New York Times Touts "Shale Gas Revolution"

Acclaimed columnist David Brooks wrote in today’s New York Times that forces have gathered to thwart the development of America’s shale gas reserves, an opportunity a leading energy executive has labeled “one of the most important energy revolutions of his lifetime.”

For those not familiar with shale gas, it is a hard-to-produce form of natural gas that geologists have known about for over a century. Yet it wasn’t until the dawn of the 21st century that scientists figured out how to tap into the immense reservoirs of shale gas that can be found in many parts of the U.S. (and, for that matter, around the world).

David Brooks has been an Op-Ed columnist at The New York Times since September 2003 and is a frequent commentator on National Public Radio.

As Brooks noted, just a decade ago, “shale gas represented just 1 percent of American natural gas supplies. Today, it is 30 percent and rising.”

“The U.S. now seems to possess a 100-year supply of natural gas, which is the cleanest of the fossil fuels. This cleaner, cheaper energy source is already replacing dirtier coal-fired plants. It could serve as the ideal bridge, Amy Jaffe of Rice University says, until renewable sources like wind and solar mature.”

Brooks sees this as “tremendously good news,” but he’s quick to point out that a lot of interests are aligned against developing these resources for the good of the country.

The shale gas revolution challenges the coal industry, renders new nuclear plants uneconomic and changes the economics for the renewable energy companies, which are now much further from viability. So forces have gathered against shale gas, with predictable results.

The clashes between the industry and the environmentalists are now becoming brutal and totalistic, dehumanizing each side. Not-in-my-backyard activists are organizing to prevent exploration. Environmentalists and their publicists wax apocalyptic.

Despite these challenges, Brooks believes that “the inherent risks can be managed if there is a reasonable regulatory regime, and if the general public has a balanced and realistic sense of the costs and benefits.”

Read the complete story HERE.