New York Times article refers to shale gas drilling as a "giant ponzi scheme".

Views: 343

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Odds that the "Chesapeake geologist" still has his job Monday?

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.


The New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times are icons of print media.  They are not now nor have they ever been perfect.  Print media in general is becoming more sensational and seeking of controversy because that is what sells papers unfortunately.  The American public has an attention span shorter than my little finger, an appetite for the sensational and a disdain for in depth reporting on any issue of real import.  They prefer blind partisan dogma and sound bites to rational thought and a yearning for the truth.  The media is, in general, a faithful reflection of what the American people find of interest.
Thank you Skip. I very much value your level head, expertise and fairness.
icons of liberal  print media, there fixed it for you.  also, it couldn't have anything to do with the overall decline of liberal media everywhere, what with the surge of "new media," and all of the information available free of liberal filters on the internet?  print media in general is in trouble, and liberal print media especially so.  americans have always had short attention spans and a taste for sensationalism but we're in a race to the bottom with newspapers because it's all they have left.  maybe if they scream louder about being true objective journalists while they print trash like this people will change their perception.  probably not though.
Wonder what kind of atmosphere it would take to bump them up to a level of rational thought and a yearning for the truth? 
Mmcf/d---- if they speak the truth they get canned (FIRED)--- did you see what happen to Mark Halperin senior political anaylsis for MSNBC this Am on Morning Joe TV show MSNBC with comment about Obama.Message to Newsmen or women what every you do -- do not tell the truth!!!!
HBP, how true. And might I add that other than energy, including hydrocarbons, what else is our nation manufacturing? Nada! It seems in the best interest of all that its time to focus on using our natural resources here and now to fuel local light manufacturing, transportation, and energy needs of office compounds, neighborhoods, shopping centers,etc. AND development of alternative fuel facilities. In short, dont we need an active energy policy that makes sense now and also is forward looking?

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.


© 2021   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service