Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Hopeful About Natural Gas on August 31, 2012 at 8:04

I expect people who are knowledgeable enough to work on shale have some connection to the industry.  You can't just pick up this knowledge by reading or going to school alone.  You have to work in the field.

 

That said, he should have disclosed this interest in CHK!  A good report has been tainted by his not telling what about his connection to CHK.  That is so foolish!  His interest in CHK is public record and can be found by any of us.  It was bound to be noticed! GRRRRRRR ....

 

 

 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hopeful About Natural Gas on August 31, 2012 at 21:16

Huh? PXP?  You sure?  Oh well, CKK, PXP, NBC ... they all make me say GRRRRR!!

 

But, seriously, wasn't it peer review where the Cornell study that was anti-gas broke down?  Or, was it that that prof's work was funded by coal companies and all his data used the most futuristic polution control ideas while using data from old natgas drillers that (I think) was from older conventional drilling - not newly fracked wells. I think that's where the Cornell study had it's problems - trying to look good for the coal industry. He would have been caught by peer review - except he bypassed it at Cornell and another prof outted him (yeah!)

 

I haven't followed the Texas study except on GHS.  Is there anything improper other than the prof did not disclose his income and affiliations?  All I want to know is the data sound or did he bypass peer review too?  Is this UT study based on good science or was he trying to help the natgas industry as the professor at Cornell seems to have wanted to help the coal industry.

 

To me failing to disclose your affiliations is a speeding ticket compared to avoiding peer review because he's using cooked up numbers (like I think the Cornel study did)  I just want to know the Texas study was based on good science. I don't care who he shares boardrooms with or who he shares bedrooms with (unless he's trying to sleep with my wife)

 

PS: that was the core issue in the Cornell study?  He used the brightest "clean coal" projections and the oldest, dirtiest natgas data he could find. I think that was the core problem with his study and why he tryed to bypass peer review. Does anyone else recall anything else?

  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hopeful About Natural Gas on September 1, 2012 at 14:40

actually seasport, it's GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!

 

 

Didn't we all learn in kindergarden that Honesty is the Best Policy?  This UT prof has really whizzed me off! We were all enthused by his study that was good for fracking. I started the 25 page pubic study, but it does take time to digest. Maybe you could post something about what it says - let's see how high my blood pressure can get ....

 

Folks, read the first link from Bloomberg (a very pro frac source) It's unbelievable what this guy thought he could get away with! He's paid over 100,000 a year to sit on their board - and he also owns 1.6 MILLION shares of stock - and he is paid $58K extra per year for smiling from this one natgas company. Outrageous!!

 

This prof has made us all look bad. When this study came out it was touted as "independent" and "peer reviewed" - none of which was true in any real world sense. I work in a university and I take seriously when research has our name on it. Believe it or not a lot of people in universities are seriously committed to research.

 

And, I am fine with industry giving colleges money and being upfront with research they want to see done. What crosses the line for me is when those ties are hidden and when it looks like industry is buying research findings. I just want to know the science is valid no matter who funds the study or their personal goals.

 

PS: I'd be real interested in the comments from people who read the second link - the study that studied the study that failed.

 

http://public-accountability.org/wp-content/uploads/ContaminatedInq...

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hopeful About Natural Gas on September 2, 2012 at 11:08

high blood pressure is the least of my worries! LOL!

 

seriously, it does not take much more than a small amount of medication and I can eat an entire shaker full of salt (sea) and wash it down with a large Gatoraide! 

 

life really not worth living if you cannot have salt. Besides, I quit cig smoking, but that was more for social reasons than health. While I can smell better, I don't feel any better - that's a rook that you feel better after quitting cigs - perhaps in a few years - but not in the first 5 months, I can testify to that! LOL!

 

I read the obits daily looking for people in the local history I follow.  You would be shocked at the numbers of young people who die. I no longer think diet has a huge amount to do with living a long time - or at least it's not worth the risk of passing up all those great foods like bacon!

 

but, thanks for being concerned about my health - most people in my family just want to know how soon I am going to die ...

 

• ▶ Reply