Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Nancy Mosley on December 3, 2011 at 3:05pm

Great article, well thought out. Glad you took the time to write it and hope there is a lot of positive interest.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brenda Rockafellow on December 3, 2011 at 4:07pm

I want to thank you for sharing this piece.  It was interesting and I would like to see more of them.  It seems that there are a lot of opinions, pro and con.  Not only are there varied opinions but there also seems to be the typical tie in to politics, money and the environment.  There will always be someone to oppose the subject of topic simply for the sake of a debate.

I for one am here to learn...so keep feeding me.  I appreciate it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim Litwinowicz on December 3, 2011 at 4:31pm

Micheal; Good article... and of course you have your critics. Tell your detractor, Jim Jordan, (I don't do Facebook) that the Cornell study was so seriously flawed that it has no credibility.  First, they used methane pipeline loss figures from Russia, not the US... a dramatic difference. They also used foreign data for several other computations. Worst, they completely ignored all the methane loss generated by coal mining, transportation, processing, and storage which is substantial.  A subsequent study by Carnegie Melon showed that natural gas, from start to finish, is 30% less polluting than coal.

And the water study you referenced originally said that they the only issue they found was elevated bromides in eight wells.  They issued a corrected report last week stating an error in their data and that only one well had said elevated level.

• ▶ Reply