The article had nothing to do with fracking theres a brief talk about natural gas and shale but overall it was more about jobs and money usage for America; what claims are you talking about
You say the bias level of the article is 1, which is eqivelent to nothing. When I read over the article, the impression I got is that the article's actual bias level is more like 3, especially given that it was written by the chairman of an energy corporation (the evidence for that claim is right on the bottom of the article, where it lists the woman who wrote it and where she works and her position as a chairman.)
I dont know why I put bias to 1, but what I do know is that the article is less about fracking and more about the jobs that it can create theres an economical bias yes, but a personal bias not really; They didnt refer to fracking specifically more about jobs and money spent import oil.
The evidence that is given sounds very good, too good if you ask me the CEO of the company that is evidently offering all these jobs because of changes that could be made wrote this and the only other "companies" listed arent even listed its just more statistics that state what could happen from these changes. Theres no complete basis for the information its just listing the good that these changes will makebut none of the bad or the alternative options that are availible. This link gives atcual information on natural gases and have actal scientific graphs showing information. http://geology.com/articles/natural-gas-uses/
Comments
Jake
Fri, 09/08/2017 - 13:33
Permalink
Trust
Why do you have some mistrust for this website
Ramses
Fri, 09/08/2017 - 13:36
Permalink
Because jake i dont trust
Because jake i dont trust nothing i see on the internet
Ramses
Cherylann
Fri, 09/08/2017 - 13:44
Permalink
???
I haven't read the article yet, but where is the support for the claims? and your overall analysis???
RamsesA
Fri, 09/22/2017 - 09:08
Permalink
The article had nothing to do
The article had nothing to do with fracking theres a brief talk about natural gas and shale but overall it was more about jobs and money usage for America; what claims are you talking about
Josselyn
Fri, 09/22/2017 - 08:56
Permalink
Bias
You say the bias level of the article is 1, which is eqivelent to nothing. When I read over the article, the impression I got is that the article's actual bias level is more like 3, especially given that it was written by the chairman of an energy corporation (the evidence for that claim is right on the bottom of the article, where it lists the woman who wrote it and where she works and her position as a chairman.)
RamsesA
Fri, 09/22/2017 - 09:13
Permalink
Bias
I dont know why I put bias to 1, but what I do know is that the article is less about fracking and more about the jobs that it can create theres an economical bias yes, but a personal bias not really; They didnt refer to fracking specifically more about jobs and money spent import oil.
Evan
Fri, 09/22/2017 - 09:16
Permalink
The statistics provide no actual evidence
The evidence that is given sounds very good, too good if you ask me the CEO of the company that is evidently offering all these jobs because of changes that could be made wrote this and the only other "companies" listed arent even listed its just more statistics that state what could happen from these changes. Theres no complete basis for the information its just listing the good that these changes will makebut none of the bad or the alternative options that are availible. This link gives atcual information on natural gases and have actal scientific graphs showing information. http://geology.com/articles/natural-gas-uses/
RamsesA
Fri, 09/22/2017 - 09:18
Permalink
I search there annual report
I search there annual report for 2011 the year the article report and some of the info was true