So they lied about clean up cost and now this. https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...e-than-thought
So they lied about clean up cost and now this. https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...e-than-thought
...
Last edited by Sugarphreak; 08-18-2019 at 12:25 AM.
Means qualified people versus the rebel peoepleThis quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
...
Last edited by Sugarphreak; 08-18-2019 at 12:25 AM.
The die hard anti anything to do with environment research lobby strikes again. Scientists doing science in Alberta on emissions? Must be a scam right? We should trust oil companies and our right wing politicians only (and maybe Jesus)! Anyone else just wants to knock us down a peg, right?This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
All I'll say is that it's good the study wasn't done in Saskatchewan, cuz holy shit! That'll be a mess.
I've tried to find the report, but I couldn't. If anyone knows where I can find it please share.
I stopped reading past this.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
sig deleted by moderator, click here for info
...
Last edited by Sugarphreak; 08-18-2019 at 12:26 AM.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.est.7b03525This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Sounds a little reachy in the 'implication' section with the ifs.. Why in chops do you vent the casing gas though?This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
How would you know any of this given that you opted not the read the article?This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Exactly. While the article may be bias, Sugarphreak's post is nothing but bias. It's Trump-style ranting.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
...
Last edited by Sugarphreak; 08-18-2019 at 12:26 AM.
I would suggest that direct, airborne data collection from a 3rd party source is more usually more truthful and more reliable than the emitting industry itself.
HOWEVER
If I sampled traffic on Deerfoot at 5pm on weekdays, I would report the DF is 100% GRIDLOCK. Similarly, short term measurements during (perhaps) peak activity will also show a statistical anomaly much easier.Regional methane and ethane emission rates were calculated based on airborne measurements from a series of flights conducted during October 27 to November 5, 2016.
They SHOULD HAVE run the flights perhaps 1-2x monthly for 12 months, AND THEN published the results. (ie. this was a really stupid, poorly thought out/sampled, study)
Last edited by revelations; 10-19-2017 at 02:31 PM.
Eh, I don't think flying over a field at any given time is going to show more or less emissions on the average.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
There is a ton of released Methane that goes un-reported.
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Um, there absolutely are seasonal fluctuations in volatile gas emissions from any given environment. Cause by both seasonal variations in the industry AND environment seasonal variations.
Again, I dont doubt the potential accuracy potential of airborne surveys, but the sampling was very short sighted. Had this been a 12 month long study, then its relevant.
Last edited by revelations; 10-19-2017 at 02:35 PM.
Not that I know anything about aerial survey equipment, does anyone know how accurate their measurement tools would be? A 95% confidence level accounting for instrument uncertainties seems a little high, no? Especially if you're surveying from a plane? More curious than anything else.
So you haven’t read it? The thing with science is you can’t get anything intelligent from reading a news paper’s summary of something they don’t understand. So the only thing you can do to decide whether or not you believe the right controls were in place during a study, causation/correlations are assigned correctly etc is to actually read the study.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
No offence but wasn’t it you that was using Tim Ball from the friends of science to back up some of your claims. Even though that guy is a nut job who has been found receiving funding from oil companies and also been caught lying/exaggerating about his educational background. Maybe it was someone else though....
Last edited by J-hop; 10-19-2017 at 05:47 PM.
I'm going to blame near-by cattle and farms.
Why? Because, why not?