One more study proving fracing is safe

No impact to water from Marcellus shale fracking. From Penn Energy:

http://www.pennenergy.com/index/petroleum/display/6873964372/articl...

For all the antis on this board: what do you have to say now? You are standing in quicksand.

Views: 2522

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by David Perotto on May 29, 2012 at 3:08pm

Fang,

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".

Dave

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on May 29, 2012 at 5:20pm

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.

All IMHO,

                    JS

 

 

Permalink Reply by David Perotto on May 29, 2012 at 10:38pm
Jeff,
You read this article and that is your takeaway? Wow! The article states that Chesapeake was working in a collaborative effort WITH the EPA. The same EPA charged with protecting our water. The same EPA that has been critical of oil and gas. Yet you read Chesapeake funded the study. You have a focusing problem. The article goes on to states that the US geological survey participated with background measurements. But you read Chesapeake can't be trusted. The Sierra Club wears the same delusional glasses as yourself.
Permalink Reply by ji on May 29, 2012 at 11:49pm

good post jeff.

Permalink Reply by David Perotto on May 30, 2012 at 1:23am

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.

Permalink Reply by David Perotto on May 30, 2012 at 4:06pm

Jeff,

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.

Dave

 

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on May 30, 2012 at 4:20pm

No doubt, you seem to have missed a lot.

Did your copy of "Logic for Dummies" arrive yet?

 

JS

Permalink Reply by Moe on May 31, 2012 at 8:48am

Not only is it too tight, it is pulled down over his eyes and ears.

Permalink Reply by Zack on May 31, 2012 at 7:58am

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.

Permalink Reply by David Perotto on May 31, 2012 at 8:42am

Zack,

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.

Permalink Reply by Zack on May 31, 2012 at 9:30am

Fang,

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."

Permalink Reply by David Perotto on May 31, 2012 at 3:01pm
Not only are there numerous studies to debunk the contamination claims, HVHF has never been shown to contaminate an aquifer. What else do we need to show to lift the moratorium in NY???? it is absolutely ridiculous that we are not permitting in my liberal state. With all of this being said, it is obvious that all drilling should be done as safely as possible. Not only possible but doable. When did we lose our can do attitude in this country??

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service