Hi Steve --

I fully agree with your take above in terms of the events unfolding in US shale simply the latest version of a cyclical boom-bust business, but I think you are giving far too much credit to Mr. Urbina. His stories had the potential to raising interesting questions about how a booming cycle brings about a herd mentality that heats up the marketplace and inevitably ends up suckering the late entrants and less sophisticated players. But his first article instead is premised nearly exclusively on passing off grandiose claims of Ponzi Schemes and an emerging breed of Enrons.

Given that the actual aftermath of Enron is still acute in the minds of Houstonians like myself and the term 'Ponzi Scheme' instantly conjures up images of Bernie Madoff and his horrific swindle, to throw around such terms is excessive and just flat out unprofessional for such a so-called investigative piece. To carry that thought through, one has to assume that all the companies participating in US shale -- independents, majors, international NOCs -- are in effectively in collusion to swindle investment dollars in a scheme that doesn't work all for what? To make a quick buck and go bankrupt? How absurd a proposition. Clearly Mr. Urbina needs to take Economics 101.

So I have to say I think the intense response seen to Mr. Urbina's stories come from the fact that the industry is already on the defensive with regard to fracking, so to be lumped in with Madoff and Enron is surely going to get the blood boiling. Furthermore, the NYT is supposed to be a well respected news organization, so for them to be publishing something that I think is in the ballpark of yellow journalism is just flat out irresponsible.

Casey

It isn't so much as a raw nerve, as a "what on earth now?" moment from the industry. People aren't getting so much angry as exasperated.
The latest "revelations" are basically the work of a handful of people from one of the many constituencies disrupted by shale, in this case Peak Oil, a now discredited theory that remains popular among catastrophists of all political stripes.

Shale does shake up the status quo: Nuclear, renewables, coal, Russia, Peak Oil: All disrupted and have a vested interest in not so much putting out nutty stories but rubbing their hands as they appear.

Similarly the other articles in the Times have tried to appeal to the Green Tea Party conspiracy theorists. One problem well out of a hundred is unacceptable. Several dozen insinuations and not a single proof of poisoning out of tens of thousand of wells is...proof of a new Enron/Macondo Silent Spring? Where is the science in that?

I see absolutely no difference here between those who see "climategate" email story as proof of a scam or those who see the Times e-mails as shale wiki leaks as proof of ...a scam.

I work on public acceptance issues in the nascent European shale industry, and even more rarely, appear to be one of the few progressive green shale advocates on the planet.

I work with various European governments that someone like Aubrey McC, (not a client) might think of as being fromage eating surrender monkeys. But since I also used to work for and live in the City of New York, I find them refreshingly sane and logical. Exasperating as both can sometimes be, I can understand where each of them are coming from.

PlI'm struck by how multi-million dollar PR campaigns in the US have been derailed by what I call the Green Tea Party, chief convenor being Josh Fox of Gasland.

I'm the progressive remember. But the anti-shale Green Tea Party shares many of the same attributes as the Bachmann version:

Both are uncomfortable with "experts", for example. The right thinks that the overwhelming scientific proof of climate change is optional at best or a scientific plot similar to those who don't accept creationism. The left thinks that the overwhelming scientific fact of gas drilling as being safe should be ignored because they don't trust experts either, unless they are their experts. Scientific neutrality, or those annoying facts, can be swept away on a wave of magical thinking based on emotional entitlement. I really, really, really believe that fracking is poisoning me ,or that the earth was created in six days or that the earth is flat or that the world will end on September whatever. Because I really believe that, the press elevates feeling to beliefs and from there: next thing we know they turn into facts and otherwise lucid people start giving them credence.

Both sides are quick to grab any exception as being proof of a rule instead of being simply, well, an exception. The public in general, even in rational countries like France, is becoming more and more open to wild assertion instead of boring little things like facts
And where does much of that come from? From a media that is continually looking to create controversy, to paint any story as a simple black/white left/right green/driller narrative. Or, to simply dumb down stories to emotional narratives that can be described in one paragraph.

Please visit www.shalegasinfo.eu to attempt to inject some rationality.

Steve --

Actually, I think you hit the nail on the head. I read the piece and didn't think it was The Times accusing shale gas of being a ponzi or "yellow journalism" or anything like that. I thought it was a just plain old-fashioned investigative reporting, taking a close look at some claims from an industry that is full of hyperbole, on both sides apparently.

The idea that the New York Times is somehow "anti-natural gas" is too conspiratorial to take seriously. To me, it looks like a decently researched piece, and a timely one at that. I suppose time will tell if this is a 'Shakesperian moment' but for right now, it seems to me like instead of getting distracted by a debate over whether shale gas is 'manna from heaven' or a 'ponzi scheme,' the focus should be on whether this gas will really be cheap to produce over the long run. Too much is depending on what we do today - I'm glad that there are some folks taking a sober look at these issues.

There is a lot of money to be made in Shale Gas and where there is a lot of money there will be progress. Shale gas will open up a new sector in the energy industry and with it will create oil and gas jobs galore. We as consumers will finally see it as a good thing once we see benefit be gained from this new energy method.