Here is a collection of rebuttal comments.  
http://www.energyindepth.org/2011/06/what-they’re-saying-36-hours-later/

Among those listed in website above, I find this one to be compelling:
Financial analyst with degree in Petroleum Engineering from Stanford: “The NYT suggests that maybe there isn’t as much natural gas as the industry says. Indeed, some wells will be less economic than others, driven both by rock characteristics and gas prices, so no, at $4 per mmbtu there isn’t as much gas as has been targeted by wells drilled assuming $6 long-term gas prices, a huge difference.But the fact is, shale wells are quite productive and applicable to gigantic areas that we wouldn’t have thought of drilling ten years ago. Challenged by lower prices, gas producers are innovating to reduce costs and improve recoveries, the way learning curve behaviors would predict. … Typically slower in making big moves, domestic majors including ExxonMobil and Chevron have also embraced gas and oil shales development in the U.S. Along with many of the top independent producers in the U.S., these are excellent technology companies with prudent risk management, and part of why 25% of today’s natural gas production comes from shales, and the driver of the large increase in U.S. gas production since 2005.” (Duane Grubert, Susquehanna Financial Group, 6/28/11)

Also, I have a confession to make.  I listen to Jim Cramer on CNBC from time to time.   He wasn't convinced by the NYT article. Of course, consider the source.......business news CNBC. Not as bad as FOX but prone to show some conservative bias.   Cramer asks, "Can ALL the big gas companies be wrong?' 
   http://www.mrc.org/bmi/articles/2011/Mad_Money_Jim_Cramer_Blasts_Times_Reporter_for_Natural_Gas_Hit_Pieces.html

I think Ian Urbino's erlier 3-part piece on the risks of fracking was right on.  I don't think this piece has the same level of factual foundation.  Dee

-----Original Message-----
From: Wonderlin, William <wwonderlin@hsc.wvu.edu>
To: Dee Fulton <dfvet@aol.com>; mvcac@cheat.org <mvcac@cheat.org>
Sent: Wed, Jul 6, 2011 10:58 am
Subject: RE: [MVCAC] Article from NYT

Just for clarification...the e-mail is cited correctly in the main article, 
which only mentions the Ponzi part of the e-mail. The error you have highlighted 
is in the summary of the e-mail included in the supplementary document that 
lists their sources. Obviously, that error is not good, but it is a little 
different journalistic "crime." I am reluctant to throw out the whole article 
because of an error that appears to be limited in scope to the supplementary 
online information.

I had only read the hard copy version of the article before sending it out, and 
your careful reading nicely illustrates the new and very useful opportunities 
available with online articles.  

Thanks,

Bill


Bill Wonderlin, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Dept. Biochemistry
West Virginia University
304-293-3159
________________________________________
From: Dee Fulton [dfvet@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 9:50 AM
To: Wonderlin, William; mvcac@cheat.org
Subject: Re: [MVCAC] Article from NYT

Yes, it is interesting.  But I don't think it is reliable reporting, sadly.  I 
looked at some of the emails and memos that the article is based upon.  There 
are links in the article.  Many are dated 2009 and one in particular was really 
misrepresented by the NYT.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/natural-gas-drilling-down-documents-4.html     
NYT summarizes the email by saying, "the word among independent oil and gas 
producers is that shale gas drilling is a Ponzi scheme and that it will be 
difficult for companies to make money in the Marcellus and Haynesville shale 
formations,

In fact, the email says, "The word I hear from every company THAT IS NOT IN 
HAYNESVILLE AND MARCELLUS is that they are not economic.  "

Dee



-----Original Message-----
From: Wonderlin, William <wwonderlin@hsc.wvu.edu>
To: mvcac@cheat.org <mvcac@cheat.org>
Sent: Wed, Jul 6, 2011 8:59 am
Subject: [MVCAC] Article from NYT


This is a very interesting article from the New York Times about how the
economic benefits of fracking are not living up to expectations:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/us/26gas.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1


Bill
_______________________________________________
MVCAC mailing list
MVCAC@cheat.org<mailto:MVCAC@cheat.org>
http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/mvcac