My comment on this:
http://eidmarcellus.org/marcellus-shale/digging-deeper-on-the-times-water-contamination-story/
Hah, I think JD Krohn reads my blog. I was just writing about "presumed liability".
The real story is not WHICH cases of water contamination were determined to caused by drilling. We all know that PA DEP is highly managed by PA pro-fracking Governor.
No, there real story is the sheer number of reported cases of water contamination. Only 17% were found to be caused by drilling, and you are calling even those into question. Which is what you are paid to do.
No, the real story is that complaints of water contamination follow fracking wherever it goes.
There is NO SCIENCE involved in these determinations. The distances proscribed by law in the presumed-liability doctrine (1,000' for conventional, 2,500' for unconventional wells) are invented, arbitrary, made up, pulled out of thin air.
I believe the only cases of gas-industry blame are found under this doctrine, and PA DEP is inconsistent, since some of the cases I've inspected SHOULD HAVE fallen under the presumed-liability limits. Which means that PA DEP is not following state law.
But the flipside is that with (for example) Franklin Forks PA, where the distances were greater than those under presumed-liability, then this provides a nice cover for the DEP to say "not guilty", even though if one examines the evidence and the facts (methane at such explosive levels the water well formed a gyser!), it's pretty clear the gas industry WAS to blame.
The thing about science, which I hope to educate people on my side about, is that SCIENCE CAN NEVER establish cause with certainty. You all Spin Doctors/PSYOPS folks at EID know very well. As soon as any positive "determination" is made, you will find way to "debunk" it, or discredit the person who said it, forever.
The establishment of cause is probabilistic and requires subjective determination.
On one hand, EID argues that scientists, expert regulators, and academics are the only people qualified to practice science, in interpreting the facts. Everything else is just hearsay and anecdotes from unqualified lay people.
On the other hand, when these experts and scientists happen to make statements of Big Energy, suddenly you change you tune and argue something different.
You're like the kid who didn't do his homework, and makes all kinds of contradictory excuses to the teacher. "I didn't know we had an assignment!!". Next moment, "I was sick last night!" Next, "My dog at it!!".
Sheesh/Lame.
BH
--
--
May you, and all beings
be happy and free from suffering :)
-- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)
http://eidmarcellus.org/marcellus-shale/digging-deeper-on-the-times-water-contamination-story/
Hah, I think JD Krohn reads my blog. I was just writing about "presumed liability".
The real story is not WHICH cases of water contamination were determined to caused by drilling. We all know that PA DEP is highly managed by PA pro-fracking Governor.
No, there real story is the sheer number of reported cases of water contamination. Only 17% were found to be caused by drilling, and you are calling even those into question. Which is what you are paid to do.
No, the real story is that complaints of water contamination follow fracking wherever it goes.
There is NO SCIENCE involved in these determinations. The distances proscribed by law in the presumed-liability doctrine (1,000' for conventional, 2,500' for unconventional wells) are invented, arbitrary, made up, pulled out of thin air.
I believe the only cases of gas-industry blame are found under this doctrine, and PA DEP is inconsistent, since some of the cases I've inspected SHOULD HAVE fallen under the presumed-liability limits. Which means that PA DEP is not following state law.
But the flipside is that with (for example) Franklin Forks PA, where the distances were greater than those under presumed-liability, then this provides a nice cover for the DEP to say "not guilty", even though if one examines the evidence and the facts (methane at such explosive levels the water well formed a gyser!), it's pretty clear the gas industry WAS to blame.
The thing about science, which I hope to educate people on my side about, is that SCIENCE CAN NEVER establish cause with certainty. You all Spin Doctors/PSYOPS folks at EID know very well. As soon as any positive "determination" is made, you will find way to "debunk" it, or discredit the person who said it, forever.
The establishment of cause is probabilistic and requires subjective determination.
On one hand, EID argues that scientists, expert regulators, and academics are the only people qualified to practice science, in interpreting the facts. Everything else is just hearsay and anecdotes from unqualified lay people.
On the other hand, when these experts and scientists happen to make statements of Big Energy, suddenly you change you tune and argue something different.
You're like the kid who didn't do his homework, and makes all kinds of contradictory excuses to the teacher. "I didn't know we had an assignment!!". Next moment, "I was sick last night!" Next, "My dog at it!!".
Sheesh/Lame.
BH
--
--
May you, and all beings
be happy and free from suffering :)
-- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)
No comments:
Post a Comment