Is shale gas good for us or not? Most of that argument has been over the potential risks that hydrofracking for shale gas might pose to water supplies—risks that were highlighted again this week when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) came to Dimock, PA, to test groundwater in the area. You might know Dimock from the anti-fracking film Gasland—a group of residents have claimed for years that fracking poisoned their water supply, and federal involvement indicates there may be more at stake.
Read more…
The Daily Scoop: Fracked: The Debate Over Shale Gas Deepens
6 Comments to “The Daily Scoop: Fracked: The Debate Over Shale Gas Deepens”
-
Way to keep up on this. Its weird how these types of issues are easily overlooked by the general public.
-
It is. With all the sources of information, it’s easy to miss quite a bit that is out there.
-
-
This article is typical of overblown global warming “alarmist” stories.
It features “fracted” in the title, and talks about it in the beginning, yet the article has absolutely nothing to do with fracting – a gas/oil extraction technique criticized by environmentalists.
If the article has nothing to do with the practice of fracting, then why is it even mentioned?
The article quotes a SINGLE researcher, Howard Howarth, who suggests that shale gas, rather than being the cleanest of all fossil, fuels is actually dirtier than coal.
Everyone else everywhere else, including researchers from his own university, disagree with his conclusions. Howarth’s discredited research is undeserving of public attention.
Referring to Howarth’s research the best that author Brian Walsh – a highly-biased, long-time global warming “alarmist” – says about it is this:
“The truth is we can’t be entriely sure.”Heck, writing for Time Magazine the guy can’t even get “entirely” spell checked correctly.
Take this article for what its worth… nothing.
-
“It features “fracted” in the title, and talks about it in the beginning, yet the article has absolutely nothing to do with fracting – a gas/oil extraction technique criticized by environmentalists.”
Azleader, the article is indeed about fracking. It’s debating the greenhouse gas footprint of shale gas acquired through hydraulic fracturing. It may not discuss the aspects of the practice that you may have expected but that does not diminish the quality of the article. If there was any confusion as to what the article was to be about it is cleared up in the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph which introduces another debate surrounding this extraction technique.
“The article quotes a SINGLE researcher, Howard Howarth, who suggests that shale gas, rather than being the cleanest of all fossil, fuels is actually dirtier than coal.”
It quotes both research groups. These appear in the gray highlighted sections close to the end of the article where both Cathles and Howarth are represented.
“Everyone else everywhere else, including researchers from his own university, disagree with his conclusions. ”
Seeing how the article only compares the findings of competing, research groups within the same university that can hardly be extrapolated to include “everyone else everywhere else”. Perhaps, there is additional disagreement from other sources, in other locations but this article does not discuss them.
Perhaps you should email Mr. Walsh and discuss his misspelling with him but as far as the worthiness of the article it seems that another read may be necessary given the apparent misinterpretations noted in your comment.
-
-
I suggest you re-read the original article… you clearly do NOT understand it.
-
