The USGS increased its estimate of "undiscovered" Marcellus gas reserves by 42 times to 84 from 2 trillion cubic feet, but the NYT reports it as a major cut in the estimates of Marcellus shale gas. How?
The NYT gas reporter and his enabling editors did not realize that the USGS estimate was just of "undiscovered" reserves and did not include discovered or developed reserves, as the EIA much bigger estimate of 400 trillion cubic feet for the Marcellus does.
What is "undiscovered" reserves? It is untouched or not developed gas. See also the fourth comment to the Friday August 26th posting for greater detail on the categories and definitions.
And why did the NYT gas reporter make this fundamental error? He just could not resist spinning the USGS increase as an 80% decrease, since he is pushing the narrative that shale gas is a ponzi scheme.
NYT readers are just pawns in his fictional drama.