Essay may have a point here, but I think that the proponents of coal and oil can make more harmful usage of the following than the "antis" can.
I agree with Skip that the facts need to be told and the haze on fracing needs to be cleared up, but the battle has to be fought on multiple fronts.
I think natural gas would be vastly superior to coal environmentally even if it were to have no carbon emission advantage. The article only gives passing credit to NG for its superiority in toxic emissions over coal. Gas STAR's work needs to be accelerated and given more emphasis. I believe the article is correct in stating that the more clear cut NG's advantages are over other fossil fuels, the better chance NG has for making headway against the entrenched interests of such fuels. Clearly these interests will try to take advantage of any seeming chinks in the NG armor.
HAL, I'm sure has this patented and PROTECTED. This is competition in this field. Telling the eco nuts what you are using, will simply destroy their ability to compete in this market. Every business man/company does this. Especially militaries of the world. I'll tell one chemical they are pumping a lot of into the well, and that is di-hydrogen monoxide.
This is a bad idea. It will bust open the protections provided by the US Patent agency on ALL products and processes. A can of worms we should not open. Period.
Glad there are new products coming on board to help with the wells.
Facts are irrelevant. This is a US public policy discussion.
Remember the "mercury in vaccines causes autism" claims? They quit putting mercury in kid's vaccines. Autism rates didn't go down. Did the mercury/autism conspiracy theorists stop? No, they're just as vocal as ever.
"Facts are irrelevant."