Did Chesapeake Energy even read all the way through the first page of the NY Times article on Monday, rightfully investigating overblown natural gas claims? Here's the predictable CEO bluster:
"Aubrey McClendon, CEO of the Oklahoma City-based oil and natural gas producer, said the story, which ran in the Sunday issue of the paper, 'accused the company of exaggerating natural gas shale wells' productivity and industry reserve estimates of future well performance despite numerous available sources verifying the estimates.'"
Two gems here: numerous "available sources"? Try Googling "climate change", McClendon. Or "Notorious B.I.G. 1997". There's plenty of sources "available", but how many are accurate? How many are downright loony? Then there's the awkward question of what these sources are actually based on--if McClendon had gotten to page 2 he could have come to terms with this reality check:
"The Energy Information Administration relies on research from outside consultants with ties to the industry. And some of those consultants pull the data they supply to the government from energy company news releases, according to Energy Information Administration e-mails."