In Fracking Debate, Studies Have Limited Value to Those Interested in the Truth

We've mentioned multiple times before that the problem with all of the studies going on regarding fracking is that someone who is objectively trying to decide if it is something that they are comfortable supporting has to sift through layers of bias to try and find the scraps of truth buried beneath the agenda-driven rhetoric and conclusions included in seemingly every report released.

Now Bloomberg is writing about this as well:

Anyone looking for concrete evidence of fracking’s impact will probably come away confused by the conflicting research. One can find studies linking fracking with water contamination and others concluding there is zero evidence. An oft-cited Cornell University study depicts natural gas as dirtier than coal, while other peer-reviewed studies find the opposite. Economic studies are similarly polarized, detailing both huge employment and revenue gains from drilling and large economic costs from pollution, infrastructure strain and plunging real- estate values.

One constant is that much of the research is funded by those with skin in the game -- oil and gas interests on one hand and environmental groups on the other. While that doesn’t necessarily delegitimize the findings, it does undermine people’s trust in them. Some of the science has been found lacking.

Read the rest of that article by clicking right here.

Connect with us on Facebook and Twitter!
Follow @EnergyNewsBlog