Search

Bloomberg really missed a perfect opportunity to report on the Utica in their article titled "Ohio’s $500 Billion Oil Dream Fades as Utica Turns Gassy". Instead the author provided a swing and a miss when discussing the great potential and investment Ohio has seen thanks to increased shale development.

From the draft report on water quality in Pavillion, Wyo., to a Cornell graduate student's paper on public health, opponents of oil and gas development are displaying a troubling habit of leaping to conclusions before even basic scientific review can be completed. But if your job is to generate headlines, why let science get in the way?

Ohio has a long history of oil and gas development but it hasn't been until recently that this development has drawn the attention of activists and "researchers" from outside of the Buckeye State. Today, Dr. Lisa Mckenzie from the Colorado School of Public Health (CSPH) adds her name to a growing list of out of town visitors as she visits the Ohio State University.

A paper from the Colorado School of Public Health (CSPH) suggests the development of oil and natural gas in general – and the use of hydraulic fracturing in particular – can cause “serious health impacts” for those who live closest to well sites. But if you look past the ominous headlines that the study launch generated and examine the range of strange assumptions that form the basis for the report, the conclusions are not only rendered fairly predictable, but also unquestionably flawed.

A new paper from the Colorado School of Public Health (CSPH) released this week suggests the development of oil and natural gas in general – and the use of hydraulic fracturing in particular – can cause “serious health impacts” for those who live closest to well sites. But if you look past the ominous headlines that the study launch generated and examine the range of strange assumptions that form the basis for the report, the conclusions are not only rendered fairly predictable, but also unquestionably flawed.