Why should EPA have any authority in regulating Wyomng gas production? The Constitution says this is strictly a state matter.
“Why should EPA have any authority in regulating Wyoming gas production? The Constitution says this is strictly a state matter.”
There, in two short sentences, you see the single biggest problem in the United States. Division of responsibility and no one is in charge.
You have a president who can trigger a nuclear war but can’t settle a small trade dispute.
“indicates that ground water in the aquifer contains compounds likely associated with gas production practices, including hydraulic fracturing.”
“Indicates”, “likely”. When you read a report containing those words,you can safely assume it’s bias.
You can also see that such a report didn’t find conclusive evidence of what it wanted to find.
The only reason a study is dropped is that it does not prove the foregone conclusion. The Germans were doing a study on how the oilsands were destroying planet earth. The study was dropped, I assume because it was becoming apparent that oilsands oil is not different from other heavy oil produced in larger quantities around the world.
Before drawing any conclusions, I would examine the raw data, examine the methodology and test procedures used to obtain that data, and examine the credibility of the laboratory analyzing the samples. Most make the fatal mistake of overlooking the above and presume the data is absolute. However, only God knows the true unknown value of these compounds. I know from personal experience as an analytical chemist that numbers are often incorrect. Is it a false positive or a false negative? Statistically is there difference between results? Is it below the detection limit of the method? Has the result been verified by different laboratories? These and other questions need to be answered before agreeing or disagreeing with the conclusions.
It’s what I refer to as “directed research”….intended to prove a desired result rather than investigate.
Despite the direction, the researchers couldn’t produce the desired result (“hide the decline”), so the study was deemed inconclusive……..
Generally considered caught lyin’.
Doug – what the EPA does is not science; it is the sole judge of the quality of its studies, as it has sovereign authority to issue rules with the force of law.
***TRANSLATION***
We still believe that fracking leads to water pollution but we don’t want to be held responsible for providing the truth that we’re full of sh*$#t.
A couple of “on the other hands” from the article —
The EPA said it stands by its work but that it would now support further study led by the state of Wyoming.
&
The EPA, for its part, is in the midst of a separate and far more wide-ranging study on the relationship between fracking and drinking water in various regions of the country, which it plans to release in draft form in late 2014.
// Why should EPA have any authority in regulating Wyomng gas production? The Constitution says this is strictly a state matter. //
Probably for the same reason that Obama gets to sign off on the Keystone pipeline.
dizzy:
When you say the same reason, I’m assuming you are implying jurisdiction.
Keystone is a federal matter because it involved international trade ie Canadian oil heading into the USA.
The Wyoming study may well come to the same conclusion about fracking chemicals in the drinking water.
The EPA has a job to do, and I don’t think that it’s science.
There’s a mining company looking to develop a property in Alaska. Their site is upstream of a major salmon river. The EPA did a “study” to see what the effects of mining would be on the salmon. They used a mine and spoiling plan that would never be approved. Their theoretical plan resulted in theoretical massive acid rock runoff into the river, killing the theoretical future fishery. QED, mining is bad. The EPA essentially called for a moratorium on any mining upstream of the fishery, on the basis of massive harm caused by bad methodology. The company looked at the EPA’s plan, and basically has said “that’s nice, our real plan comes out next year, complete with all the modern designs and innovations required for a permit that your theoretical mine somehow managed to avoid included. We’ll talk with you then, but thanks for a very expensive laugh. What’s funny? Your knowledge of our industry.” It makes me wish I had sold off all of their stock a couple of years ago, but I was betting that Obama would lose the re-election.
To summarize: EPA sees a business wanting to start. EPA uses bad techniques and methods to show how bad business is. EPA tests “business” case with illegal methodologies, and finds it fails. EPA condemns business and advises that they not be allowed to develop.
That sound you hear is Lizzie May screaming . . .
Why should EPA have any authority in regulating Wyomng gas production? The Constitution says this is strictly a state matter.
“Why should EPA have any authority in regulating Wyoming gas production? The Constitution says this is strictly a state matter.”
There, in two short sentences, you see the single biggest problem in the United States. Division of responsibility and no one is in charge.
You have a president who can trigger a nuclear war but can’t settle a small trade dispute.
“indicates that ground water in the aquifer contains compounds likely associated with gas production practices, including hydraulic fracturing.”
“Indicates”, “likely”. When you read a report containing those words,you can safely assume it’s bias.
You can also see that such a report didn’t find conclusive evidence of what it wanted to find.
The only reason a study is dropped is that it does not prove the foregone conclusion. The Germans were doing a study on how the oilsands were destroying planet earth. The study was dropped, I assume because it was becoming apparent that oilsands oil is not different from other heavy oil produced in larger quantities around the world.
Before drawing any conclusions, I would examine the raw data, examine the methodology and test procedures used to obtain that data, and examine the credibility of the laboratory analyzing the samples. Most make the fatal mistake of overlooking the above and presume the data is absolute. However, only God knows the true unknown value of these compounds. I know from personal experience as an analytical chemist that numbers are often incorrect. Is it a false positive or a false negative? Statistically is there difference between results? Is it below the detection limit of the method? Has the result been verified by different laboratories? These and other questions need to be answered before agreeing or disagreeing with the conclusions.
It’s what I refer to as “directed research”….intended to prove a desired result rather than investigate.
Despite the direction, the researchers couldn’t produce the desired result (“hide the decline”), so the study was deemed inconclusive……..
Generally considered caught lyin’.
Doug – what the EPA does is not science; it is the sole judge of the quality of its studies, as it has sovereign authority to issue rules with the force of law.
***TRANSLATION***
We still believe that fracking leads to water pollution but we don’t want to be held responsible for providing the truth that we’re full of sh*$#t.
A couple of “on the other hands” from the article —
The EPA said it stands by its work but that it would now support further study led by the state of Wyoming.
&
The EPA, for its part, is in the midst of a separate and far more wide-ranging study on the relationship between fracking and drinking water in various regions of the country, which it plans to release in draft form in late 2014.
// Why should EPA have any authority in regulating Wyomng gas production? The Constitution says this is strictly a state matter. //
Probably for the same reason that Obama gets to sign off on the Keystone pipeline.
dizzy:
When you say the same reason, I’m assuming you are implying jurisdiction.
Keystone is a federal matter because it involved international trade ie Canadian oil heading into the USA.
The Wyoming study may well come to the same conclusion about fracking chemicals in the drinking water.
The EPA has a job to do, and I don’t think that it’s science.
There’s a mining company looking to develop a property in Alaska. Their site is upstream of a major salmon river. The EPA did a “study” to see what the effects of mining would be on the salmon. They used a mine and spoiling plan that would never be approved. Their theoretical plan resulted in theoretical massive acid rock runoff into the river, killing the theoretical future fishery. QED, mining is bad. The EPA essentially called for a moratorium on any mining upstream of the fishery, on the basis of massive harm caused by bad methodology. The company looked at the EPA’s plan, and basically has said “that’s nice, our real plan comes out next year, complete with all the modern designs and innovations required for a permit that your theoretical mine somehow managed to avoid included. We’ll talk with you then, but thanks for a very expensive laugh. What’s funny? Your knowledge of our industry.” It makes me wish I had sold off all of their stock a couple of years ago, but I was betting that Obama would lose the re-election.
To summarize: EPA sees a business wanting to start. EPA uses bad techniques and methods to show how bad business is. EPA tests “business” case with illegal methodologies, and finds it fails. EPA condemns business and advises that they not be allowed to develop.