It sure is hard to argue with this study. EPA, Chesapeake and third party testing company were involved. Antis cannot claim industry bias is behind the testing. It is possibly the most comprehensive, specific study to date in the Marcellus. In my lifetime I try not to gloat when correct, but it is difficult in this situation. All of the unfounded, bias rants against the industry make it hard to not say "told you so".
Interesting, then you would not believe in the results of a Blood Test sent out to an independent lab - because it was paid for by an insurance company (as they might have an ulterior motive).
I am glad that I have people in my life that I feel I can trust; it must be very difficult going though life trusting no one, believing no one - believing in nothing.
good post jeff.
So you want me to believe that the EPA is allowing Chesapeake to perform a study and manipulate the results? That is a stretch. Of course the EPA is watching, guiding and ensuring that the study is free from manipulation. It would be gross negligence on the EPA's behalf if they are doing what you are claiming. I cant buy into to that asertion that the EPA is violating their mission.
I think you are misunderstanding. I believe, someone correct me if I am wrong, the EPA initiated this study. They are the lead organization & they enlisted CHK's help. They made an announcement awhile back that they would investigate and this is the first result of that effort.
No doubt, you seem to have missed a lot.
Did your copy of "Logic for Dummies" arrive yet?
Not only is it too tight, it is pulled down over his eyes and ears.
As a matter of intellectual honest, it is necessary to recognize that the article states that the results were turned over to the EPA, not that the EPA has in any way endorsed the study. The EPA has not rendered any decision or issued their report either in support or refutation of the aforementioned results.
As a matter of research design, the press release contains insufficient data to determine the utility of the report. What water sources were used? Are we talking municipal wells? Individual wells? Are we talking pretreatment? Post-treatment? What was their proximity to hydraulic fracturing activity, fluid storage/disposal sites, etc? Until these questions are answered by the release of the full report for peer-review, it is impossible to make any scientifically-based statement on the utility of this study.
You are technically right. My intuition is that Chesapeake wouldnt risk leaking this without a pretty good inidication that what they are saying is in fact true. There is a chance they pulled a fast one, but I doubt it.
If you're going to use an article to support your argument, make sure you've read it first. As stated previously, the aforementioned results are NOT in any way endorsed or verified by the EPA.
Final paragraph of the article:
"these findings were submitted to the EPA, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and landowners involved in this study. Chesapeake hopes the EPA will find WESTON’s report useful in meeting Congress’ request for independent sources of information to be included in the agency’s influential scientific assessment regarding hydraulic fracturing."