Friday, December 19, 2014

Natural Gas: EIA Responds To Journal Nature, Says Nature is As Shoddy as the New York Times

The EIA refrained from saying Times publisher 'Pinch' Sulzberger dresses funny but did say:
From the EIA's perspective, the situation has an element of what Yogi Berra, the American baseball player famed for his catchy phraseology, once described as "deja vu all over again." In June 2011, the New York times (NYT), published two articles "Insiders Sound Alarm Amid a natural Gas Rush" (June 26) and "Behind Veneer, Doubt on the Future of Natural Gas" (June 27). The NYT's public editor, who acts as an ombudsman on behalf of readers, responded to these articles with two columns (July 16 and July 30, 2011) that found both the content of the articles and the reporting methods to be deeply flawed, in many instances for the same reasons that motivated this response to Nature's December 4 article....
Howard Gruenspecht
Deputy Administrator 
Energy Information Administration
From UPI:

Nature fires back at EIA shale gas critique
EIA says article reminiscent of faulty New York Times article on natural gas prospects.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 18 (UPI) -- The journal Nature stands by the accuracy of a feature questioning the longevity of the growth in U.S. shale natural gas, the features editor said Thursday. 
The U.S. Energy Information Administration took issue this week with an article published by Nature, in which Texas researchers said a detailed analysis of U.S. shale plays may be "bad news" for forecasters.
Policymakers on Capitol Hill have said the glut of natural gas means the United States should transform itself as a major exporter of liquefied natural gas, arguing such deliveries may contribute to the rise of the country as an "energy superpower."

Tad Patzek, director of petroleum engineering at the University of Texas at Austin, said in the Nature report EIA assessments of shale were setting U.S. policymakers up "for a major fiasco."
In a Dec. 15 retort, EIA countered the Nature article was filled with "inaccurate and distorting reporting." It further questioned Patzek's role in the research supporting the article, saying he had only a limited role in the actual studies.

"It might also be appropriate for the article to inform readers that Patzek is a leading figure in the peak oil community, which emphasizes concerns related to limitations on the availability of hydrocarbon resources," EIA Deputy Administrator Howard Gruenspecht said in his response.

Richard Monastersky, features editor for Nature, told UPI the journal stands by the accuracy of its reporting. Before publication, editors discussed the data and the feature itself with researchers at the University of Texas Bureau of Economic Geology as well as EIA....MORE

Nature | News Feature 
Natural gas: The fracking fallacy

BEG/UT has also responded to the article in their own letter to the editor.
Read BEG/UT response