Alternative explanations were carefully considered to explain individual sets of data. However, when considered together with other lines of evidence, the data indicates likely impact to ground water that can be explained by hydraulic fracturing.

Here's that big EPA report on fracking and ground-water pollution.

Industry pushback was instantaneous, so I guess it's OK to start drilling holes in North Carolina now.

Comments

[sean]

don't you know that the EPA is a bogus agency whose goal is to disrupt the advancement of our economy?

[Bill Yaner]

I saw a commercial on TV that said the process was perfectly safe! What gives??

[bubba]

Ah yes, the "science is settled!" talking point comes to the Fracking Hysteria crowd.

Too bad none of you hysterics will ever consider some common sense on the subject.

Excerpt:

"Call it a sign of the 'Times,' let’s say, that less than 24 hours removed from the release of EPA Region 8’s report on groundwater sampling near Pavillion, Wyo., nearly a thousand different news stories have been generated — in 12 different countries, and best we can tell, four different languages. But set aside the breathless headlines for a moment and the triumphant quotes from a small segment of folks committed to ending the responsible development of natural gas, and one’s left with a pretty straightforward question: Is EPA right? And if so, what exactly does that mean moving forward?

Of course, before you can answer the second question, it’d be helpful if you had a good answer for the first. And the truth is, as we sit here today, less than 20 hours A.P. (After Pavillion), we simply don’t. What we do know, however, even at these early stages, is that several of the assertions put forth in EPA’s report yesterday don’t quite square with the facts as they actually exist on the ground out there. Because of that, a number of folks are starting to ask some pretty basic questions about what the agency found and how it went about finding it."

I like what WY Governor Mead had to say on the subject:
"Governor Matt Mead said today that the Environmental Protection Agency’s draft study on Pavillion wells is scientifically questionable and more testing is needed.

'We believe that the draft study could have a critical impact on the energy industry and on the country so it is imperative that we not make conclusions based on only four data points,' Governor Mead said. 'Those familiar with the scientific method recognize that it would not be appropriate to make a judgment without verifying all of the testing that has been done.' "

I know that won't satisfy those who love to practice hysteric buffoonery on this subject, but fortunately there are still some of us around to act like adults in matters of this nature so the the hysterics remain under control.

It's a very similar to the way to handle the the Occupy nonsense we've experienced around the nation lately.

[Ed Cone]

Bob, you do realize that your link ("none of you hysterics will ever consider some common sense on the subject") is in fact the same link included in my post, right?

[Billy Jones]

"Bob, you do realize that your link ("none of you hysterics will ever consider some common sense on the subject") is in fact the same link included in my post, right?"

Bob hasn't the time to actually look at what you're linking to as he's too busy jerking off knee jerking.

[Bill Yaner]

Well there you go, Ed - getting hysterical already!

Maybe bubba double linked it as his way of saying, "Good job of showing both sides."

[bubba]

"Bob, you do realize that your link ("none of you hysterics will ever consider some common sense on the subject") is in fact the same link included in my post, right?"

You do realize I used it again, and excerpted the appropriate sections to give a little balance to your always unbalanced opinion, don't you?

You do understand that your choice of excerpted content was, to say the least, misleading, don't you?

You do realize that the language and tone you chose to use in your post gave a different opinion than that rendered in the link, don't you?

You do realize that your "Industry pushback was instantaneous, so I guess it's OK to start drilling holes in North Carolina now", your typical smarmy remark on subjects like this, ignored the substance in the link, don't you?

Maybe not. Maybe you are as shallow as your words make you out to be.

[Bill Yaner]

I guess he wasn't saying "Good job of showing both sides.". It was just a theory.

[bubba]

"It was just a theory."

That would have required him to provide something like excerpted the portion of the link that I did in order to "show both sides".

He obviously did not, to no one's great surprise..

[sean]

bubba reminds me of uncle ruckus from the boondocks, though instead of fawning over the white man, he fawns over anything related to big business doing whatever the eff they want, especially if it hurts his fellow humans.

i know, i know, i just painted bubba as a human being. i'm such a bleeding heart liberal.

[David Hoggard]

If the prevailing science is agin' it, count on bubba being fer it. It is just how arch-conservatives roll these days. It is their new badge of honor system that started with evolution denial.

[Billy Jones]

David Hoggard, "If the prevailing science is agin' it, count on bubba being fer it. It is just how arch-conservatives roll these days. It is their new badge of honor system that started with evolution denial."

Naw David, the arch-conservatives have been like this forever: the sun spins 'round the earth, the earth is flat, man will never fly and dinosaurs never became extinct.

Oh wait, they might be right about that last one. After all, Bubba is still here.

[Fred Gregory]

More unsupported hysteria over fracking

" Fracking was first used in Oklahoma in the 1940s and in the years since has been employed in more than a million oil and gas wells across the nation. There is not a single independently documented instance of groundwater contamination by fracking anywhere in the country, a fact that was confirmed as recently as May by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson during congressional testimony...

...The next two sentences in the EPA announcement quoted in the opening paragraph state: "EPA also re-tested private and public drinking water wells in the community. The samples were consistent with chemicals identified in earlier EPA results released in 2010 and are generally below established health and safety standards." By "below," the EPA means that chemicals in the groundwater do not exceed acceptable health and safety standards.

...The facts remain as they were stated by Jackson in May."

Period !

[Bill Bush]

Don't worry. We will be protected from any problems by our fine laws and safety guarantees.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/10/opinion/for-29-dead-miners-no-justice.html

[bubba]

"The facts remain as they were stated by Jackson in May."

Stop making sense, Fred.......you know that's frowned upon here, particularly on this and other hysterical agenda item subjects.

Just ask the "experts" above. They'll tell you that.

[polifrog]

If the prevailing science is agin' it, count on bubba being fer it. It is just how arch-conservatives roll these days. It is their new badge of honor system that started with evolution denial.

Recognition that science (see global warming) has been compromised by leftist politicization in much the same way academia (recall the bizarre statistical stylings of Brod), media, and popular culture have been compromised is wise.

Two common themes have arisen.

The first has been the denial of that politicization by the gullible left.

The second has been the appropriate rise of skepticism in media, academia, and most recently "science" on the right.

I find skepticism is far more scientific than gullible acceptance.

[Steve Harrison]

Well, if the Washington Examiner says so... :)

Dude, the guy that owns that paper is up to his arse in oil & gas money, and is steadily poking holes in the gound as we speak:

Anschutz Exploration Corporation, a company of 30 experienced professionals, currently has active exploration or production projects in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming. Two drilling rigs are under long-term contract in North Dakota, and drilling projects are planned for 2010 in all six states.

Every well that AEC drills is a directional or horizontal well designed to accommodate surface land use issues, to access the target horizon in the optimum manner or to attain the best reservoir performance. All these factors are considered in well and production facility design.

If you don't see a conflict of interest there, you might want to go ahead and get your name on the waiting list for a seeing-eye dog.

[polifrog]

Steve, what are suggesting?

[Andrew Brod]

"Bizarre statistical stylings of Brod."

Or as most of us understand it, simple data analysis that contradicts Frog's preconceived notions.

Look, I'm sorry the data hurt your feelings, but I'm just the messenger.

[Ed Cone]

Keeping a watchful eye on the plans of moneyed interests is almost as basic an idea as making sure we have clean, plentiful water.

The extraction industry recently has been forced to move toward transparency. That's a good thing. Let's keep it up.

The same industry says its wells are safe -- if done right.

Examining the first claim, and enforcing the second, is sound policy.

There's no hurry to frack in NC, especially given current market conditions. And it's hard to see how a rush to allow fracking benefits the people of this state.

[polifrog]

Andrew Brod:

Or as most of us understand it, simple data analysis that contradicts Frog's preconceived notions.

No. As anyone with common sense recognizes, you used the wrong statistical tool.

You reached into your statistical toolbox and pulled out politics played out on a statistical stage.

[polifrog]

Ed:

There's no hurry to frack in NC, especially given current market conditions. And it's hard to see how a rush to allow fracking benefits the people of this state.

Self fulfilling, no?

Blocking progress results in ... no benefits.

[Ed Cone]

Not sure what you mean by self-fulfilling, it's just sound policy and economics -- the market is in no great hurry for our gas, so we have time to make sure that any extraction is done safely and at a point that pays our people the best prices.

[Andrew Brod]

Ed, I'm not sure what you mean by "no great hurry." Natural gas prices are down since the beginning of this year, but they're double what they were in 2000 and I expect us to return to the upward trend soon enough.

In any case, the real question for North Carolinians is the reverse: whether we're in a great hurry to meet demand. Fracking may ruin our groundwater but it'll also create some jobs, and in this economy that'll tip the balance for a lot of people.

[Andrew Brod]

Frog, I don't doubt that your common sense leads you to think that I "use the wrong statistical tools." That's the problem. Common sense works less well in this particular economy than in a regular one.

In most instances, the limitations of common sense lead us to turn to people with training. But in recent years, when conservative politics is involved, it's just the opposite... at least among conservatives. C'est la guerre.

[polifrog]

Andrew Brod:

In most instances, the limitations of common sense lead us to turn to people with training. But in recent years, when conservative politics is involved, it's just the opposite... at least among conservatives.

You can not be more wrong. Whereas for 75 years the nation has tried your "common sense" strategy of growth through spending incentives and now finds itself in a deflating bubble that requires the opposite, your "common sense" dictates increasing spending incentives.

True common sense, though, dictates learning from that failure. You don't, hence you are ignored by conservatives.

The same is true in your application of statics. Your biases demean your training. You devalue yourself with your biases.

As for my common sense leading me to think. Well, yes it does.

[Fred Gregory]

Game.. Set.. Match

[Ed Cone]

AB, I expect the present relatively low prices to increase over time, as you say, so it's not like we have to rush to catch a boom.

Given that NC needs a hard look at dusty laws and regs in this area (including protections for land-owners), and that progress toward safety standards and industry transparency is just now gaining momentum, moving at a deliberate pace makes more sense to me than the GOP plan of drilling yesterday.

Frog, your economic history is selective at best. The last 75 years were not an unbroken skein, they were punctuated dramatically by events (eg, massive dereg of the financial industry in the Clinton/Bush era) and processes (eg, globalization), and I think most people would say in any case that the average American is much better off in many ways now than in 1936, so your whole construct seems seriously flawed from the start.

[Account Deleted]

From a fundraising letter I received today from Pat McCrory:

"It's time for a new approach, and I believe that North Carolina can get back on track by:

1. Getting into the energy business: One of America's great blessings is the combination of abundant and diverse energy and the technology to harvest it in an environmentally responsible way that will not only decrease our dependence on foreign oil, but will create jobs here, now."

Point two is "doing more with less in government" and point three is "reducing the red tape and regulations that are paralyzing job creators."

So I definitely believe that energy jobs will be the number on theme of the coming 2012 governor's race. I had a recent conversation with a state legislator about fracking and he said that North Carolina should model itself after the Dakotas because they have two percent unemployment.

[polifrog]

Ed:

...I expect the present relatively low prices to increase over time, as you say, so it's not like we have to rush to catch a boom.

But what of those individuals in locals benefiting from fracking who can now afford broadband while many in NC must do without while we ... lollygag?

Do you propose that we in forgoing the benefits of fracking should embrace the benefits of government spending to close the gap between their access to broadband and our resulting lack?

Wouldn't it be best to simply allow people to, you know, work.

[cheripickr]

Ed:

...I expect the present relatively low prices to increase over time, as you say, so it's not like we have to rush to catch a boom.
But what of those individuals in locals benefiting from fracking who can now afford broadband while many in NC must do without while we ... lollygag?

Poli: But what of those individuals in locales benefiting from fracking who can now afford broadband while many in NC must do without while we ... lollygag?

Do you propose that we in forgoing the benefits of fracking should embrace the benefits of government spending to close the gap between their access to broadband and our resulting lack?

Not just game-set-match but Checkmate. Ouch! I think I would close shop on that one.

[Andrew Brod]

Frog: "The same is true in your application of statics. Your biases demean your training. You devalue yourself with your biases."

You mean statistics.

In fact, I don't have the biases you think I do (of course I have some, but you're wrong about what they are). A priori, I don't care whether we have big or small government, high or low taxes, active or passive government, fracking or no fracking. What I want is what works.

But because your kind of conservative (fortunately, not all conservatives are like you) comes at every issue with an agenda, the only way you can understand someone who disagrees with you is to presume that he or she has an opposing agenda. That not everyone has an agenda is unfathomable to you. That some people don't use data to confirm a preconceived opinion is unbelievable to you.

For some reason, Frog inserted me into this thread. I'll step out and let Frog do his thing without interference.

[bubba]

"What I want is what works."

What you advocate for policy doesn't.

[bubba]

"C'est la guerre."

....which, fortunately,your side is losing.

Time to change strategy, Arnold.

[Steve Harrison]

"Steve, what are you suggesting?"

For you froggie, I'd suggest a Labrador retriever. They're patient yet persistent, and should keep you from walking in front of a bus.

[polifrog]

Andrew Brod:

A priori, I don't care whether we have big or small government, high or low taxes, active or passive government, fracking or no fracking. What I want is what works.

Perhaps it is not your biases I sense. I believe you when you say you want what works and I believe you believe the arguments you make. And although you may feel your biases are negligible (I accept your assessment of that), have you posed the same question of those who fashioned the theories and arguments you've adopted?

I generally believe wealth results from saving. It is logical, intuitive, rational ... common sense. This requires no intellectual argumentation.

You generally believe wealth results from spending at inopportune times. This is not, intuitive or reliant on common sense, yet a logical and intellectual argument can be made for it. In choosing this route you have accepted the intellectual, rational argument of others while jettisoning your own common sense and intuition. That is a mighty big gift to individuals of whose biases you will never divine.

If you yourself are unbiased yet find yourself repeatedly on one side of an argument as a result of theory, perhaps the theory is biased or perhaps those who fashioned the theory were biased. Perhaps your very real sense of objectivity is illusory.

I happened to stumble into this today:

Why shouldn’t you touch a hot stove? There’s no complex, smart answer to that. You’ll get roughly the same answer from Stephen Hawking that you’d get from Forrest Gump: It’s hot, and it will hurt.

But say you were going to argue that you should touch a hot stove. That would have to be a very complex answer, since it defies basic logic. And some people could run with that, talking in detail about pain receptors and the brain’s reaction to stimulus, and come up with a very smart-sounding argument on why touching a hot stove is a great idea.

Others will go further and mock all those ignorant people in the flyover states for their irrational fear of hot stoves and announce, “The most enlightened thing to do is to press one’s face against a hot stove.” Those people are what we call intellectuals.

Similarly, when someone comes up with a well-reasoned argument backed by top economists that two plus two equals five, there’s no brilliant way to refute it. The only response is: “No, you’re an idiot; it’s four.” But if you say that, you’ll be called anti-smart people.

[David Hoggard]

Every one is wrong on things like this except those who are typing at the time.

Let none of you be best, but if you are so, let you be so among others who could give a damn.

[sean]

^ +2

[Ed Cone]

Sorry if the pricing point wasn't clear, it's a sidebar argument and has no direct bearing on whether or when NC should allow fracking -- that question should be determined by the environmental info and the status of our antiquated regulations.

[bubba]

".....and the status of our antiquated regulations."

....says the self-appointed supposedly dis-interested arbiter and authority on matters of this sort.

There are quite a few who know better than to pay any credence to the quoted opinion.

[Fred Gregory]

Lookit, Bubba, the crusading anti fracking knight waited two days before posting another don't rush hysteria item . Do you think he really EVAR wants to " punch holes in the ground " ? Not hardly.

Wonder how he stands on the Keystone pipeline ? It is the most studied project in the history of mankind but Ed's moron in the WH is appeasing the whacko enviros like himself. That sucking sound you just heard was 20,000 jobs vanishing. Sheesh !!!!!!