So you write a three-part series saying that shale gas production is "inherently unprofitable" and a giant Ponzi scheme, as well as loosely regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
No matter that many emails you cite are two years old, that two of your supposedly objective sources are environmental activists, that profit-maximizing companies are investing billions of dollars in shale gas.
Last week, the Times ran Urbina's three-part series on the bullish outlook for natural gas production in the United States, questioning whether industry officials and analysts are too optimistic.
The New York Department of Environmental Conservation will soon issue a new report that will decide whether New York state will allow hydrofracturing. Is the Times' series meant to nudge New York toward a negative decision?
These headlines want to make you call your broker and sell. They read "Insiders Sound an Alarm Amid a Natural Gas Rush," "Behind Veneer, Doubt on Future of Natural Gas," and "SEC Shift Leads to Worries of Overestimation of Reserves."
Yet one source, Art Berman, described as "a Houston-based geologist" who said "the shale gas revolution is being oversold" is a board member of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas, which promotes "cooperative initiatives in an era of depleting petroleum resources."
On April 1, at Cornell University, Berman proposed getting rid of private cars and replacing them with public transportation.
Another source, Deborah Rogers, is described as "a member of the advisory committee of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas."
Left unsaid is that she is also a steering committee member of the Oil and Gas Accountability Project, which is working to ban hydraulic fracturing.
