University ties to the fossil fuel industry are facing increasing scrutiny

Good morning and welcome back to Energy Source, coming to you from New York.

The Financial Times has this morning’s first scoop on new allegations by Shell that US liquefied natural gas supplier Venture Global “wrongfully earned” $3.5 billion in shipping arbitration, the latest escalation in a bitter dispute between some of the biggest players in the LNG industry.

The oil major accuses Venture Global of failing to deliver supplies to European customers under long-term supply contracts and selling them on high-priced spot markets when gas prices rose following Russia’s large-scale invasion of Ukraine. Venture Global rejected Shell’s claims, declaring force majeure over its contractual commitments.

Today’s newsletter comes to you an hour later than usual so we can look at a new study released this morning that looks at the influence of the oil and gas industry on higher education. Universities are under increasing pressure to disclose and sever their ties to the fossil fuel industry as faculty and students raise concerns that the relationship poses a threat to academic integrity and climate change mitigation.

Thanks for reading,

Amanda

The new study raises concerns about universities’ ties to the fossil fuel sector

Western universities are facing increasing pressure to sever ties with oil and gas companies as critics worry that industry donations are undermining research and efforts to tackle climate change.

A new study released this morning provides the first review of research looking at the sector’s expanding role in higher education. It draws from nearly three dozen reports on how universities’ ties to oil and gas companies have created research biases, supported unproven climate change mitigation solutions and curtailed academic freedom.

The analysis cited a report last year by Data for Progress, a progressive think tank, which found that six fossil fuel companies, including Exxon, Chevron, BP and Shell, contributed at least $700 million in donations to US universities 2010-2020. Another recent study from Columbia University found that university energy centers that accepted donations from the gas industry were more favorable in their research toward fuel than renewables, while institutions less dependent on gas funding showed the opposite trend .

“Everything that has been done so far by researchers on this point indicates an emerging consensus. . . that this is a really serious and significant issue that needs to be taken much more seriously,” said Geoffrey Supran, director of the Climate Accountability Lab at the University of Miami and co-author of the analysis, which analyzed research on institutions. in the US, Canada, UK and Australia. Conflicts of interest go beyond fossil fuel funding for research and include academic posts, fellowships, training events and recruitment, the study says.

Nearly 1,000 academics have signed an open letter organized by Fossil Free Research calling on US and UK universities to end industry funding for climate, environmental and energy research. In the past two years, Princeton University and Cambridge University have made commitments to limit ties to fossil fuel companies. And over the summer, Columbia created a committee to look at the implications of fossil fuel-funded research for the university after pressure from students.

The push for universities to sever ties or “dissociate” from the fossil fuel industry expands on previous student campaigns for institutions to divest their portfolios of oil and gas stocks, and comes as the private sector plays a bigger role in financing academic institutions.

“These calls by scholars and students for universities to cut funding ties to the oil industry are basically divestment 2.0,” said Supran, who helped lead the divestment campaign as a student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which did not made no fossil fuel divestment. . More than 270 students and faculty members at the university earlier this year signed a letter calling for the divestment of fossil fuel companies to the Climate Project, a new policy center.

The study’s authors compared the oil and gas industry’s tactics to influence academic research with those of the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries, and called for universities to publicly disclose corporate contributions to research funding. A multi-year investigation by congressional Democrats earlier this year highlighted instances in which oil companies partnered with universities to bolster their credibility and strategic goals. Their findings included a spreadsheet from BP that assessed how the research plans of Princeton, Harvard and Tufts University aligned with the major’s priorities, such as switching to gas and increasing refining.

“It’s not just about research, it’s also this culture of . . . perpetuating the future of fossil fuels,” said Jennie Stephens, professor at Maynooth University’s Icarus Climate Research Center and co-author of the review. “The overarching question for higher education is public funding for the public good versus funding private industry to advance private corporate interests.”

Opponents of divestment argue that cutting ties with the fossil fuel sector could create funding challenges for research, isolate an industry that is needed at the table to tackle climate change and polarize academic discourse.

In June, a Stanford committee recommended against divesting from the fossil fuel industry, warning it could have a “chilling effect” on academic freedom, but called for more guardrails.

“The scale and severity of this (climate) crisis, especially given the acute energy poverty that remains in much of the world, requires a robust and diverse community of views, actors and tools,” the committee wrote in its report.

A spokesperson for the American Petroleum Institute said the US oil and gas industry “will continue to work with experts and organizations committed to advancing solutions that address climate change, meet growing demand and ensure continued access to American energy reliable and affordable”.

The job is moving

• The American oil services giant Baker Hughes appointed Amerino Gatti as executive vice president of oilfield services and equipment, Maria Claudia Borras as chief growth and experience officer and Muzzamil Khider Ahmed as Chief People and Culture Officer. Deanna Jonesdirector of human resources, is moving into an advisory capacity before leaving the company next year.

• Volodymyr Kudrytskyihead of UkrenergoUkraine’s state electricity company, was ousted on Tuesday, prompting the resignation of board members. Peder Andreasen and Daniel Dobbeni.

• Victor Rodríguezan energy academic, was selected by the incoming president of Mexico to run Pemexthe state oil company.

• Swedish manufacturer of electric vehicles The pole star appointed Michael Lohscheller as executive director and Jean-Francois Mady as CFO, succeeding Thomas Ingenlath and Per Ansgarrespectively. Lohscheller previously led Nicholas and VinFastand Mady was most recently senior vice president at Stellar.

• The Kamala Harris the presidential campaign was used Rewiring Americahis Camilla Thorndike as director of climate engagement, according to Politico. Thorndike previously served as senior director of public engagement at the electrification nonprofit.

• X energy appointed Robert Taylor as vice president of regulatory and licensing affairs. Taylor joins the nuclear energy start-up after more than two decades at US Nuclear Regulatory Commissionwhere he was most recently deputy director of the office for new reactors.

Power points

Energy Source is written and edited by Jamie Smyth, Myles McCormick, Amanda Chu, Tom Wilson and Malcolm Moore, with support from the FT’s global reporting team. It reaches us at [email protected] and follow us on X at @FTEnergy. Keep up to date with previous editions of the newsletter Here.