A Look at Shale Gas and Climate Destabilization

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

AndyH

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 23, 2010
Messages
6,388
Location
San Antonio
Which is better for the environment - shale gas, conventional gas, coal, or diesel?

This video talk includes an excellent look at hydraulic fracturing and how conventional gas and shale gas production differs.

http://shaleshockmedia.org/2011/03/31/marcellus-shale-gas-and-global-warming/

March 15, 2011. Developing Natural Gas in the Marcellus and other Shale Formations is likely to Aggravate Global Warming. Bob Howarth, Rene Santoro, and Tony Ingraffea. Presentation in advance of the release of a long anticipated peer reviewed study of the relative contribution to global warming by greenhouse gas emissions from conventional and un-conventional gas production compared with coal. Sponsored by Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, and School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Cornell University.

This is an absolutely HUGE gas resource page - everything from documents and laws to webinars to advice for land owners. And no - it's not an 'anti-gas' resource or an 'anti-fracking' page - It's Cornell's Natural Gas Development Resource Center

http://cce.cornell.edu/Community/Pages/NaturalGas.aspx

http://cce.cornell.edu/EnergyClimateChange/NaturalGasDev/Pages/default.aspx
 
Methane is regulated in the coal mining industry but it's not in the natural gas industry.
:shock:

Why do we care? Because methane is a more significant greenhouse gas than either CO2 or water vapor.
 
http://www.springerlink.com/content/e384226wr4160653/fulltext.pdf

Robert W. Howarth, Renee Santoro, Anthony Ingraffea. Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations. Climatic Change, 2011; DOI: 10.1007/s10584-011-0061-5

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110412065948.htm
ScienceDaily (Apr. 12, 2011) — Natural gas extracted from shale formations has a greater greenhouse gas footprint -- in the form of methane emissions -- than conventional gas, oil and coal over a 20 year period. This calls into question the logic of its use as a climate-friendly alternative to fossil fuels, according to Robert Howarth and colleagues, from Cornell University in New York.
 
AndyH said:
Methane is regulated in the coal mining industry but it's not in the natural gas industry.
:shock:

Why do we care? Because methane is a more significant greenhouse gas than either CO2 or water vapor.
So burning natual gas(methane) is better than just releasing it?

Coal mines probably want to just vent the methane for safety so it is regulated.
Natual gas(methane) industry probably has an incentive to reduce leakage on its own without regulation.
 
So how easy is it to "reduce leakage" if you are breaking up a layer of shale with porous earth above it?

I'm speaking from ignorance here, and I haven't watched the video, but my intuition tells me that fracking is inherently much more lossy than other natural gas recovery methods.

Ray
 
All I know is from the videos and reports, so put this fairly low on the credibility scale until you've checked it out. ;)

Pro-fracking folks (geologists, etc.) say that fracking doesn't cause underground migration because the gas is trapped between hard rock layers that aren't broken - so what's trapped before is trapped after 'forcing'. (I'm thinking that's in a perfect world where the well cement is perfect and there are no earthquakes after fracking like they've had in Arkansas...)

It appears that the majority of the leakage/loss/emissions are from the ground up. Apparently a large portion of the loss happens after the well is drilled and they are waiting for the 'pipes to blow clean' (my phrase). The well is allowed to vent to blow out liquids and rock bits before it's connected to the pipeline. Higher pressure gas means more gas is released... And the process is repeated for every new well drilled. None of that accounts for leaks and loss in the pipelines or en-route pumping stations.

The lunacy of the fracking controversy is that much of the gas released from traditional wells around the world is burned - flared - at the well. According to a GE Energy paper:

http://www.genewscenter.com/Press-R...s-Natural-Gas-Wasted-GE-Report-Says-2fb4.aspx
(old link)
http://www.genewscenter.com/Resource-Library/GE-Energy-Flare-Gas-Reduction-Study-e6b.aspx
Five Percent of World’s Natural Gas Wasted, GE Report Says; Eliminating Wasteful Global Gas Flaring Could Be the Next Big Energy and Environmental Success Story

The more I learn about this stuff the more I want to run away and think instead about what they're putting in hot dogs. :shock: :evil:

edit...Updated GE Energy Paper link.
 
smkettner said:
Natual gas(methane) industry probably has an incentive to reduce leakage on its own without regulation.
Maybe once the well is producing - but it appears that 'anything goes' until the well's connected to the pipes.

And based on the experiences of folks in Texas around the Barnett Shale, there's way too much leakage even after the wells are producing. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has reported significant emissions.

http://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/barnettshale/bshale-data
The 2005 and 2007 Remote Sensing Projects on volatile organic compounds (VOCs) identified many oilfield storage tanks with hydrocarbon plumes...
Ten sites imaged during the 2007 aerial surveys in the Dallas–Fort Worth area were selected for follow-up investigations based on the apparent magnitude of the hydrocarbon plumes imaged. The TCEQ is actively working with the sites to address these emissions and is using the information to better understand emissions from natural gas processes.

Please understand - the TCEQ heads are appointed by the pro-petro governor and come under constant attack by ranchers and environmental groups for ignoring air and water quality problems. The fact that they're acknowledging leaks and spending $250,000 per ground monitoring site plus aerial surveys is significant...
 
If you like carbonated H2O, you may want to try natural gas H2O. Last year, 60 minutes did a piece on fracking for natural gas.

http://www.fairwarning.org/2010/11/60-minutes-examines-natural-gas-drilling-new-crop-of-rich-farmers/

Some farmers became millionaires, while others suffered the consequences of fracking.
 
Founds this on a cng forum:

http://www.energyindepth.org/2011/04/five-things-to-know-about-the-cornell-shale-study/

I think we need to improve fracking and related regulatory control over the process and reporting at both state and federal level but also need to reserve judgement until the entire issue is understood a bit better. No need for assumptions, collect and use real data, there should be enough fracking taking place to collect real data already. If estimates are used, they should be validated against real data at least initially, like one does with a model.

Most emission factors vastly overestimate real emissions, even when based on some sort of data validation. Source tests are always more accurate (and typically show lower results), but then they are also more expensive than simply using and emission factor.
 
Adrian,

Give the video posted above a view. The authors clearly state the bounds of their study. Please understand that this Cornell paper was not written by the Environmental Defense Fund or the Sierra Club - it's the result of work done by a university group that works with industry to develop the gas fields.

Their next task is to fully instrument drilling areas so they can nail-down emissions. It appears that actual monitoring and data collection has never been done. They used the best available science and data available - much of which comes directly from the gas industry.

A bit about 'data integrity' or 'source credibility'...

-----------------
More Credible

Professional Organizations & Organizations that Contradict Their Normal Bias


Peer-Reviewed Science Publications and Articles


University Research Programs


Petitions and Self-Selecting Panels


Think Tanks and Advocacy Groups


Individual Professionals


Lay Person

Less Credible
-------------------

The EID site is very clearly pro-gas - the site is essentially a gas advocacy site. They don't get top credibility billing because they are simply expressing their expected pro-gas bias (and in sales, one tends to promote the strengths while downplaying or ignoring the weaknesses, so this is expected behavior).

The Cornell study is a peer-reviewed result of a university research program - and from a program that works with the gas industry as part of the state's development team. That gives a three-fold boost to their data - peer reviewed, university research, and possibly even info that might counter an expected bias if one expects some conflict of interest.

Watch Gasland and Haynesville for a start to understanding the size of the shale gas industry in the US. The Haynesville shale alone in NW Louisiana is expected to deliver in the area of 230 trillion cubic feet of gas at a value of about $1,750,000,000,000.

haynesville2.jpg


haynesville1.jpg

Source: Haynesville
 
Andy, when I look at how credible data is, I tend to look at how it was collected and calculated. Actual source specific tests are at the top of my list. Emission estimates based on appropriate use of a validated model are next, source specific engineering estimates are next and emission factors are last. I can care less about who publishes the data, I care about the type and quality of data itself. I have a bit of experience with emission reporting (I'm not an expert though), so while I understand that the general non-technical public has to rely on something, so they tend to pick some hierarchy of credibility based on source, that approach is inherently flawed. It's like saying: X said it, he/she is credible so it must be true. As far as Gasland, I intend to watch it at some point, but frankly it is not the type of data that would ever convince me to condemn an entire industry. It is definitely a specific case we should understand well enough to ensure regulations and associated reporting are correctly crafted to prevent recurrence.
Now that natural gas is beginning to enter the spotlight following Obama's last speech and the introduction of the bi-partisan 2011 natural gas act in Congress, we'll surely learn more.
I'm not sure why it is even worth discussing an article lacking source specific tests. When they publish something with some meaty data, it will be worth discussing.
Have you ever seen these articles? :
http://content.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/smokestack/index
Millions were spent by the EPA to subsequently obtain actual monitoring data, and if I remember correctly, all the sampled air was actually fine. This issue came from using an EPA model against the instructions actually posted on the EPA website when one downloaded the program. And yes, Universities were involved. And they screwed up. And then taxpayers funded unneeded sampling and studies.
Collect source specific data, analyze properly, then publish. I'm tired of improper use of models and "peer reviewed" articles without source specific data to back them up.
 
Help me understand Adrian. You discount an actual study due to lack of hard data?

Why do you think that I should trust the info from a gas industry website?
 
I'm saying don't trust anyone without hard data. Wait until hard data is available to form an opinion, and base that opinion on the data, not on who publishes it.
 
Adrian said:
Andy, when I look at how credible data is, I tend to look at how it was collected and calculated. Actual source specific tests are at the top of my list. Emission estimates based on appropriate use of a validated model are next, source specific engineering estimates are next and emission factors are last. I can care less about who publishes the data, I care about the type and quality of data itself. I have a bit of experience with emission reporting (I'm not an expert though), so while I understand that the general non-technical public has to rely on something, so they tend to pick some hierarchy of credibility based on source, that approach is inherently flawed. It's like saying: X said it, he/she is credible so it must be true.
I appreciate these thoughts. Let's take it up a notch. I'm a retired intelligence analyst and have a bit of experience sorting through bits of info from different sources , sifting wheat from chaff, racking and stacking by credibility, and assembling a picture.

The Cornell study is full of hard data and cites the best info currently available - much of it provided by the gas industry. Yes - one can suggest that 'data is data' but the human mind has a habit of supporting conscious and/or unconscious blind spots. Quantum physicists recognize that the desire of the researcher influences the outcome of the experiment. The gas industry has employees that are paid very well for their denial services...

If one expects that the industry will under report emissions, and if the volume of those emissions is very significant, then wouldn't it make sense that more accurate numbers would not make the picture look better?

Adrian said:
As far as Gasland, I intend to watch it at some point, but frankly it is not the type of data that would ever convince me to condemn an entire industry. It is definitely a specific case we should understand well enough to ensure regulations and associated reporting are correctly crafted to prevent recurrence.
You've not seen it yet have an opinion on what it represents? There's nothing 'specific' (as in singular and/or isolated) about the problems exposed in the documentary. Similar challenges are briefly mentioned in the very pro-gas documentary "Haynesville" (counter to an expected bias, BTW...) And the non-emissions are pushing people out of their towns in Texas... I'm pretty sure the folks in Dish, TX would agree to sit back and wait for a bit more study time to tell them what they already know. ;)

Adrian said:
Now that natural gas is beginning to enter the spotlight following Obama's last speech and the introduction of the bi-partisan 2011 natural gas act in Congress, we'll surely learn more.
We'll learn more about what from whom?! As a district rep for the Pickens Plan, I'm somewhat aware of how many times the gas act has been folded, spindled, and mutilated. ;) But do you really expect to learn anything meaningful from a Congress that votes against science while taking billions from the petro industry? Riiiiiiight. Senator Inhofe's gonna be falling all over himself to expose the greenhouse effects of released methane. :lol:

Adrian said:
I'm not sure why it is even worth discussing an article lacking source specific tests. When they publish something with some meaty data, it will be worth discussing.
I guess you didn't actually read the paper or watch the video - if you had you'd have seen the array of actual data used. ;)

Adrian said:
Have you ever seen these articles? :
http://content.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/smokestack/index
Millions were spent by the EPA to subsequently obtain actual monitoring data, and if I remember correctly, all the sampled air was actually fine. This issue came from using an EPA model against the instructions actually posted on the EPA website when one downloaded the program. And yes, Universities were involved. And they screwed up. And then taxpayers funded unneeded sampling and studies.
I see. So because that top-tier scientific journal "USA Today" might or might not have made a mistake that should somehow negatively impact the Cornell data? Or did I miss your point?

Adrian said:
Collect source specific data, analyze properly, then publish. I'm tired of improper use of models and "peer reviewed" articles without source specific data to back them up.
Sigh. Sorry Adrian - I don't have any patience for beating around the bush. You come across as either being on the payroll of the gas industry, or making a conscious attempt at disinformation.

Peer-reviewed info from independent researchers trumps an industry propaganda site 24/7/365.
 
Andy,
I don't work for the gas industry. I'm also not attempting any disinformation. We simply have differing opinions. Also, I'm not going to take any of your comments personally.
As I said, I haven't watched Gasland. I probably should have been more clear what I meant. Basically a documentary is not the same thing to me as emission reports based on following an approved protocol for emissions to air or water.
Again, if you believe in being objective, it is the data itself that matters, not who publishes it. Mentioning your background helps me understand why you might have a different way to look at this. It's obvious my background influences my point of view. I'm an engineer so to me data is more important than spin. And spin usually stands out from data.
Unless you have been involved in emission reporting, it's difficult to reach a common point of understanding through a few exchanges on a forum. Just like I'm sure I would have no way of understanding your area of expertise in a few paragraphs. But simply put, source specific data is the most accurate. I've already mentioned my hierarchy of data credibility.
You said the Cornell researchers will be instrumenting the wells. Good. I believe that when they have that representative data we'll have a better picture. Yes, getting specific data first and then publishing is not too much to ask. In fact it should be expected. Anything else is in fact disinformation, which was my point by bringing up the example of the USA today reports. USA today just ran the articles. The work was done by the oh so credible universities that screwed up anyway.
I believe we'll learn more because of research based on hard data will be published since there is public interest in this topic.
Anyway, no need to sigh or reply. It's perfectly ok for two different opinions to exists.
As far as over reporting emissions, here's the short story: emission factors grossly overestimate emissions, sometimes as much as 1000%. Accurate source specific tests are almost always lower in emissions but more expensive to run. If there are no fees for reporting higher emissions, it's cheaper for industry to report higher emissions using emission factors accepted by various gov agencies than pay to source test and get lower, accurate results.
By the way, your comments turning to a personal attack should bother me too; but I've noticed that's the norm on this forum when one disagrees with some so I've decided they don't bother me. It's the price I'll pay for expressing an opinion different than yours in this case. Also, the site has been very educational on Leaf info, which is why I'm really here.
 
Sigh. Sorry Adrian - I don't have any patience for beating around the bush.

Sorry Andy, I don't like jumping to conclusions.

Looking at this entire thread, I'm done with this topic as I don't want to continue a discussion if it stops providing value to anyone, including myself. So no more comments from me on this topic.
 
Thanks for the clarification. We are in complete agreement about starting with data. What bothered me about your comments is that you appeared to down-play a peer reviewed analysis of the problem built from the best available data from academia, industry, and government, yet presented a gas industry 'education' website as a better source of information.

Your comment suggesting that our best course of action is to relax and see how the data unfolds struck me as strangely similar to arguments in other areas by a gent name David Wojick. He comes into discussions, plants doubt, suggests that science isn't enough, and recommends that we sit on things until the real truth is uncovered. Mr Wojick is an industry consultant paid to spread disinformation about climate change.

Please accept my apology if I've misunderstood your intent.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the point of peer-reviewed work is that scientists present a thesis, data, and conclusions, and then provide it to their peers for a thorough dismemberment. It's not accepted for publication until it's survived and been accepted. So yes - it's all about the data. It's also about the thesis and conclusions and recommendations.

As I've said here already, I agree that we need cleaner fuels. And I agree that we need to wean from OPEC oil. But the more deeply I dig the more disappointed I become in a system that allows spin to become law at the expense of the people.

The gas industry is huge now and getting larger and stronger at a fast rate. One can see an example of this in the industry response to Gasland. The attacks on the filmmaker started immediately and are paralleled by a huge 'education campaign' like the website you cited. The American Natural Gas Alliance and other groups are hitting hard against the Hogarth study as well. They also claim the science is flawed. The facts on the ground clearly show that more regulation is needed - and fast- because I suspect that if some balance isn't brought to the problem soon, the industry will become too large and too strong to reign in. I didn't notice anything on the industry sites about neurotoxins or precancerous brain lesions. A simple oversight?

http://www.dentonrc.com/sharedconte...ories/DRC_Argyle_Drilling_1024.1bd9f97c2.html
She pointed to neighborhoods near Liberty Elementary School in Flower Mound that recorded cases of brain tumors, childhood leukemia and breast cancer in women younger than 40 after gas drilling began there years ago.
...
Complaints about students with nosebleeds, dizziness, disorientation and nausea started appearing on the alliance’s blog in early October. Some residents reported smelling rotten eggs, a smell associated with sulfides, while others reported odors similar to gas, pesticides and fingernail polish remover.

http://txsharon.blogspot.com/2011/04/barnett-shale-gas-wells-not-storm-proof.html
http://earthworksaction.org/PR_DISH_HealthSurveyRelease.cfm
http://earthworksaction.org/pubs/DishTXHealthSurvey_FINAL_hi.pdf
"What is most revealing is that the community is reporting health symptoms that overlap significantly with the known health effects of chemicals already detected," says Wilma Subra, of Earthworks and author of the survey. "We are seeing not only respiratory ailments and headaches, but brain disorders, pre-cancerous lesions and impairment of motor skills."
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/0...ervasive-air-pollution-stir-up-pol-89138.html
In recent months the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has also stepped up its monitoring of pollution sources operating in the Barnett. But critics say that, despite independent research raising air-quality issues years ago, TCEQ acted only in response to mounting public pressure and as a result of embarrassing missteps, such as an agency decision this spring to withhold troubling information about benzene levels around Barnett Shale drilling sites.
Dish_Air-Study_Letter_420.jpg

http://www.marcellus-shale.us/pdf/Armendariz-Air_Jan-09.pdf
Barnett Shale oil and gas production activities are significant sources of air emissions in the north-central
Texas area. To help put the levels of Barnett Shale emissions into context, recent government emissions
inventories for the area were reviewed, and emission rates of smog precursor emissions were examined.

The Dallas-Fort Worth area is home to two large airports, Dallas Love Field and Dallas-Fort Worth
International Airport, plus a number of smaller airports. A recent emissions inventory has estimated 2009
NOx emissions from all area airports to be approximately 14 tpd, with VOC emissions at approximately
2.6 tpd, resulting in total ozone and particulate matter precursor emissions of approximately 16 tpd. (22-24)
For comparison, emissions of VOC + NOx in summer 2009 from just the compressor engines in the
Barnett Shale area will be approximately 65 tpd, and summer condensate tanks emissions will be
approximately 146 tpd. In 2009, even after regulatory efforts to reduce NOx emissions from certain
compressor engine types, Barnett Shale oil and gas emissions will be many times the airports' emissions.

The data is there. It's up to us to choose science or spin. Science helps me understand how these emissions affect my son. Spin? Not so much.
 
Adrian said:
Andy,
I don't work for the gas industry. I'm also not attempting any disinformation. We simply have differing opinions. Also, I'm not going to take any of your comments personally.
Very glad to hear on all counts. My intent is clarity not attack.

Adrian said:
As I said, I haven't watched Gasland. I probably should have been more clear what I meant. Basically a documentary is not the same thing to me as emission reports based on following an approved protocol for emissions to air or water.
I completely agree. And yet one can see strong indicators in the documentary that highlight areas where further investigation might be in order...
Adrian said:
Again, if you believe in being objective, it is the data itself that matters, not who publishes it. Mentioning your background helps me understand why you might have a different way to look at this. It's obvious my background influences my point of view. I'm an engineer so to me data is more important than spin. And spin usually stands out from data.
Yes the data is critical. But data can be misused, falsified, twisted, and cherry picked - and that's why any piece of data needs to have a source attached. While the truth is the truth even if we learn it from a liar, not everything presented as truth should be accepted at face value even if we trust the source. We need to know the biases and intentions...etc...

Adrian said:
Unless you have been involved in emission reporting, it's difficult to reach a common point of understanding through a few exchanges on a forum. Just like I'm sure I would have no way of understanding your area of expertise in a few paragraphs.
Agree completely.

Adrian said:
But simply put, source specific data is the most accurate. I've already mentioned my hierarchy of data credibility.
You said the Cornell researchers will be instrumenting the wells. Good. I believe that when they have that representative data we'll have a better picture. Yes, getting specific data first and then publishing is not too much to ask. In fact it should be expected. Anything else is in fact disinformation, which was my point by bringing up the example of the USA today reports. USA today just ran the articles. The work was done by the oh so credible universities that screwed up anyway.
The point Adrian is that the paper resulted from hard data. One of the authors has 25 years experience designing conventional and unconventional wells and drilling methods. And this is not the only source of emissions data, but is the first of which I'm aware that focused specifically on quantifying methane release. This is vitally important from a greenhouse gas/climate destabilization standpoint.

Adrian said:
I believe we'll learn more because of research based on hard data will be published since there is public interest in this topic.
Anyway, no need to sigh or reply. It's perfectly ok for two different opinions to exists.
Hard data makes opinions less important. Shall we disagree on the existence of gravity? In the midst of the debate we're both still planted on the ground. ;) (And no, that's not intended to make light of the conversation - science is still debating the nature of gravity and NASA has a satellite in orbit as part of that debate...)

There is plenty of hard data showing that significant emissions exist throughout the entire well to consumer process. Data is provided by industry, state environmental and permitting agencies, environmental groups, city and town governments, the medical community, and individual citizens.

Adrian said:
As far as over reporting emissions, here's the short story: emission factors grossly overestimate emissions, sometimes as much as 1000%. Accurate source specific tests are almost always lower in emissions but more expensive to run. If there are no fees for reporting higher emissions, it's cheaper for industry to report higher emissions using emission factors accepted by various gov agencies than pay to source test and get lower, accurate results.
And yet in the gas fields, it's very clear that emissions are being under reported. The first is that because of the way the reporting laws are written, each individual well is considered a unique source - and the reporting thresholds - designed for facilities the size of power plants - are too high. Throw in the 'maintenance' provision - which allows refineries to store hazardous products during the week and dump them when they go down for maintenance... Sorry, no - I'd be very surprised to find that emissions are being over-reported.

[edit]
Here's a real-world example of industry emissions reporting. In 2007, Congress ordered the EPA to compile industry green house gas emissions so the nation could determine if there's really an emissions problem. In spite of industry's statement that accurate numbers are vital, the data had to be revised a number of times and was still shown to significantly understate the full scope of emissions:

flare_est.jpg

Note that, in every case, the refinery’s initial reports are well below – and sometimes orders of magnitude below – actual emissions.
flare_inventory.jpg

(Note that the industry used the 98% number for their estimate, even though they are using steam-augmented flaring which is known to reduce flare efficiency.)
Source:http://www.environmentalintegrity.o...y.Enforcement.Emerging.Issues.2011.02.22.pptx
http://www.eenews.net/assets/2011/03/08/document_gw_01.pdf
[/edit]

A body of data can be corrupted by bad information - bad data is much worse than no data. While I have and do apologize for coming at you as strongly as I did, my first priority is accuracy. The climate has become a huge experiment - and we're in the test tube. We simply do not have time to sit back and watch any longer. Population continues to increase, peak oil has come and gone, world grain production has peaked and is falling off, 'freak' storms and fires have become the new norm, and aquifers are being pumped much faster than they're being replenished. While it's great that the gas industry is enjoying this non-conventional boom, someone has to be keeping an eye on the big picture. And it's very clear that the largest threat to the US is no longer any terrorist group or OPEC...
 
Where do we get our information?

We tend to more easily accept information from people or groups we trust. The first answer we get tends to be our 'truth' - even if it's incorrect. This is used by salespeople - the good ones start to create trust from the start, and then get you to say 'yes' - knowing that once you've said yes six times they can almost lead you where they want you to.

We tend to automatically give 'expert' status to people or groups too easily. Grab a copy of The Four Hour Work Week. Aside from some excellent sales and 'street smart' business information, one can see how easy it is to go from zero to being a 'recognized expert' in any field in six weeks. Give a free talk on a university - and even if no one hears it you've spoken at X university. Join professional organizations and people automatically assign you status by association (pun intended...). Rework your talk and get it published on the web by one of the blog content pages.

These sales and persuasion techniques are used by political parties, less-than-ethical 'news' organizations, and advocacy organizations trying to look like grass-roots bodies. The moral majority was neither. Fair and balanced news is neither. BP is still in the Gulf, their constant stream of ads proclaims.

There's a new type of hydraulic fracturing making the rounds. The name is the same as the old process, but it's very different. This new process apparently needs exemptions from the clean water act. It requires a level of secrecy that the old process didn't need. Who can we trust for balanced information without spin, marketing speak, or an ulterior motive?

Using this hierarchy borrowed from an Oregon science teacher:

-----------------
More Credible

Professional Organizations & Organizations that Contradict Their Normal Bias


Peer-Reviewed Science Publications and Articles


University Research Programs


Petitions and Self-Selecting Panels


Think Tanks and Advocacy Groups


Individual Professionals


Lay Person

Less Credible
-------------------

Where do we put Adrian's gas industry advocacy site? I'd say third from the bottom - "Think Tanks and Advocacy Groups". What about the Howarth paper? I'd say either University Programs or Peer Reviewed Publications and Articles (but probably university programs because although the paper was published, the publicly available version appears to be a published letter vice a fully peer reviewed paper).

[edit]
Looks like the Howarth paper belongs in the middle maybe. According to Springerlink, the Letters are an additional section of the journal Climactic Change intended to get something new and important into the field more quickly than normal.
http://www.springer.com/earth+scien...ology+&+climatology?SGWID=0-10009-12-565099-0
Articles published here will present original findings from models, experiments, observations, theoretical approaches, frameworks, applications, or methods relevant to one or more of the multitude of disciplines covered by the main journal. Editorial decisions will be made with the collaboration of an Advisory Board. Articles will be chosen in part for their immediate influence in the context of ongoing research or assessment by others, and their potential to stimulate important new fields of research. The streamlined review process of Letters matches the pace of innovation in this field.
What do you think? "Peer Reviewed Lite'? Or University Research Plus?
[edit]

What about our personal views (since neither Adrian nor me are in the gas industry)? Bottom of the list - Lay Person.

We tend to get information today from blogs, reporters, and sites such as this - and yet these are some of the least credible sources of information - and also the 'sources' that are most easily 'infiltrated' by false (intentional or not) or misleading information.

Pick up a sales book - Brian Tracy and Zig Zigglar are both very moral and ethical professionals. Give The Four Hour Work Week a read. And use that new awareness to better spot the sources of bad information. It'll also save you some money next time you go shopping for just about anything. ;)

Good Luck.
 
Back
Top