contamination from shale drilling operations.⁵⁰