Of course "peer-reviewed" and "gospel truth" aren't equivalent!...

Of course "peer-reviewed" and "gospel truth" aren't equivalent! As a post-grad student I had to analyse several peer-reviewed articles for faults and they were multiple (although not perhaps readily apparent), as indeed are the flaws in EISs, but that's a discussion for another day.

As a discussion starter, here are two points which perhaps limit the applicability of this research as a guide to the shale/CSG mining industries on a broader scale.

1) This research looked at a vertical well. As we all know vertical wells have been fracked for many years, a point often raised by the apologists in defence of the current practice of multiple, high-pressure fracks of horizontal wells. Anyone unfamiliar with the difference could do worse than have a listen to Professor Tony Ingraffea's talk here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSWmXpEkEPg (it's an interesting lecture if somewhat long, but the definitions are near the beginning).

The point is that the two procedures are radically different - to extrapolate one to the other is absurd.

2) "Tormey and his study partners, Megan Schwartz and Molly Middaugh, found unique conditions in their study area that might not necessarily apply elsewhere."

So, on the basis of a study which the author's say was influenced by "unique conditions in their study area that might not necessarily apply elsewhere" you are willing to apply the conclusions generally, something I suspect the authors would be unwilling to do.

As something of a third point, and given your love of the straw man approach, perhaps we could also look at the background of the lead author of this "independent" study. He is qualified in the broad discipline involved but his research focus is/was in vulcanology - hardly relevant here ( http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dan-tormey-ph-d-p-g/37/710/139 )

Anyone interested in analysing his firm (and his) position in the unconventional gas debate would do worse than read the interview here: http://www.cardno.com/en-au/MediaCentre/Documents/Cardno%20News%2018%20FINAL.pdf

It is fairly obvious that Cardno's focus is from a narrow O&G industry perspective rather than a broader multi-discilinary approach. I don't see any analysis of social or environmental issues and I would assume that any research they conduct would be designed to support the wishes of their clients. After all, a consultancy which makes findings opposed to their clients' agenda will soon find themselves without clients. it is fair to say that a firm which has clients in the O&G industry will have research findings supportive of that industry.

TR