Skip to content

New York Times Is All Hot Air On Shale Gas – Christopher Helman – Fuel – Forbes

June 28, 2011

We would have thought that the Times would be in favor of plentiful, low-cost natural gas. It burns a lot cleaner than coal, and with nuclear off the table for now, gas is poised to fuel U.S. economic growth for more than a generation to come. I can only guess that the problem, as the Times sees it, is that as long as we have all that cheap gas, there’s precious little need for solar panels, windmills and other cornerstones of their much-heralded but slow evolving green jobs revolution.

via New York Times Is All Hot Air On Shale Gas – Christopher Helman – Fuel – Forbes.

All of the emphasis is mine. Mainly because it’s true.

Advertisements
3 Comments
  1. Michael Eaton permalink
    June 29, 2011 4:48 am

    The Times’ story is based on “hundreds of industry e-mails and internal documents and an analysis of data from thousands of wells.”

    What? A story based on data and facts?? How DARE they…

    “Others within the industry remain optimistic. They argue that shale gas economics will improve as the price of gas rises, technology evolves and demand for gas grows with help from increased federal subsidies being considered by Congress. “Shale gas supply is only going to increase,” Steven C. Dixon, executive vice president of Chesapeake Energy, said at an energy industry conference in April in response to skepticism about well performance.”

    And putting the other side actually in the story??? What kind of journalism is that, asked the reporter from Fox…

    In other words, the Forbes opinion piece is rather off. And your emphasis is trying to put motive without a basis in fact. Weak and unreadable.

    • June 29, 2011 7:57 am

      U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA): Agency’s Perspective on Shale Gas “Differs Significantly” from NYT report. From the EIA press release: “EIA was contacted by a Times reporter in advance of the story, and provided a response that described the agency’s approach to developing its shale gas projections. Those interested in EIA’s views on shale gas, which differ in significant respects from those outlined in the June 27 article, may want to review the EIA response to the inquiry from the Times, the Issues in Focus discussion of shale gas included in the Annual Energy Outlook 2011, and a recent presentation on domestic and international shale gas.

      Yes Mike, I’m sure the Times Article included equal time to the “other side” of the issue. They give one 1/6 of the article to giving a few quotes from people saying, “Yeah, I wouldn’t worry about it”

      Simply giving the “other side”. Yeah Mike, they gave a full defense of natural gas companies.

      Or, because it needed to appear like “Journalism”, they had to nominally include the “other side”.

      Here is a link to the rest of the refutations of the “industry insider emails” and other unnamed sources of their “data”:

      Could anyone imagine more sensationalistic narratives than Radiation, Ponzi, and Enron? Consistent with this reporter’s method, today’s article uses often anonymous statements to paint a sensational narrative and leaves out or underplays critical information that is inconvenient to establishing the credibility of the dominant anti-gas narrative.

      This last one being from the former Pennsylvania Secretary for Environmental Protection…..

      Or perhaps from a Rice University Professor, one who actually was present at the Dallas Fed:

      “At the Dallas Fed workshop [cited in the NYT story], I remember two questions specifically related to the Barnett shale because there was obvious concern related to the Texas economy. After all, the Barnett shale had been a great source of wealth expansion for the previous five or six years and was generally viewed as an important part of the economic base in the area. I explained in my answer the points made above. This has of course been exacerbated by the recent recession and the shift of production activity to shale plays with higher liquids content – such as the Eagle Ford shale in South Texas – due to the large differences in natural gas prices and oil prices. Again, these are economic forces, not geologic ones. In fact, our recent work indicates that as demand for natural gas continues to increase, particularly in Texas, the Barnett shale will remain an important contributor to the overall natural gas market balance. The full presentation I gave at the Dallas Fed is available online. “

      See Mike, that’s the other side of the story. Not two “positive” quotes buried at the end of a quite “negative” piece of “journalism”.

      There is a reason why the Grey Lady isn’t exactly “all the news thats fit to print” anymore…

  2. Michael Eaton permalink
    June 29, 2011 12:08 pm

    “I’m sure the Times Article included equal time to the “other side” of the issue.”

    I didn’t say “equal time”. What they didn’t do was gloss it over or shrug it off…

    “There is a reason why the Grey Lady isn’t exactly “all the news thats fit to print” anymore…”

    Says the guy who rushes to Fox Nation, Tax Prof Blog, and BigJournalism for his “journalism”… Heh.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: