[Titus-Maximus]

Enlightening responses to the NY Times hit piece on shale gas. The Times pieces are deliberate distortions of reality - and this comes from an onslaught of reactions from all those involved in shale gas from government, academia, industry and the financial world.

Where does the Times deception stem from?

Are they run by green extremists who don't want to see anymore fossil fuels being developed - so they propagandize to that purpose? Are they really afraid the price of natural gas will fall and stay at historic lows, postponing the use of very expensive renewable energy including solar and wind? Do they care that the poor will now heat their homes at half the cost of previous years?

Do they hate America and would rather see us beholden to Middle Eastern terrorist states as a cosmic payback for our supposed historical crimes - plus a bonus redistribution of our wealth? (Obama-Rev Wright Model)

Do they genuinely think that shale gas is a gigantic ponzi scheme, and comparisons to Enron are fully justified? The production numbers do not jive with their propaganda? If it was a falsehood, the prices would be going higher? Is that part of the Times conspiracy theory?

Also - they had used quotes from government officials, redacted emails, and one turned out to be an intern that the Times had eluded to the man as a high official. This reporting is shoddy and disinformative. Ian Urbina has some questions to answer.

[WayneS]

What could natural gas have possibly done to make the NYT hate it so?

[mo]

“Where does the Times deception stem from? ...”

One of the foundations of the United states has been cheap energy. Cheap energy represents opportunity for individuals...and independence from government. Liberals hate that.

[Erik Latranyi]

If natural gas was truly not profitable, the NYT would be in favor of subsidizing it!

[IC Ken]

Here in Western PA shale gas is making people rich. Washington County is booming.

[JPG]

The NY Times editorial board room must have a lot of holes punched in the walls. You'd think that on the subject of ‘gas’ they would be experts. Wrong! In fact they are 99.92% wrong on everything they say and that's quite a record.

[Red Badger]

...well-known opponents of the industry, who argue that shale is too expensive to produce and will therefore disappoint investors

Since when did they ever give a damn about 'investors'? If, in fact, it is 'too expensive' the market will decide, not some lazy good for nothing environazi living in his mother's basement. And when will social programs that have failed time and time again, trillions of dollars down the toilet, be deemed 'too expensive'?...................

[dirtboy]

ping

[Sudetenland]

The Times is, has been, and always will be a liberal hack publication and as such has little use for facts that run contrary to the liberal narrative . . . hydrocarbons bad, profit bad, conservatism evil, etc., etc.

Why is the Times misrepresenting shale gas E&P? Because they are a commie rag that lies consistently and without shame. Why? Because they are liberal.

This story surprises me about as much as the sun rising in the morning.

[Arm_Bears]

Cut off all energy sources external to the state of New York. This will give the NYT, and its enablers, what they purport to desire—An energy self-sufficient mini-world. We’ll see how much they like it (and how long they last).

[G L Tirebiter]

1 - Are they run by green extremists 2- Do they hate America 3- Do they genuinely think that shale gas is a gigantic ponzi scheme

I'm going with a 60%/40% split between 1 & 2. Actually members of 1 are simply an important subset of 1.

What a remarkable set of rebuttals to what should be a major embarassment to even a small town free weekly.