I highlighted a video produced by Reason.tv entitled "The Truth About Fracking". It's is a simple interview style video that endeavors to give science correspondent Ronald Bailey a chance to discuss hydraulic fracturing. It didn't take long for commenter du jour, Tlaloc to have his say in the comments. I quote,
"Given that Reason is hardcore libertarian propaganda and that Bailey is strongly involved with both the CEI and AEI (huge purveyors of corporate propaganda) I’m pretty sure I can guess what the video says.
Here’s the thing, if the science of fracking is convincing why do you have to parade these shills to say it? Where are the respectable scientists?"
Now I don't think I would catagorize Reason as hardcore libertarian propaganda, but the description is useful to point out what those who support hydraulic fracturing are up against. I responded with the example of Taury Smith, New York state geologist, who spoke up in March 2011 saying, "The worst spin on the worst incidents are treated as if it's going to be the norm here,...this could really help us fight climate change; this is a huge gift, this shale." The article continues,
He said he has been examining the science of hydrofracturing the shale for three years and has found no cases in which the process has led to groundwater contamination, although several portrayals by anti-fracking groups and featured in the press have raised concerns about underground pools being harmed because of drilling.
"Those are exaggerated problems; each incident wasn't the result of hydro-fracking. There were incidents of groundwater contamination near frack sites, but they were unrelated," Smith said. He said the industry should be strictly monitored by the Department of Environmental Conservation, and should be encouraged to move the nation away from coal-fired power and to the more environmentally friendly natural gas.
"I'm for a strong regulation by DEC. They have no vested interest. The environmental groups have a vested interest. The companies have a huge profit at stake, so I wouldn't trust them either," Smith, who works for the State Museum said. "If there's one group you can trust it's the DEC."
Does it matter that "Smith, who has worked for the state for nearly 11 years, disclosed on the Ammonite website that he has done and does consulting for Saudi Aramco, Angola LNG, Shell, Texaco, Repsol, Devon, Encana and other clients", or that "None of the companies named have applied for the rights to drill in the Marcellus formation, according to state data." For many it matters a great deal.
For his trouble people like my commenter friend labels Mr. Smith and others like him as liars who will be treated as such.
My suspicion is that there aren't many geologist's around. It would also be my suspicion that many of these geologist's were in some consulting capacity for a number of energy, oil, and gas companies. It seems like a great job for a geologist to have and would be very surprising and disconcerting to me if these companies weren't asking experts in the field for their thoughts and perspectives prior to investing billions of dollars into the crazy notion of drilling into the ground almost a mile to find a thin layer of shale. Really, doesn't that sound a lot more unreasonable?
This is nothing new. It matters little that Taury Smith is an expert in the field or that he is a self expressed environmental democrat. It only matters that he hasn't catagorically impugned the natural gas industry as evil and hydraulic fracturing as an unsafe technique that will spoil our water, radiate our children and disrupt everyone's endocrine system.
For lots more background on Taury Smith follow the link.
Perhaps the most troubling thing here is the complete and utter hypocrisy demonstrated by those suffering from a profound and severe case of frackophobia. I wondered aloud if Mr. Tlaloc would hold those who oppose hydraulic fracturing to the same standard.
Does it concern you at all that the lead author of the Cornell Methane study is a fierce and vocal supporter of the anti-fracking agenda? Or that one of the few on the record references in the NYT expose over the weekend, Deborah Rogers, was a featured speaker at OGAP’s “People’s Oil and Gas Summit” in Pittsburgh, even directing her own anti-shale group in Texas to pitch in as a sponsor for the event.
By your own standard this delegitimizes a major expose in the NYT Sunday edition and a scientific peer reviewed study.
If anyone is interested, the conflicts of interest doesn't concern my commenter friend in the least.
By their own standards the Cornell methane study, the Duke gas migration study, the recent NYT expose from Sunday June 26 and the NYT piece on radiation contamination of fracking fluid would be considered a null event. Articles like this one from the Stuart Smith Blog should never be considered or read. You see, Mr. Smith is a lawyer whose job it is to fight "major oil companies and polluters". Because he has a financial interest in the prohibition of energy production his opinions on the topic are not to be considered worthy of consideration, when in reality his opinions are demonstrably wrong because of the science.
Tlaloc and others set a very dangerous precedent. Doubtless, it is a precedent that has been set long ago, but one I am only beginning to become aware of. To invalidate expert opinion because of a perceived conflict of interest is to bring into doubt the very integrity of the individual.
No comments:
Post a Comment