Views: 314

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Larry,

The tale of fugitive emissions is old new, and it is truly sad that the environmental left won't let it go. The fact that this author cites the Perdue-Cornell study proves further how the author is biased. That study has been completely discredited and debunked for it's faulty methods.

I find it interesting that the environmental left is now attacking the EPA when it disagrees with them.

The short of it is this; the EPA study  took samples directly from hundreds of sources. The Perdue-Cornell study took air samples above well sites and threw out the majority of them because there wasn't a problem, using only the seven where they found increased readings. The authors of the study then used this information in a computer model to make their conclusions as if this were the entirety of the information gathered. As they say "garbage in garbage out". The authors admit they were looking for high readings and found them. Plus the study was conducted in a small area of PA whereas the EPA study was conducted nationwide.

I'd say the authors of the study were a bit biased and the conclusion was pre-determined.

Thanks for the post.

North Dakota is the most rural State, and production is mostly on private land, and I am surprised that there is not more hollering about there being such a waste of natural resources from flaring gas, but there are not sufficient pipelines to get it to market. You see the map showing the night sky being illuminated here-

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/events/department-news/1154/why-are-night-...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mindylubber/2013/01/18/what-americas-oi...

The boom- http://shaleforum.com/forum/topics/eia-piece-on-north-dakota-s-growth

Larry,

That is sad isn't it.

Instead of hampering pipelines the government should be helping to put them in, in places like ND.

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service