Experts Report Fracking Study is Fatally Flawed

Reflecting transparent biases and cherry picking of information, fracking investigate is “industry rubbish in, attention rubbish out” that does not reason adult to tighten review.

natural gas

The nonprofit Physicians Scientists Engineers for Healthy Energy (PSE) currently released a following corner matter by Profs. Anthony Ingraffea and Robert Howarth, and investigate technician Renee Santoro of Cornell University: “We have analyzed a widely publicized news from a American Petroleum Institute (API) and American Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA) that asserts that methane emissions from a healthy gas zone are 50 percent reduce than US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates.


The Case for a Ban on Fracking

Are a inauspicious environmental and health effects of hydraulic fracturing value a short-term benef…

United States’ Petroleum Demand Dropped in 2008

The American Petroleum Institute reports that direct for wanton oil in a United States forsaken by …

Obama Takes Action on Gas Mileage Standards, Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The boss calls for aloft fuel economy standards and pushes a EPA to revisit California’s re…

MOTHER’s Newsworthies: Robert Redford, Helen Caldicott, Anthony Monde and Helen and Scott Nearing

Learn how Robert Redford, has demonstrated his environmental recognition and created a new book calle…

The investigate relies on a critically injured consult design, totally ignores many other new studies, and would not have upheld peer-review in a systematic journal. In contrariety to this API/ANGA report, a new and design investigate that totalled a whole rate of methane emissions from an radical gas field, a initial of what should turn one of many such studies, demonstrated emissions that were aloft than EPA estimates (Petron et al. 2012).

Fatally Flawed Survey Design

At a core, a API/ANGA investigate is formed on a inequitable survey. Twenty oil and gas companies supposing answers to questions on a sum of a procedures they use to rise and say gas wells. Amazingly, a consult in outcome coached those being questioned, indicating what answers were sought. The cover-page instructions settled that a purpose of a consult was to weigh EPA glimmer estimates. The consult afterwards gave a EPA glimmer estimates so that respondents could sign their answers. Given a outrageous mercantile seductiveness of attention in raised low methane emissions, a stream investigate would have taken stairs to detect and counter-act intensity bias, not blatantly inspire it.

Further, to be valid, a consult contingency be formed on pointless and deputy sampling, though there is no justification that such an proceed was followed. This is an facile statistical blunder and a investigate would not have upheld counterpart examination had this news been submitted to a severe systematic journal. Only a tiny suit of a wells enclosed in a news were shale-gas wells regulating a stream record of high volume, slick-water, plane hydraulic fracturing of mixed prolonged plane good legs.

Cherry Picking of Information 

Beyond a inequitable and non-random sampling of a API/ANGA study, a news is rarely resourceful in a information used. Many times information is ignored, generally ensuing in underestimated methane emissions. For example, a news cites information for a rate of finished wells drilled in 2010, indicating execution rates larger than those used by EPA, though afterwards unsuccessful to use this aloft rate in their emissions accounting. Had they used these aloft execution rates, API/ANGA would have estimated a 64 percent larger rate of methane emissions during execution than EPA has estimated.