PennEnvironment Report Bites the Dust
Posted in the Natural Gas Forum
#1 Oct 15, 2012
We laid the foundations for analyzing the report “The Costs of Fracking” in Part I of this series. Now we’ll delve further into this 49-page paper from a group caught twice using fabricated imagery to stimulate a negative response against natural gas development.
This report is riddled with misleading information and assumptions. One of the most widely inappropriate parts of this study was the authors took information from across the country and tried to generically apply every situation to every state by releasing it under individual state organizations. This was problematic because it assumes regulations, geography, practices and other circumstances are the same across the board, when the reality is they can, and often do, vary greatly from state to state. We’ll focus on some of the bigger ones and invite you to read the whole report and cited studies within to determine for yourself what the risks and benefits associated with natural gas development are.
Add your comments below
|Inside The Herald - If a community is only wort... (Jan '08)||Sep 18||why Herald MIA||56|
|TranCanada donates $200K to rink expansion project (Nov '12)||Sep 12||Meanwhile||11|
|Power generating station beginning to take shape (Jan '08)||Sep 8||did NEB approve p...||132|
|Private natural gas well (Jan '06)||Sep 6||Emy||788|
|methane gas q and a||Aug '17||Coalreaper311||1|
|Oil companies are just not that into Keystone XL.||Jul '17||George S||1|
|Resistance That Won't Quit: A Timeline of the K...||Jun '17||Eric V||1|
Find what you want!
Search Natural Gas Forum Now
Copyright © 2017 Topix LLC