Considering it is the “paper of record” for many Americans, I’m glad to see that The New York Times has published its own critique of a June 25 article about the U.S. natural gas industry.
The original article, by Times reporter Ian Urbina, aspired to be an exposé about U.S. shale gas production. But in his column on Sunday, the Times’ public editor, Arthur S. Brisbane, chastised the article for many of the same flaws that a wide range of commentators and industry experts had already identified, namely: Poor (and poorly identified) sourcing, lack of context, and a failure to seek dissenting views from companies like ExxonMobil, which today is the largest U.S. producer of natural gas.
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration
Brisbane also rightly called into question the article’s main point, which was to suggest that shale gas is some kind of “Ponzi scheme,” when in fact it has grown from 2 percent of U.S. gas production in 2000 to 23 percent today.
“My view is that such a pointed article needed more convincing substantiation, more space for a reasoned explanation of the other side and more clarity about its focus,” Brisbane wrote.
Brisbane said he discovered that the article apparently was intended as a critique not of the entire U.S. natural gas industry, but of certain smaller, independent producers. That was certainly not clear in the article. But in any case, it was a weak attempt at an exposé, and I agree with Brisbane’s conclusion: “The article went out on a limb, lacked an in-depth dissenting view in the text and should have made clear that shale gas had boomed.”
The issues surrounding the question of how America will continue to meet its energy needs are too important for anything other than the facts. I appreciate the Times’ taking a second look at this article.
Arthur S. Brisbane works outside of the reporting and editing structure of the newspaper. His opinions and conclusions are his own.
As do all the readers of the NYT. They form their own opinions as well, despite the Times’ editorializing. Their opinions are published in the Times’ quarterly financial statements.
It’s plain and simple to me. All Exxon needs to do is support the removal of the Cheney 2005 Clean Air/Water exemption given to Natural Gas exploration.
The smoke of backrooming a special exemption through the VP who’s prior company, Haliburton is a huge player in the game, and a dogged determination to not reveal the chemicals used in the drilling process, implies a lot of fire.
Remove the exemption, be open about the chemicals and process and then we can talk.
Good points all.
It is refreshing to see some positive rebuttal regarding our natural gas requirements and those that would attempt to stifle progress in this industry. I am new to the ExxonMobil blog but will be back many times.
I read about this site in an ad in Time magazine and was immediately impressed with the image of a natural gas well that is an average of one and a half miles deep in to the Marcellus Shale deposit.