March  UTC That sentence assumed that there was wrongdoing The rest of that section still implies it by the juxtaposition of the funding information with the report details You may think that this is obvious but we need a source that explicitly states that the findings of the the UT report were influenced by the funding receivedPerhaps personal correspondence with the authors of the Texas study admitting their findings were indeed swayed by the knowledge that the business interests of major donors to their institution and research programmes would likely be substantially affected in the negative if said findings did not produce a clean bill of health for fracking I mean thats about the only way you could ever meet your demand What an utterly absurd request Its easy to see why it was made though just set the bar so high it cant be jumped then use the failure as an excuse to chop out what you dont like Maybe youd have me hack the email accounts of the authors fish around for evidence assuming there is even any there then leak it to a major newspaper so they can write an article that I can cite on here Only the most naive idiot can fail see the potential for conflict of interest from a study put out by Texas The universitys state is the heart and soul of US oil  gas but thats certainly not worthy of so much as a mention given that which is also true the university has multimilliondollar and other links with the largest provider of fracking services in the United States not to mention other oil  gas companies with interests in fracking I have no idea whether their report was swayed by industry links but only a fool would suggest the potential isnt there If you dont like the juxtaposition just open up a gap with a caveatand make it as weak pathetic and denigrating as you like for all I care maybe something like socialistnay communistcampaigners in the pay of a European Maoist group have alleged a potential for a conflict of interest noting that For comparison take the recent globalwarming sceptics at the Heartland Institute as soon as details of the Institutes funding were leaked they were prominently reported in the press We dont even need leaks here the information is freely available to anyone who takes the time to find it out as Smm and others have done All you are interested in doing is eliminating even mention of perfectly obvious potential for conflict of interest According to Ian Urbina we cant even get a decent untarnished report out of the EPA unlike Texas the EPA doesnt even take industry funding for gods sake yet still it cant escape heavy industry pressure to redact Aside from irrelevances like minor earthquakes I have no idea whether fracking is causing all the problems it is alleged to though I am extremely suspicious given the documented efforts of industry and their paidfor puppets in government to tone down or eliminate negative findings and the truly just ridiculous claims about frackings potential by people like Lord Browne here in England And I couldnt care less if frackings safe or not Why should I or anyone If its not its not if it is it is Outside of a lunatic asylum who would care If it is safe enough bring it on jobs tax receipts increased energy security reduced use of coal burning only a fool wouldnt be interested in those things particularly given the current economic situation What I dont like are those desperate only to hear what they want to hear making up totally unreasonable tests so they can get rid of what they regard as offending material