Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    3:54 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: Daily News Article Discussions > Topics Add to favorite topics  
Author Topic: Energy group responds to fracking and livestock story Back to Topics
carbuilder

Sophomore Author
Detroit

Posts:214
Points:190,005
Joined:Jul 2007
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 6:42:26 AM

First of all, the flaws in the Bamberger-Oswald study have been publicly documented. Dr. Ian Rae, for example, a Co-Chair of the Chemicals Technical Options Committee for the U.N. Environment Programme, called the study “an advocacy piece” written by individuals who “cannot be regarded as experts” in the subject about which they were writing. “It certainly does not qualify as a scientific paper,” Rae added. Rae also critiqued the journal that published the study – New Solutions: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health – by saying “the refereeing process evidently was not very stringent.”
Visit Energy in depth for full article
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
teenitup
Champion Author Houston

Posts:4,878
Points:860,510
Joined:Sep 2012
Message Posted: Dec 7, 2012 2:25:04 PM

2007 and 2011, I get it drpeppertx!
Profile Pic
LetemEatCake
Champion Author Oklahoma City

Posts:5,705
Points:1,360,915
Joined:Mar 2008
Message Posted: Dec 6, 2012 11:41:43 PM


Bear repeating: iFueler... "two sides, in the case of fracking if an open and honest disclosure of the facts, i.e. chemicals and processes used etc, could be agreed upon, then public policy could be fairly debated..."

Can't imagine why a Blog funded by Big Oil/Gas (Launched by the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) in 2009) could have this opinion!

[Edited by: LetemEatCake at 12/6/2012 11:45:08 PM EST]
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,624
Points:1,396,395
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Dec 6, 2012 7:51:42 PM

Teafortwo and letmeeatcake, 2007 and 2011.....LMAO! Conspiracy theorists!

The truth shall always let you free!

[Edited by: drpepperTX at 12/6/2012 7:54:50 PM EST]
Profile Pic
teenitup
Champion Author Houston

Posts:4,878
Points:860,510
Joined:Sep 2012
Message Posted: Dec 6, 2012 6:34:58 PM

MAC48, <<"There is no intelligent reason to suspect that fracking is a long term problem for agricultural endeavors or the national food supplies...">>

You are correct, but I have not seen any intelligent reasoning on behalf of those against fracking whatsoever.

A great example posted by Teafortwo <<"Good to see that the site has decided to allow the posting of blogs with altered headlines ...

Well .... as long as they are proindustry propaganda pieces :0\

Is "carbuilder" another new alias account for drpeppertx?">>

Where's intelligent reasoning in that statement?
Profile Pic
MAC48
Champion Author Dallas

Posts:3,513
Points:1,355,880
Joined:Dec 2006
Message Posted: Dec 6, 2012 3:11:17 PM

The referenced Bamberger-Oswald paper and the article in the The Nation magazine based on the Bamberger-Oswald paper are simply propaganda pieces designed to perpetuate and heighten the “sky is falling” hype of those persons who are opposed to hydraulic fracturing technology and activity. Both of these very “yellow journalism” efforts are very adequately refuted by this current article in response to the article in the The Nation magazine.

There is no intelligent reason to suspect that fracking is a long term problem for agricultural endeavors or the national food supplies & any short term problem can be resolved by disciplining any careless or reckless drilling operators. Since fracking as we know it today has been going on for the last 45+ years, one would think that any massive threat posed by fracking technology would have surfaced many years ago. It is beyond rational thought to suspect that the farmers and ranchers in Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana have let fracking be conducted on their property for many decades if it in any way posed a significant threat to their crops, their herds or their continued long term use of their land.
Profile Pic
LetemEatCake
Champion Author Oklahoma City

Posts:5,705
Points:1,360,915
Joined:Mar 2008
Message Posted: Dec 6, 2012 8:24:56 AM


You may have a point there Teafortwo!
Profile Pic
teafortwo
Champion Author Washington

Posts:27,383
Points:2,028,935
Joined:Feb 2009
Message Posted: Dec 6, 2012 3:11:17 AM


Good to see that the site has decided to allow the posting of blogs with altered headlines ...

Well .... as long as they are proindustry propaganda pieces :0\

Is "carbuilder" another new alias account for drpeppertx?
Profile Pic
iFueler
Champion Author Durham

Posts:75,338
Points:822,400
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Dec 6, 2012 2:04:00 AM

two sides, in the case of fracking if an open and honest disclosure of the facts, i.e. chemicals and processes used etc, could be agreed upon, then public policy could be fairly debated...
Profile Pic
PDQBlues
Champion Author San Diego

Posts:9,808
Points:2,093,075
Joined:Jan 2009
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 11:03:32 PM


LetemEatCake: My Oh My! Not only is this article article a BLOG, but this is the real Headline:
"*UPDATE* The Truth about Food, Ag and Hydraulic Fracturing"
Both are verboten under GB Guidelines!

Oh, you know very well those rules of restriction apply only to the truth.

The fact is that many of the chemicals used in fracking are kept secret from the public, and many of them are highly toxic. The fracking industry's answer: ignore that man behind the current.
Profile Pic
CdnLynx
Champion Author Ontario

Posts:1,239
Points:1,070,055
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 7:36:54 PM

OrphacarguyPE - Energy in Depth (EiD) blogger Steve, I have problems with his links (questionable info) within the article.
Now, re: bonus points in reading the article you mentioned; in order to help some on GB's find the article (listed here) The Nation - Fracking our food supply! Very interesting read!
It is only a matter of time before Fracing(Fracking) will be shown to be a evil lurking beneath!
LetemEatCake - albeit, that its a blog and verboten; in fairness to GB's, it comes across (made to appear), as a viable news source/organization. Now that its out there, then it can be brought under scrutiny, for what it really is, an oil & gas interest entity!

[Edited by: CdnLynx at 12/5/2012 7:38:03 PM EST]
Profile Pic
LetemEatCake
Champion Author Oklahoma City

Posts:5,705
Points:1,360,915
Joined:Mar 2008
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 6:48:56 PM


My Oh My! Not only is this article article a BLOG, but this is the real Headline:

"*UPDATE* The Truth about Food, Ag and Hydraulic Fracturing"

Both are verboten under GB Guidelines!
Profile Pic
endymion
Champion Author New York

Posts:2,473
Points:506,295
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 5:15:11 PM

So why the secrecy behind the chemicals and process in fracking?

No fracking in my watersupply, please.
Profile Pic
orphancarguyPE
Champion Author PEI

Posts:6,417
Points:1,350,660
Joined:Jan 2011
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 12:09:16 PM

Hmmm...so much for 'Fair and Balanced'! People posting here should question everything

So, 'Energy in Depth' pans Elizabeth Royte's article (in collaboration with FERN) in The Nation as "using the fatally flawed Bamberger-Oswald “study” on hydraulic fracturing as the focal point" and pointing out another comment "...called the study “an advocacy piece” written by individuals who “cannot be regarded as experts” in the subject."

Of course, Energy in Depth is not a dispassionate and scientific bystander in this. From their website "...Launched by the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) in 2009,..." it seems they are an advocacy group too, on the pro-fracking side. Fancy that!

So, I do have a lot of concerns, largely financial but some technical, about fracking that are just not on the radar (well, not yet) for most of the 'anti-fracking' groups. Really, some of them are, as EID suggests, just wrong about the facts they use to discredit fracking 'as currently practiced' so they do themselves no good by going after the wrong targets. There are some good targets but explaining them is a bit more nuanced and won't fit on a hand-held sign easily.

From the EiD website, they do have posted some statements which while all quite correct as far as they go, are a bit shall we say, misdirecting or misleading, in what they omit to say. (One particular one is what I would consider a howler, but might only get them into trouble if, for example, they were trying to sell share in a particular company. You know, disclosure rules and the like) The Bamberger-Oswald study (not "study") aside I'll leave it to other bloggers to figure out what for yourself what is 'wrong' with the critique by 'Steve'

For bonus points, it might be fun to read the article in The Nation, and the Bamberger-Oswald study itself, to see what the fuss is about.



[Edited by: orphancarguyPE at 12/5/2012 12:12:29 PM EST]
Profile Pic
md11capt
Champion Author Denver

Posts:4,595
Points:1,266,445
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 11:52:29 AM



Energy in Depth (EID) is a pro-oil-and-gas drilling industry front group formed by the American Petroleum Institute, the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) and dozens of additional industry organizations for the purpose of criticizing the documentary "Gaslands", their latest attempt being a documentary produced by a political attack ad agency for EID, the ironically titled "Truthland"[1] which was exposed as a gas industry infomercial[2] as soon as it was released. The domain for the website promoting the film —Truthlandmovie.com — is owned by gas driller Chesapeake Energy.[3] EID consists of several interrelated fronts in several states, with ties to various PR firms, gas companies and political lobbyists, as detailed by Dory Hippauf in "The Gas Roots". [4][/L]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Energy_in_Depth
Profile Pic
ceklea
Veteran Author Twin Cities

Posts:400
Points:1,848,160
Joined:Dec 2008
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 10:38:20 AM

As the article summarizes, "Landowners, farmers, and any other individuals can and should ask questions about the impacts of natural gas development. Those who ask questions should demand answers based on facts, and communities weighing the costs and benefits should, by definition, seek input on both sides and make decisions based on a careful review of that information."
Profile Pic
AVKZ
Champion Author Kalamazoo

Posts:1,951
Points:853,125
Joined:Apr 2012
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 8:13:45 AM

Anybody can shoot holes in any study. Too many variables.
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,624
Points:1,396,395
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 8:11:48 AM

Actually they are not an 'advocacy' group, they are an 'anti' group.
Profile Pic
rbrk02
Champion Author Rhode Island

Posts:8,789
Points:1,464,805
Joined:Jan 2011
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 8:11:05 AM

Good article.

doeslayersr is correct. Ms. Royte's original report was nothing more than an agenda driven 'advocacy' piece.

carbuilder, Thank you for posting this article.
Profile Pic
derKraut
Champion Author Ontario

Posts:2,285
Points:1,747,025
Joined:Dec 2008
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 8:06:27 AM

Time for the EPA to realize they blew it and just walk away from E 15.
Profile Pic
Buck_on_Bass
Champion Author Tennessee

Posts:10,483
Points:1,968,730
Joined:Jul 2007
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 7:35:31 AM

Some people think that omitting facts make them go away.
Profile Pic
molebaby96
Champion Author Tallahassee

Posts:3,453
Points:1,090,805
Joined:Nov 2011
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 7:30:44 AM

So its safe around natural gas?
Profile Pic
sabre75
Champion Author Florida

Posts:1,691
Points:354,685
Joined:May 2012
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 7:21:54 AM

Agree with doeslayersr view.. totally!
Profile Pic
doeslayersr
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:12,459
Points:1,519,130
Joined:Dec 2010
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 7:11:19 AM

The truth eventually surfaces as indicated in this article about the report which is nothing but an "advocacy" piece. Thanks for posting this article!

Per this article

"...Secondly, although the article purports to be part of an “investigative reporting” effort, there was clearly a lack of interest in discussing anything that deviated from the Bamberger-Oswald paper’s conclusions. Here are just a few items relating to health impacts from development that I shared with the author, who nonetheless did not see fit to print:

¦Denton County, Tex.: An analysis by two public health experts found that, “even as natural gas development expanded significantly in the area over the past several years, key indicators of health improved across every major category during those times.” Denton County is situated atop the massive Barnett Shale, one of the largest natural gas fields in the United States.

¦Fort Worth, Tex.: An air quality study conducted for the City of Fort Worth – the largest and most comprehensive of its kind to date – determined there were “no significant health risks” from shale development in the area. Fort Worth, located in Tarrant County, also sits atop the Barnett Shale.

¦Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, in two separate reports of air monitoring in Pennsylvania – one each for the northeastern and southwestern portions of the state – “did not identify concentrations of any compound that would likely trigger air-related health issues associated with Marcellus Shale drilling activities.”
Profile Pic
gcalleja
Champion Author Miami

Posts:3,054
Points:1,163,515
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 7:10:38 AM

Untrustworthy studies.
Profile Pic
humblepie
Champion Author Toledo

Posts:58,630
Points:3,020,145
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 7:06:10 AM

as most of us realized, the whole thing was hog wash
Profile Pic
virostek
Veteran Author Virginia

Posts:423
Points:90,285
Joined:Oct 2012
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 6:58:56 AM

Lots of bulls in this story.
Profile Pic
Luckylindy
Champion Author Milwaukee

Posts:6,971
Points:1,744,870
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 6:55:35 AM

Hard to find the truth.
Profile Pic
cheap59
Champion Author Michigan

Posts:5,057
Points:1,484,595
Joined:May 2010
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 6:44:31 AM

There are flaws both ways.
Post a reply Back to Topics