Skip and others have good points about the data used by Berman and some from this article. I'm sure the shale play can look like a ponzi scheme with the right decline rates and when someone assumes the future price of gas.
I'm not against any one news organization (they all fail us to a point), but it does seem like NYT has put nat gas in their cross hairs for whatever reason. I read that paper probably weekly (along with a variety of others) and notice they have enough ink to criticize other's solutions, but seem to run out before they offer up any viable solutions of their own. They will do an article on how solar may run a car 30 years from now, and how drilling for hydrocarbons is harmful - but we can't all stroll to work from our ivory tower to the NYT - America needs energy daily.
This article, whether the least bit true or not, does not change the fact that domestic hydrocarbons are an opportunity not a curse. Politicians and businesses need to focus on that practical solution. The article fails to mention that if we did increase the role of nat gas in America, then even their "ponzi" numbers would probably look economic very quickly due to increase of demand. But they won't write that...
Had a family member who worked for NY times in high end computing support. He is inherently fairly liberal/liberterian and didn't believe in a liberal biased media until he went to work there. After a few years, he admitted the bias was there, although he didn't think is intentional. Liberal folks are in high positions/managers, editors, etc. If you write something from more central point of view, it tended to get edited down and/or pushed to the back. Journalists who had a more conservative view would either move on to other organizations, or make their writing conform to what their editors/managers wanted. It wasn't directed/intentional, but if you wanted that promotion or raise, being toward the right tended to hurt you.
I suspect the same bias is present in their environmental coverage and coverage of energy matters.
Coverage saying shale gas is a good thing just wouldn't sell papers in NY.
You know its sad that some people have an agenda that is so irrational and jaded.
Yes, the price of gas has come down - because of the discovery and production of shale gas. If it were not for the shale gas discovery and new production techniques the consumer would be paying twice to three times what they are paying now. That would mean higher cost for electricty, heating cost would be substaintialy higher, etc. Someone needs to point out the number of jobs that shale gas drilling and production has created and what the economic benefits of the play are. Were is the Chamber of Commerce when you need them?
Dr Loren Scott, LSU economist, has worked all of the numbers of the economic benefits of developing the HS, and has published several studies. Also, Don Briggs, LOGA president, writes and speaks often on this subject. Pretty impressive economic numbers, for sure!
The Dallas Morning News placed this NYT 'article' on today's front page (Sunday June 26, 2011).
Ironically, a story ran a couple of days prior about a suburb (Flower Mound, TX; Barnett Shale) placing tight restrictions on rigs within city limits.