Fossil Fuel Magic: NYT Turns A Big Increase Into A Big Decrease

Recently the US Geological Survey vastly increased its estimate of technologically recoverable natural gas from the Marcellus shale formation in Pennsylvania, New York, and West Virginia. You may have read about it here or here. In an amazing feat of deception and biased journalism, the New York Times makes this massive increase look like a decrease and spins a pessimistic theme into the potential of this great energy resource. How did they do it? By comparing apples and oranges. The NYT buries the comparison of the USGS's new estimate with its old estimate deep in the article and draws no thematic conclusions from this development. Instead the NYT compares the new USGS estimate with the estimate of an entirely different governmental agency (EIA), assumes the other agency is the benchmark (even while stating that this agency does not have the expertise to make such an estimate), and concludes that the new USGS estimate constitutes a massive reduction.

The story here is twofold, 1) that on an apples to apples basis the Marcellus Shale's potential as a resource is more promising than previously thought, and 2) that there are overlapping government agencies looking at this energy resource and that at least one of them is ill-equipped to carry out its task. Yet, the New York Times goes to amazing lengths of deception and contortion to tell you neither of those stories in an effort to discredit the potential for Marcellus Shale gas as a major contributor to our future national energy supply.