New York Times' Natural Gas Fiasco
Hot Air article: New York Times Natural Gas Fiasco
Excerpt:
Two quotes from the EID compilation stand out, in particular. The Energy Information Administration had this to say:
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.
Terry Engelder, a professor of geosciences at Pennsylvania State University, who was quoted in the original NYT article, said the newspaper took his quotes from an e-mail he wrote on shale economics — an e-mail that didn’t express the full range of his views on the subject. “The reporters didn’t talk to me in person,” Engelder said. “[The e-mail had] a lot of nuance in it. The reporters could have learned something from the nuance.”
Both quotes suggest Urbina had the facts at his fingertips — but deliberately disregarded them. The seeming anti-natural gas agenda this reveals perplexes me, until I consider what Ed wrote just this morning in his defense of hydraulic fracturing, a technique used in the natural gas drilling process.
The problem with fracking isn’t that it’s particularly new or dangerous. The methodology has been in use for decades, and it is as safe as other drilling processes. The real problem is that it could produce relatively cheap hydrocarbon energy for a very long time, and that’s what has environmentalists worried.
Views: 292
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Ewing Walker on
-
I do not understand why the leftists Democrats are so much against Marcellus Fracking.
It has provided 50,000+ jobs in PA... There is very little danger of an accident.
Last year I read on the internet about a blow out in Penfield, PA.
A few days later, I drove thru Penfield, stopped at the big gas station there and asked about it.
A man from the volunteer fire department knew nothing about it. No ne in the store did.
It caused no damage to anything.
This professor at Cornell, Mr. Howarth, is a real disgrace to Cornell.
-
Permalink Reply by Jim Litwinowicz on
-
The NYT article was an embarrassment to journalism. It was a hack job of out-of-context quotes and selective engineering. They used a quote about one well to say that the shale isn't productive...but the well was in Europe. They quoted one source as saying the companies overpaid for a lease...but the quote was about one lease agreement for $27,000/acre in Louisiana .... right before the Marcellus broke and drove down prices. The quote by the Dallas Fed official didn't point out her history of environmental extremism or that her concern was the drop off of prices in the Barnett due to Marcellus activity.
I could go on and on. They deliberately mis-characterized nearly every statement used. Not surprising since it was written by he same guy that claimed the rivers were contaminated by radioactive discharge...which a ton of testing since has shown all rivers are at or below normal levels of radiation.
The left hates nat gas because it destroys their dream of wind turbines and solar cells all over the planet. They call these sources "green" or "renewable" while ignoring the huge environmental costs they have. Search " solar pollution China" or "solar toxic chemicals" and see the huge problems created by solar cells. Did you know that there are 14,000 deactivated wind turbines in the US? They shut them down as soon as their tax incentive period expires. Renewable??
Nat gas will be way cheaper than solar or wind for at least fifty years...and they will never forgive gas for destroying their dream.
-
Permalink Reply by Doug stearns on -
I agree that nat gas is the pin that pops the leftist's anti-capitalist balloon. Read "Energy Killers-Energy Keepers" or it may be "Energy Keepers-Energy Killers" by Roy Innis. They don't really care about the environment. They are doing everything they can to stop fossil fuel development and progress at the expense of us all.
Carbon is one of the key foundations of all life on the earth.
I have a few questions. Where did fossil fuels come from?
-
Permalink Reply by Laurel on
-
I felt this article smelled of anti-gas bias from the green contingent. Of course, what else can you expect from The Times?
-
-
The New York Times got this right more so than the Wall Street Journal "advertorial"
Most of New York's counties are iffy at best for the Marcellus. Look at the isopach maps.
Encana has already pulled out of counties with better prospects in Pa. - Luzerne & Columbia
Well results in the border counties in Tioga and Potter indicate results to the north won't be economic.
-
Permalink Reply by Jim Litwinowicz on
-
The Times was terribly wrong. They tried to push the story that the entire shale gas industry was a Ponzi scheme, not just fringe areas or the occasional poorly preforming well. Of course not all areas will produce huge volumes of gas....duh! There are plenty of articles that have proven this article so wrong that it is laughable.
In the core areas, wells are producing better then predicted and maintaining production better also. CHK just doubled their anticipated lifetime well production. And Utica is producing better than anticipated.
The Times has printed erroneous articles before by this same "journalist." He claimed the rivers were polluted with radio-nucleotides but all testing since then has shown no such thing. The NYT has a long tradition of bias in their reporting.
Top Content
Latest Activity
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
