Perhaps some of you self proclaimed O&G experts could explain if the hydraulic fracturing (fracking) done in the Bakkens for oil is any different than what they do in PA's Marcellus shale for Natural Gas. It sounds like there is federal legislation on its way to address this water contamination issue. I also heard that a non toxic alternative to the fracking fluid is being researched. Not sure if there is a good nontoxic substitute just yet. Anyone know?
UPDATE 3-Chesapeake handed record fine for Penn. gas drilling
Please do sand, I think some of you guys see what you want to see, "confirmation bias", stockmonger especially, you, Jack, boepd and ivc, to lesser extent all have been doing this, there has been a some paranoia on this board. I should know that by know about these forums, you can't have reasonable discussions, because of the distorted view points.
Find me something I posted that is "materially false" and if you don't know the difference between statements that are materially false and opinions, then brush up on your legal understanding, and don't take something I wrote out of context either.
Research design is my specialty.
The Cornell fails the basic population sampling requirements for generalizing with reliability to the population it purports to represent.
The study suffers greatly from lack of representitive sampling that should have been achieved thru careful selection of adequate sized samples from wells classified by their major types, or better yet, a sufficient size representative random sampling (randomization is preferred, because classifications may themselves contain biases).
Unfortunately, the sample size is small, not random, and not representative of the varieties of locations and use of latest technologies.
Not junk science, but poor research methodology. PBS was of course happy to convey that even nat gas is not better for the environment than unaffordable Green tech.
"But now a study from Cornell University is shedding doubt on those claims. The researchers agree that natural gas produces fewer greenhouse gases and toxins than coal when burned, but lead author Robert Howarth says you also have to count how much natural gas or methane escapes from new, unconventional production techniques.
Mr. ROBERT HOWARTH (Ecologist): So when you throw in this methane leakage and look at the entire greenhouse gas footprint, our conclusion is that the natural gas actually has a larger greenhouse gas footprint than even coal. It's not a clean fuel at all in that regard."
Oh and you longs don't express opinions and speculate and hype what is going on. Jack you are full of it. I think you are just sore that you are losing money on you NOG investment, and are looking for someone to blame.
Which part is incorrect Sand? I challenge you. As far as I can tell, I have posted nothing but truth on this forum, a few questions, yes some speculation and opinions which are based on the evidence as I see it. I think you guys are confusing the expression of opinions or speculation with "material facts". Opinions are always protected as free speech, the only people that get in trouble posting is those that post "materially false information intentionally", show me where I have posted "materially false information". I dare you.
jamesis, just more negative claims.
I think that it is incorrect, but will double-check later.
This post will interest you:
Read all of it to see that some small companies are fighting back against false negative claims by posters and winning, in addition to that "nut" that you mentioned.
Everyone already knows that you are short and seek whatever you can find to post that is negative, so please post some link to substantiate you claim.