Despite the intense smear campaign that’s been waged by activists and their allies in the national media, the truth about hydraulic fracturing, a horizontal drilling technology that extracts previously unattainable natural gas deposits from underground shale rock, continues to surface.

An independent study released by researchers at the University of Texas’ Energy Institute last week found “little scientific evidence” to support the oft-cited and oft-reported allegation that shale gas operations have contaminated underground drinking water sources. “The bottom line was, in the areas we investigated … we found no direct evidence that hydraulic fracturing itself was contaminating groundwater,” said Charles Groat, professor of geology at the University of Texas at Austin. The study also found that methane detected in some water wells in the Marcellus Shale region are most likely traced to natural sources present before gas extraction began, leading university researchers to suggest requiring groundwater sampling before drilling begins in order to judge the accuracy of any later questions about contamination.

Which brings us to the headline-grabbing report, released by the EPA last December, implicating shale gas drilling as the likely source of groundwater contamination in Pavillion, Wyoming. Though anti-shale activists prematurely declared the end of hydraulic fracturing as we know it, a closer look at EPA’s own data indicates the agency’s conclusions are partially based on invalid laboratory results. And then there’s EPA administrator Lisa Jackson’s on-air admission just weeks before the Pavillion report was released that  “we have absolutely no indication now that drinking water is at risk”.

Leading a hearing before the House Science Committee earlier this month, Chairman Andy Harris (R-MD) noted contradictory language between the EPA’s draft report and the press release it issued on Pavillion. While the report doesn’t use the word “likely” to draw a causal relationship between drilling and contamination, the press release is peppered with the word. The report used language such as “best supports” and “best fitting” – which, as Rep. Harris rightly noted, indicates that there is not enough evidence to draw a conclusion one way or another.

Of course, it’s not surprising that these blaring inconsistencies went largely unnoticed and unreported. In analyzing media coverage of shale gas, the University of Texas study found that more than 60 percent of articles or broadcast news stories on the shale plays were negative, while fewer than 20 percent of newspaper articles on the topic even mention scientific research. Fair coverage on national television and radio registered at 18 percent, while a mere 3 percent local TV and online news reports cast the technology in a positive light. It’s easy to see why the study’s survey respondents, composed of 1,500 residents in Texas where the Barnett Shale is located, were misinformed about the amount of water used for shale development and the scientific risks involved with the process.

Before shale’s sworn enemies dismiss this study as one borne from industry coffers, it’s important to note that it was funded completely by the university “so it was not dependent on sources either from the energy community or the environmental community.” In fact, the Environmental Defense Fund was consulted on the overall scope and design of the study.

America is long overdue for a serious, sensible approach to domestic energy production, particularly given a recent report indicating that states with robust oil and gas development are faring the recession far better than their counterparts.

In recent months, we’ve seen some positive economic data that indicates an economic recovery may be underway.  So, why is the U.S. trade deficit – the difference between the value of what we are importing and what we are exporting – growing?

Part of the reason is that Americans are starting to spend more, and because of the way our economy and manufacturing base have evolved over several decades, more of the things they are buying are made in another country. Indeed, this is the highest the trade deficit has been since the start of the U.S. financial crisis.  Last week’s news that the U.S. trade deficit grew 2.7% in 2011 means in part that American consumers are spending again.

But while economists may look to shifting trade deficit data as a sign of American’s spending power, there’s also another major component that isn’t discussed as often. That’s the part about high oil prices and oil imports and how they impact the trade deficit. In fact, more than half of the total 2011 trade deficit – 59.4% can be attributed to oil imports. Imported oil has long accounted for so much of the trade deficit that economists often refer to the non-oil trade deficit as a measure of shorter-term trends in the economy.

There are several reasons why it’s also important to focus on the oil trade deficit. For one, the trend is worrying. Oil as a percentage of the total trade deficit has gone up every year since 2002, when it accounted for 19% of the total. Imported oil’s share of the recent trade deficit is the highest it has been since 1992. And if you’re wondering about actual dollar amounts, the U.S. spent $331.7 billion on imported oil last year. A rise in oil prices, which is often seen during an economic recovery, would mean an even larger trade deficit.

But it’s not inevitable that our country must spend so much buying oil from overseas. Terms like “non-oil trade deficit,” imply that oil is an essential import. The reality, as readers of this blog understand, is that tapping into more of our domestic oil and gas resources, from Alaska to the Gulf of Mexico to onshore oil to oil shale, could take a big chunk out of our total trade deficit. Increasing our domestic oil production is the best way for is to address the oil trade deficit. It is a big win for the US economy

Finally, signs of economic recovery notwithstanding, our national economy remains fragile. Unemployment is high and consumer sentiment is wavering. And while a growing trade deficit might be linked to a strengthening economy in the short term, it is no way to build a stronger domestic economy over time. President Obama has addressed the non-oil part of the trade deficit with an initiative that aims to double U.S. exports by the year 2015. We need an equally strong commitment to reducing the amount we spend on imported oil.