Mon Dec 10, 2012, 01:45 PM
Indi Guy (3,988 posts)
Tainted Fracking Research: Three Strikes And Yer Out
Source: Think Progress
The oil and gas industry frequently claims there has never been a proven case of hydraulic fracturing contaminating ground water. But not even the fossil fuel barons can claim it hasn’t contaminated academia.
Last week, an independent investigation found that a University of Texas study concluding hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, poses no threat to underground water supplies was tainted by a conflict of interest by the study’s lead author
That author, Charles Groat, was on the board of Plains Exploration & Production Co. and received an annual fee of $58,500 in 2011 while holding more than 40,000 shares of the energy firm worth more than $1.7 million. Groat has left the university...
...The panel that investigated the case concluded that “the study falls short of the generally accepted rigor required for the publication of scientific work,” citing Groat’s failure to disclose his conflict of interest as the main lapse.
Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/12/10/1308361/tainted-fracking-research-three-strikes-and-yer-out/?mobile=nc
So much for one "scientific" argument for fracking.
6 replies, 2164 views
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Tainted Fracking Research: Three Strikes And Yer Out (Original post)
|Indi Guy||Dec 2012||OP|
|Kelvin Mace||Dec 2012||#3|
Response to maxsolomon (Reply #1)
Mon Dec 10, 2012, 02:17 PM
Tempest (14,187 posts)
2. This is what happened at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks
A professor lost his grant money when the oil industry complained to the university about his work which was detrimental to the oil industry and threatened to withhold future grant money unless he was let go.
Response to Indi Guy (Original post)
Mon Dec 10, 2012, 06:38 PM
Blanks (3,362 posts)
6. Fracking is gonna kill us all.
I say that in every Fracking thread.
What scares me is that they advertise during the news. Who are they trying to convince and what are we trying to convince them of? They don't actually have a consumer product. Kind of like GE advertising the great things that they are doing in the world; why are you telling us this during the news?
If they invested into converting chicken and cow manure into methane gas instead of Fracking they'd be solving multiple problems:
1) Reduce contaminant runoff.
2) Develop an organic fertilizer distribution infrastructure.
3) Not risk poisoning all of the aquifers.
4) Not risk killing us all with earthquakes.
The whole Fracking thing makes no sense to me at all when we have underutilized surface resources that provide better opportunities.