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.
EID-Ohio traveled to Youngstown this week for Day 1 of the Youngstown Ohio Utica & Natural Gas (YOUNG) Conference & Expo 2012. Like YOUNG 2011, this year’s conference was packed with exhibitors, experts, and attendees from the shale industry, its suppliers, and related industries. Also like last year, exhibitor space sold out.
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?
This week, Energy in Depth – Ohio attended the “Public Informational Forum on Statewide Fossil Fuel Fracking” in Erie, Ohio. What was disguised as an educational, “informational” forum was, unfortunately more of the same misleading rhetoric we’ve come to expect from the organization providing the speaker in NEOGAP.
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.
Sue Mickley Environmental Protection Committee Chair – Northern Wayne Property Owners Alliance; MPH/HA – Yale University Uni Blake Environmental Consultant – Toxicologist Master’s Degree in Environmental Toxicology – American University Last week the Institute of Medicine held a roundtable discussion to examine the “public health...
Make no mistake, health impacts from natural gas production are not a foregone conclusion. Accepting them as one, in our judgment, is irresponsible and is a critical flaw that served as the foundation of this gathering.
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.
This morning, the U.S. Department of Labor issued the nation’s monthly jobs report. These headlines speak to the bleak results: Los Angeles Times’: “Stagnant labor market seen as unemployment rate holds at 9.6%.” USA Today: Obama faces same jobless rate of 9.6% — but fewer...