NYT’s “Dewey-Defeats-Truman” Moment on Shale?
Tags: Barnett Shale, Fayetteville, Haynesville, Marcellus
27.June.2011adminNo Comments
In debate over promise, potential and economics of shale gas, NYT calls it early for the opposition – but they might be embarrassed about that later
The United States produced more natural gas in 2010 than at any point in the previous 37 years, a stunning reversal of fortune given the country’s supply picture earlier this decade, and one that could not have been possible without massive volumes of American energy that continue to be generated from shale.
So what happens from here? By now, you’ve likely heard the stories and seen the estimates: with everyone from IEA to EIA to PGC to MIT projecting a future in which shale’s production trajectory continues along an aggressive upward path, delivering literally quadrillions of cubic feet of clean-burning natural gas to generations of consumers not only in the United States, but around the world. It’s a view that’s supported by the preponderance of science and a majority of scientists, not to mention one that’s continuously reinforced by new data.
Over the weekend, The New York Times sought to advance a contrarian view on the subject,
Isn't the real issue that is costs more energy to extract energy from the shale than you get?
I heard that the oil sands project in Canada only works because they use the abundant natural gas in the area to obtain the oil, but once they develop a way to move that NG to market, it will be too expensive to develop the oil sands.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
