Needless to say, Burnett and Kosik consider themselves to be opinion-free, objective “reporters.” Indeed, this is what Burnett said in the Vantiy Fair interview when asked if she sympathizes too much with the Wall Street plutocrats on whom she purports to report: “My job isn’t to give an opinion but to try and explain what’s happening.” But just like Andrew Ross Sorkin and his protection of and subservience to his “CEO-of-a-major-bank” friend, these people are oozing bias and opinion from every pore of their being. They are so devoted to and immersed in the insular oligarchical world of which they are desperate to be a part that they know and care about nothing else. Expecting them to provide objective, critical assessments of business elites is like expecting a heroin addict to rat out his dealer.
— The Financial Times reports that the shale gas gold rush underway in the U.S. could have significant indirect economic impacts, helping boost manufacturing in chemicals and other industries that rely on petrochemicals for production processes.
By creating fast-growing markets for production equipment and services, and providing cheap energy and raw materials, the shale producers are holding out the promise of an American industrial renaissance. “It’s a phenomenal opportunity,” says Andrew Liveris, the chief executive of Dow Chemical, who is a vocal supporter of US manufacturing. “This is a gift that American entrepreneurs, the wildcatters, the oil and gas drillers, have given the country: 100 years of natural gas supply. There’s no country on the planet that wouldn’t love to get that, and then use it.”
And:
Shale gas is particularly important because it is stranded in US, with no facilities to sell it on world markets, although the country’s first liquefaction plant to enable the gas to be exported is now under development. As a result, gas is much cheaper in North America than in other leading economies. The US price of about $3.60 per million British thermal units compares with about $8 in the UK and $16 in Japan…
“Natural gas is to the chemicals industry as flour is to a bakery,” says Cal Dooley, president of the American Chemistry Council, an industry group. “Cheap gas means both international and American companies are now looking at the US as the preferred location for new investment”…
For the first decade of the millennium, high and volatile gas prices made US production uncompetitive relative to producers in emerging economies. Jeffrey Lipton, a former chief executive of Canada’s Nova Chemicals who now spreads the shale gas gospel, says the balance of power has shifted back to North America. Unlike in some industrial sectors, China has no competitive advantage in chemicals, because it is an importer of gas and oil.
As the effect of cheaper American raw materials works through the value chain, Mr Dooley says, other manufacturers will also be encouraged back to the US to take advantage. “Even in the auto industry we are starting to see a response,” he says. “There are composite and plastic components presently being made outside the US, because it has been cheaper. That competitive advantage no longer exists. In the future the US will be in a far stronger position to be a supplier to the auto industry.” The ACC estimated in March that a 25 per cent increase in ethane production could create 400,000 jobs.
In other words, the FT says that our cheaper gas is causing manufacturers to consider relocating to the U.S. This is a bit pie in the sky, so it’s worth being skeptical here. I’d like to see more reporting on it to make sure it’s not energy-industry spin. But it’s not implausible.

And the nice thing about shale investment is that all it will cost us long term is our aquifiers. And water is practically free anyways so this is win win.
#1 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 8 Oct 2011 at 02:09 PM
What gives? On the rare occasion you cite Greenwald, it's on a topic about which he misses the mark or knows very little. Glenn's best material is on foreign policy and civil liberties. Is he overqualified to show Obama et al. for the authoritarian monsters they are?
#2 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Sun 9 Oct 2011 at 09:22 AM
Why goes that quote make me think of so many low carb/gluten intolerance metaphors? Maybe IBS should stand for Irritable Barrel Syndrome.
#3 Posted by Noah Body, CJR on Mon 10 Oct 2011 at 08:31 AM
Yeah, but think of the polar bears that will drown when the plant food that comes from that shale gas ends up in the atmosphere!
#4 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 10 Oct 2011 at 09:21 AM
Don't forget the four congress members from Manhattan (Rangel, Nadler, Maloney and Velazquez) who give the bankers the best regulation money can buy. Throw in the oleaginous Schumer and you have an evil quintet.
#5 Posted by Mike Robbins, CJR on Mon 10 Oct 2011 at 03:27 PM
Question for Don A.
Please elaborate on your comment re Greenwald. With respect to the article cited, how has he missed the mark or has been shown to know very little about the topic? Also, I don't understand the comment re Greenwald not writing about Obama et al as authoritarian monsters. Greenwald has written about Al Awlaki and the hit list, the prosecution of whistle blowers, Obama's contravention of the War Powers Act re Libya, persecution of WikiLeaks supporters, etc.
#6 Posted by Bob Canuck, CJR on Tue 11 Oct 2011 at 01:07 PM
To Dan A.,
My apologies; I incorrectly addressed the question to the mythical Don A. and not you. :)
#7 Posted by Bob Canuck, CJR on Tue 11 Oct 2011 at 01:44 PM