Changes

Similarly, proponents of hydraulic fracturing have reported in the press and other media that the recent University of Texas Study ("Fact-Based Regulation for Environmental Protection in Shale Gas Development") found that hydraulic fracturing caused no environmental contamination,<ref name="fuelfix">{{cite web|title=Fact-Based Regulation for Environmental Protection in Shale Gas Development|url=http://fuelfix.com/blog/2012/02/16/ut-study-fracturing-itself-not-connected-to-water-pollution/ |title=Fracturing ‘has no direct’ link to water pollution, UT study finds |author=Vaughan, Vicki |date= 16 February 2012 |accessdate=3 March 2012}}</ref><ref name="vancouversun">{{cite web|title=Fracking does not contaminate groundwater: study released in Vancouver|url=http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Fracking+does+contaminate+groundwater+study+released+Vancouver/6165532/story.html |author=Munro, Margaret |date= 17 February 2012 |accessdate=3 March 2012}}</ref> when in fact the study found that all steps in the process except the actual injection of the fluid (which proponents artificially separated from the rest of the process and designated "hydraulic fracturing") have resulted in environmental contamination.<ref name="UT Study">{{cite web|title=Fact-Based Regulation for Environmental Protection in Shale Gas Development|url=http://energy.utexas.edu/images/ei_shale_gas_regulation120215.pdf|accessdate=29 February 2012}}</ref> The radioactivity of the injected fluid itself was not assessed in the University of Texas study.<ref name="UT Study" /> The other stages or "phases of the shale gas development life cycle"<ref name="UT Study" /> into which hydraulic fracturing has been divided in various reports are (1) drill pad construction and operation, (2) the construction, integrity, and performance of the wellbores, (3) the flowback of the fluid back towards the surface, (4) blowouts and spills, (5) integrity of other pipelines involved and (6) the disposal of the flowback, including waste water and other waste products.<ref name="fuelfix" /><ref name="vancouversun" /> These stages were all reported to be sources of contamination in the University of Texas study.<ref name="UT Study" /> The study concluded that if hydraulic fracturing is to be conducted in an environmentally safe manner, these issues need to be addressed first.<ref name="UT Study" /> It is to the university's credit that the distortion seemed only to be the focus on the injection stage. The study's objectivity was later called into question because Groat failed to disclose his energy industry ties.<ref name="UT Study disclose" /> In addition, there are extensive links between UT and the oil & gas industry, with the giving of fossil-fuel behemoth [[Royal Dutch Shell]] to the university currently standing at more than $24.8 million, $4m alone having been handed over for 2012.<ref name="UTweb 14Feb2012">{{cite web |url=http://www.utexas.edu/news/2012/02/14/shell_oil_invests/ |title=Shell Oil Company Invests Nearly $4 Million in The University of Texas at Austin |date=14 February 2012 |publisher=UT Austin website |accessdate=5 March 2012}}</ref><ref name="HBJ 15Feb2012">{{cite news |url=http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2012/02/15/shell-oil-invests-39m-in-ut.html |title=Shell Oil invests $3.9M in UT |author=Sandra Zaragoza |date=15 February 2012 |newspaper=Houston Business Journal |accessdate=5 March 2012}}</ref> Since 2011, Shell has partnered Texas in a program called [http://www.beg.utexas.edu/sutur/index.php Shell-UT Unconventional Research], and the university has a similar research program in place with [[Exxon Mobil]].<ref name="Clanton 13Sep2011">{{cite news |url=http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Shell-UT-to-study-better-shale-production-methods-2167340.php |title=Shell, UT to study better shale production methods |author=Brett Clanton |date=13 September 2011 |newspaper=Houston Chronicle |accessdate=5 March 2011}}</ref> [[Halliburton]], the largest supplier of fracking services in the United States, has also given millions of dollars to the university.<ref name="UTweb 28Feb2007">{{cite web |url=http://www.utexas.edu/news/2007/02/28/support/ |title=Halliburton Gives $90,000 in Grants to The University of Texas at Austin |date=28 February 2007 |publisher=UT Austin website |accessdate=5 March 2012 |quote=Energy services company Halliburton has contributed $90,000 to support academic programs at The University of Texas at Austin, bringing the company's total university giving to nearly $7 million.}}</ref> [[Statoil]] announced a $5m research agreement (part of which will focus on oil shale) with UT's Bureau of Economic Geology in September 2011, whose program director, Ian Duncan, was the senior contributor for the parts of the Texas study to do with the environmental impacts of shale gas development.<ref name="UT Study" /><ref name="Statoil buys">{{cite web |url=http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/10/17/norways-statoil-to-acquire-brigham-exploration-for-4-4-billion/ |title=Norway’s Statoil to Acquire Brigham Exploration for $4.4 Billion |author=Scott, Mark |date=17 October 2011 |work=Dealb%k |publisher=New York Times |accessdate=4 March 2012}}</ref><ref name="AAS 19Sep2011">{{cite news |url=http://www.statesman.com/business/norway-based-energy-company-ut-agree-on-5-1867592.html |title=Norway-based energy company, UT agree on $5 million research program |author=Barry Harrell |date=19 September 2011 |newspaper=The Austin American-Statesman |accessdate=5 March 2012}}</ref> The study concluded that if hydraulic fracturing is to be conducted in an environmentally safe manner, these issues need to be addressed first.<ref name="UT Study">{{cite web|title=Fact-Based Regulation for Environmental Protection in Shale Gas Development|url=http://energy.utexas.edu/images/ei_shale_gas_regulation120215.pdf|accessdate=29 February 2012}}</ref> The study's objectivity was later called into question because Groat failed to disclose his energy industry ties.<ref name="UT Study disclose" />