By Sasha Ryu
In 1972, John Mork quit his job at one of the largest fossil fuel corporations in the country to take up wildcatting: a high risk, high reward profession that involves digging exploratory oil wells in untested territories. For years, he and his wife, Julie, lived in a trailer, struggling to make ends meet. Then, in 1976, their luck finally took a turn, and Mork discovered 50 billion cubic feet of gas in the Northeast Benson Field.
After Mork made his historic strike, his company — Energy Corporation of America — became one of the top oil and gas operations in the United States. By 2011, Forbes estimated that ECA generated approximately $200 million in revenue a year. However, even as Mork’s business continued to grow, he made it a point to stay out of the spotlight.
For decades, almost nobody knew who Mork was. That changed in 2011, when Mork made a $110 million donation to his alma mater, USC. When the news came out, people were shocked: A man who'd been virtually invisible for the better part of four decades was suddenly the 10th most generous philanthropist in America.
Although Mork’s donation made his name synonymous with the university’s scholarship programs, education isn’t the only thing his fortune funds. For decades, he’s been a donor to numerous political campaigns.
Between 1982 and 2023, Mork donated nearly $280,000 to dozens of conservative PACs and politicians. During this time, Mork also donated $44,500 to moderate Democratic candidates. Neither amount comes close to the $110 million Mork donated to the university in 2011 or the $15 million he gave USC in 2005. Still, Mork’s donations reveal a clear pattern: He backs politicians who are known to support deregulation in the oil and gas industry.
Political Giving
Mork has donated to congressional candidates across 12 different states, but he’s given the most to campaigns in Colorado and West Virginia — the two states where his company, Energy Corporation of America, was headquartered.
Over the past 40 years, Mork has donated to West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito more times than any other candidate. Capito, a Republican lawmaker who won her first congressional race in 2001, has been one of Mork’s friends since the mid-1980s.
In a 2014 article by the Republic Report, a spokesperson from Energy Corporation of America acknowledged Mork’s personal relationship with Capito, but stated that the company’s contact with the congresswoman’s office was “fairly limited in nature.”
Capito, however, had just spoken at a 2013 celebration in honor of ECA opening its new office in Charleston. According to his LinkedIn profile, Capito’s son, Arch Moore Capito, had also been working for Mork since 2011 as ECA’s in-house counsel. During his time at the company, ECA came under fire for breaking numerous environmental protection and contract laws.
After an investigation found violations at 17 of the company’s unconventional well sites, ECA had to pay the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection $1.7 million in fines. According to the DEP, some of the company’s violations included “failure to properly contain fluids in onsite pits” and “unauthorized discharge of industrial waste into groundwater.”
Outside of his longstanding support for Capito, Mork made the second highest number of individual donations to the former Democratic Sen. of West Virginia, Joe Manchin. Like Capito, as well as the numerous other candidates Mork has backed over the years, Manchin has been a strong supporter of “energy independence” throughout his political career.
Since 1995, Mork has only supported three Republican presidential candidates: William Phillip Gramm, George W. Bush and Mitt Romney. Mork hasn’t made a direct donation to a presidential candidate since 2012, when he gave $57,500 in direct donations to Romney’s second failed presidential bid.
Creating political influence from education philanthropy
Compared to a board member like Miriam Adelson, who’s donated $170 million to Donald Trump alone, Mork’s political contributions might seem miniscule. However, Mork’s influence on the country’s politics becomes much more significant if the impact of his $125 million in donations to the university are taken into consideration.
Today, the university’s Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science at the Viterbi School of Engineering bears the Mork family name. On its website, the department highlights its research on “sustainable energy generation.”
Although some might associate sustainable energy with windmills or solar panels, Mork, at least, seems to consider fossil fuels as an eco-friendly resource. However, his reasoning appears to be flawed.
In a 2015 interview, Mork told USC’s Viterbi School Magazine: “Never in the history of mankind has any resource been developed with less impact on the environment than oil and gas through hydraulic fracturing.”
Mork went on to assert that fracking impacted about “1 percent or less” of harvested land.
Both of these claims are incorrect.
Although natural gas may produce fewer pollutants than coal or oil, it’s far from the least harmful energy resource in the world. Wind energy, for example, produces around 11 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour while natural gas produces approximately 465 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour.
Natural gas, in other words, has a carbon footprint more than 40 times larger than wind.
The extraction, processing and transportation of natural gas also releases methane, a highly potent greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. According to the UN Environment Programme, methane is about 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period, which significantly undermines the climate benefits of using natural gas.
Mork’s statements about the impact of fracking on harvested land are also flawed. Numerous studies contradict the claim that fracking impacts 1 percent or less of harvested land. Surface impact alone also fails to account for the numerous other ways fracking affects its surrounding environment, such as groundwater contamination, air pollution and induced seismicity.
Although the national and global scientific community has come to a general consensus on the harms of natural gas production, the university’s research on the practice seems to consistently echo Mork’s questionable claims.
One paper by USC research professor Fred Aminzadeh, for example, stated that “both hydraulic fracturing and the underground disposal of produced waters from oil and natural gas operations are proven to be safe and environmentally reliable” — a conclusion that conflicts with findings from the country’s leading research institutions, such as Yale and Duke, as well as numerous EPA studies.
Outside of Aminzadeh’s paper, the university has put out other studies and reports that seem to frame natural gas production as environmentally friendly.
In 2014, for instance, the Induced Seismicity Consortium at USC presented a draft report, claiming that there was “no evidence of water contamination due to hydraulic fracturing in California.”
Later, in 2018, the university highlighted a study conducted by assistant professor Kelly Sanders, which found that, “Although oil and natural gas consume large volumes of water … their total freshwater consumption is relatively low.”
Community activists from organizations like DivestSC and the Environmental Student Assembly have long criticized the university’s financial ties to the fossil fuel industry, highlighting the potential conflict of interest created by receiving sustainability research funding from oil and gas executives.
In 2021, after students led a years-long pressure campaign to cut ties with fossil fuel corporations, the Investment Committee on the USC Board of Trustees voted to stop any future investments in fossil fuels and to liquidate its existing fossil fuel investments over the next several years.
“Going forward, our new investment policies reinforce USC’s commitment to generate strong returns while also upholding USC’s values, including sustainability,” said Amy Diamond, USC’s chief investment officer, in a statement about the decision.
While the statement acknowledged that supporting fossil fuel corporations did not align with the university’s sustainability values, it did not pledge to address the funding USC continues to receive from oil companies and executives.
Leadership on the Board of Trustees
In 2013, Mork became the chair of the USC Board of Trustees. He took the position despite the fact that he would need to remain in Colorado to lead his Denver-based corporation.
In 2018, just weeks before Mork was about to complete his five-year term as chairman, numerous alumni came forward and accused the university of covering up decades of sexual abuse by campus gynecologist George Tyndall.
A report by the Los Angeles Times revealed that the university had allowed Tyndall to continue treating students for years despite complaints about his behavior, then brokered a secret deal that let him resign with a financial payout. The report also revealed that, when Tyndall left USC, the university did not report the evidence of Tyndall’s alleged abuse to the Medical Board. The university also did not reach out to notify any of Tyndall’s former patients.
The scandal prompted hundreds of faculty members and thousands of students to call for the resignation of then-President Max Nikias — Mork’s long-time friend.
Mork became one of the only people at the university to stand by Nikias. In a statement to the USC community, Mork wrote that the Board had, “full confidence in the leadership, ethics and values” of Nikias, and was certain that Nikias would “successfully guide our community forward.”
Just three days after the Board released its statement, Nikias was forced to step down.
Even after Nikias left the university in disgrace, he and Mork remained connected at their shared venture: EnerG-ID Solutions Corporation, which uses rapid DNA analysis to solve problems in the hydrocarbon industry. According to the company's leadership page, Nikias serves as the company’s chairman and Mork serves as chief executive officer.
Mork, now 87, declined to comment on his political giving or his leadership on the board.
