Slashdot Mirror
US Energy Panel Cautiously Endorses Fracking
Hugh Pickens writes "The Christian Science Monitor reports that a U.S. Energy Department advisory panel has endorsed fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, a promising technology that injects a mixture of water, sand, and chemicals underground to fracture rock and release shale gas previously thought unretrievable, paving the way for tens of thousands of new wells. If fracking can be done safely, it could be a major source of domestic energy over the next century. Shale gas makes up about 14 percent of the U.S. natural gas supply today, but is expected to reach 45 percent by 2035. But first, serious environmental concerns must be addressed. Earlier this year, a Duke University study of 68 private groundwater wells in Pennsylvania and New York state found evidence that shale-gas extraction has caused them to become contaminated with methane. One key recommendation by the panel is a call for transparency regarding the use of chemicals in the extraction process. Drillers say they would like to keep the exact formula of the chemicals they use secret because it represents a competitive advantage."
The U.S. Energy Department endorses this horrible process?!? All of the places where this technology was used has resulted in contaminating the neighboring population's water.
Oh wait, it also resulted in the harvesting of gas... well that trumps everything then.
~Syberz
There are already thousands and thosuands of wells all over the United States, that was the whole point of part of Cheney's energy plan.
Please see GASLAND by Josh Fox.
Fun fact - the people who own those mineral rights probably don't care about the environmental damage, they are getting massively rich. if you could somehow spread out the wind-power profits to tens of thousands of people you might see more political support for wind farms.
"In our judgment, they should disclose the entire suite of chemicals," except in "very rare" instances in which chemicals are judged to be truly proprietary, John Deutch, chairman of the Shale Gas Subcommittee of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, told The Associated Press.
Always giving them a loophole.
But the panel also said the industry's stock reply that fracking has been performed safely for more than 60 years won't succeed in convincing a skeptical public.
Of course the public is skeptical. I'm a cynic - industry will always lie to protect their profits even if it harms public health. There are no exceptions.
And continuing with my cynicism:
The panel said it "shares the prevailing view" that fracking poses a low risk to drinking water supplies because thousands of feet of earth separate fracking chemicals from groundwater.
The panel was "lobbied" by industry and was "pressured" by the politicians to say that - to put it nicely.
"Drillers say they would like to keep the exact formula of the chemicals they use secret because it represents a competitive advantage" Good luck with that. Food and beverage manufactures were required to list their "ingredients", and they sky didn't fall.
Actually, I'd encourage you to give the Christian Science Monitor a look. It is a well respected newspaper, certainly in the same league as major daily papers such as the NY Times and Washington Post, and has been around for about as long. Personally I think it beats the hell out of cnn.com and the like. You don't have to be Christian to like it. But judge for yourself.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Here's the complete list of the things the US Energy Panel has Cautiously Endorsed this week
* Shooting for oil
* Bristols for oil
* Peeving for oil
* Fracking for oil
* Berkeley Hunting for oil
* Cork-sinking for oil
* Motherfracking for oil
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
You are objecting to the word Christian in a news publication.
I take it you object to the idea of a guy named Christian in politics too?
http://www.csmonitor.com/About/The-Monitor-difference
Then if the Monitor's news is basically secular and for everybody, why is "Christian Science" in its name?
It's about honesty and purpose. We do not hide the fact that the Christian Science church has stood behind this publication for more than 100 years. While some might argue that not having those words would give it wider appeal, to remove them would mislead people about the organization that supports the Monitor. Eddy knew this from the outset. She insisted, against strong opposition from some of her advisers and church officers, that the words “Christian Science” should be in the paper’s name.
According to one of her biographers, Robert Peel, to Mrs. Eddy, "the designated title was an identification of the paper with the promise that no human situation was beyond healing or rectification if approached with sufficient understanding of man’s God-given potentialities. Nor did the "good news" of Christianity involve the prettification of bad news, but rather, its confident confrontation" (witness Monitor correspondent David Rohde’s Pulitzer Prize-winning reporting in 1995 on alleged massacres by Bosnian Serb forces).
It didn't last for very long though. The process was halted back in June after multiple earthquakes, and the UK is pretty stable geologically - earthquakes strong enough to be felt usually make the national news - so a connection seems highly likely. Coverage at the BBC, FT and Independent.
:)
Still, it is good for a chuckle every now and again if you are a Galactica fan since journos keep using headlines starting with "Fracking Protesters..." until someone gets it changed.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
I personally tend to agree with this cautious endorsement, but because I live right on top of the Marcellus shale, my otherwise sane friends are freaking about about hydrofracking. I'd love to have an independent and evidence-based source to help me make sense of this. Don't tell me about Gasland and other anecdotal accounts. I'm finding that even I and other educated people don't have much of an idea just how typical Gasland-style anecdotes are, how much gas is won for each such case of methane leakage, and just how bad it is to get methane in your well water? Is this the sort of thing for which we have a filter?
"Christian Science", as a religious movement, is approximately equivalent to other not-too-foaming-at-the-mouth strains of Protestantism, with the exception of its rather peculiar disinclination toward not availing itself of modern medicine.
For whatever reason, though, their newspaper does almost no water-carrying for the mothership, and is broadly considered respectable even by those who find the parent organization's doctrines silly in the extreme...
CSM has amazing articles and unlike most of the drivel coming out of places these days is actually well written and researched. The "Christian" part throws a lot of people but it shouldn't.
Horizontal drilling is a lot easier now than it used to be so fracking isn't the cheap and nasty option any more - merely the nasty option that isn't really needed.
In most parts of the world pretending it's a secret mix of chemicals will not get you anywhere near a drilling permit. Parts of the USA are of course special and business can do whatever it likes so long as the words "trade secret" are used, but this method is no longer the vastly cheaper option so expect it to die out even where environmental problems are considered not as a cost to business but something governments clean up at taxpayers expense.
"Drillers say they would like to keep the exact formula of the chemicals they use secret because it represents a competitive advantage."
Too fracking bad.
Besides, there's no need for secret competitive advantage when it comes to energy. They all rake in billions regardless. It's a natural resource and it's up to us to monitor how it's used. If you don't want to be in the lucrative energy business because you dislike the transparency that needs to accompany it, then you need to find another business to be in.
Asking people to think is like asking them to buy you a new car
Here's an easy solution: require oil companies to put trace additives that are uniquely identifiable into the chemicals they inject. (e.g. custom molecules that identify the oil company/well). Then if these chemicals are found in drinking water, lakes or streams, you know where they came from, and can issue a massive fine to the oil company and well owner. This way they can keep their fracking formula secret, and will self-police themselves to some extent as long as the fines are sufficiently large that it destroys any profit from breaking the rules.
There have to be a few chemists, oil guys, and political wonks reading. Do it.
1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
While I understand the issue with other chemicals, why should it be bad if water is contamined with methane? Wouldn't it just "precipitate" (in a gaseous form) when the water gets to the surface?.
Why can't
While transparency in public policy(and the contents of one's water supply) is generally better than the alternative, there is a very, very, important caveat:
Without accountability, and without means of redress(at least sufficient to be useful in practice, ie. typically not civil court for anybody who doesn't have substantial resources, and ideally sufficient to restrain, rather than merely punish, wrongdoing), transparency is basically just a PR stunt.
If it is wholly legal, or de-facto legal because nobody can afford to sue and wait a decade while the lawyers hash it out, to expose my water supply to fracking chemicals, it barely matters whether I get to know what is in them or not. If I do, writing that retrospective paper for the Journal of Epidemiological Toxicology will be a lot easier for some researcher. If I don't, I'll just have to live with the suspicion that my water's observable properties are alarming, and the local cancer rates seem high.
Short form: Impunity renders transparency irrelevant.
Folks, capitalism is turning our world into an uninhabitable, war-torn hellhole. We need communism now!
Yes, because the communist countries of the world have historically been such good stewards of the environment. I believe Chernobyl is a fine example.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
In the world of BSG, fracking is always a good thing.
Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the ability to grant time-limited monopolies on technologies to advance the public good. Congress could easily pass a law granting them a monopoly for 5 years on the use of the technique if they will open it up to public scrutiny. They could even build in a grace period where the 5 years don't even begin until the US DoE has finished its inquiry and that no one is allowed to reduce to practice the ideas exposed.
As a quasi-libertarian on economics, that is an uncomfortable pill to swallow, but the fact is that the constitution provides a mechanism that would satisfy most of the major political factions which is ultimately more important than doctrinaire capitalism.
They actually make filtering mechanisms specifically for methane. Since it will come out of solution when the pressure drops, you need to remove it so it doesn't build up in your house.
the film that causes gas industry PR people to shit bricks, because it shows several people, on film, setting their water on fire, and because it has interviews with people who have had the gas companies pay for their new water supplies (trucked in periodically), and because Josh Fox has discussed what happened to those people for daring to talk to him - the gas companies shut off their supply of water.
initimidation and persecution are not the tactics of an group that has the facts behind their cause.
Not to mention China's little environmental issues.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
the national association for the advancement of civilization,
the companies who love birds and squirrels and bunnies alliance
the patriotic america loving job creation coalition
the brilliant people who hate losers organization
the anti-baby-killing league of mothers committee
and many many other independent groups, none of whom receive 100% of their funding from the oil and gas companies
when they are trying to treat all the diseases caused.
the new stuff is using a lot of innovative chemical combinations.
you can read the articles to see the arguments, there is plenty of knowledge of history found therein.
Drillers say they would like to keep the exact formula of the chemicals they use secret because it represents a competitive advantage.
And they should be allowed to keep their formulas secret.
However, if they do, they shouldn't be allowed to inject them into the environment.
(COMPANY: "I need approval to make a chemical release into the environment." EPA: "OK, what chemical?" COMPANY: "We can't tell you, it's secret." EPA: "OK, here's your permit."
WTF?
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
something that has been going on for something like 10 years already?
it ran out. there are other places we can get it cheaper.
what will happen to the gas?
same thing.
your fossil fuel ideas wont work here.
its also natural for people with lots of money to hire PR flacks to spread lies to attack anyone who threatens their power.
that has been happening for at least a few hundred years.
Just leave the gas down there. Do these people never learn from their mistakes?
and just how bad it is to get methane in your well water? Is this the sort of thing for which we have a filter?
According to Wikipedia methane is non-toxic, colorless, and odorless.
So clearly Wikipedia is in the pocket of Big Methane. Someone should make a documentary about how Wikipedia has sold out. For citations they can cite this post, and I'm sure you can find enough anecdotes to fill a movie.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
Yeah, I'm going to read an article from a "Christian Science" publication. Whatever that is. Skipping this one.
Translation: "derp derp herr derp" The irony... kind of how I feel about religion...yet CSMonitor is one of the better newspapers out there - they actually have less propaganda than cnn.. (I'm assuming AC is American hence thinks cnn is a good benchmark.)
Fracking oil shale; how does it work?
protip : Christian Scientists are even wackier than your run-of-the-mill Christians.
Strangely, the Christian Science Monitor has long had a reputation as a reputable, unbiased news source. Go figure.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
and just how bad it is to get methane in your well water? Is this the sort of thing for which we have a filter?
You ask a very dangerous and stupid question.
It's more prudent to ask "why should there be methane be released into our water?
Because when proper engineering practises are employed there is no need what so ever for such a release.
As someone working in the industry I say a frac that causes/ allows gas seeping/leaking into an aquifer is a horribly failed project that's probably going to cost more in clean up than the well's production could ever make up for.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
This is not just crusading journalists and panicking farmers. The (peer-reviewed) journal of the American Waterworks Association, September 2010, which mostly has articles like "Characterization of filter media MnOx(s) surfaces and Mn removal capability", also has an article on "The Threat From Hydrofracking" by Paul Rush, the deputy commissioner for water supply for New York City. It's an opinion article, not a scientific paper, but he lays out his case as if it were.
The industry's largest concern is that everybody has been forbidden to get involved in the regulation or permitting of these businesses - talk about your big-government incursion into (very) local concerns, like what's in your water source. Normally, water supply utilities are also charged by the state with protecting the watershed, and can do things like bring suit against hog farms that would let in e. coli. Not here.
As Rush puts it, "...the technical assessment indicated that migration of methane or fluids through natural fractures in the bedrock, some extending for miles, could compromise the city's aqueducts and shafts...Additionally, given the New York State regulatory infrastructure and the rules governing compulsory integration, drillers could potentially receive a permit authorizing horizontal drilling directly below a water supply tunnel without city authorization".
Being the guy responsible for the water quality, and then having any power to challenge a threat to it removed because Dick Cheney wanted to make sure no NIMBYs got in his friend's way, is fairly frightening.
The thing is, this stuff won't go away. At least if it were nuclear waste, it would naturally decay. But once they fill up a network of cracks with this stuff, in the exact geology where you know there's pressure from below, could result in a slow steady feed of it up through cracks and into the water, for decades. Or centuries. And you can inject it in, but you can't suck it out; no way to clean.
It's not unreasonable to study it further before using this technology near much-used watersheds like, well, all through densely-populated New York and Pennsylvania; part of the industry strategy has very, very clearly been to NOT study this issue so far.
Doesn't most of Deer Park's spring water come from Pennsylvania nowadays? And aren't there also huge profits to be had from selling people bottled water? And isn't Deer Park a division of Nestle, the largest food and nutrition corporation in the world?
It would appear that there's a big business versus big business feud brewing. I'm pretty sure Nestle isn't going to stand for methane and carcinogens getting into their profits.
Seems like I just found a cheap way to get rid of nuclear waste. I will just make it part of my new fracking formula.
If you aren't worried about CO2, you think that burning fossil fuels is OK.
I'm not worried about CO2 but I still prefer that we move past burning fossil fuels because of its many other harmful effects, not to mention that, leaving aside the possibility of abiogenesis or dramatic improvements in extraction technology, it's not going to be cheap for very much longer.
Nonaggression works!
This is not new technology. There's not much toxic crap going in there and no one here whining about it polluting their lands. Killing their live stock etc. And livestock is almost as big as oil here. Anyhow old tech is old.
The problem is that the routes that allow methane to enter your well water allow other stuff from the drill pipe to enter the water, such as:
1) Fracking fluid leftovers. Fun chemicals in there like benzene
2) That reservoir isn't 100% pure natural gas - even before injecting the toxic frack fluid down, there's a lot of less savory substances down there.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
that's why they're trying to suck Florida's springs dry:
1. frack wells to release natural gas
2. contaminate groundwater
3. sell natural gas
4. PROFIT!
5. get tax breaks and water rights from state because you're creating "jerbs"
6. hoover up water from Florida aquifer
7. sell bottled water to people whose wells are contaminated
8. PROFIT!
9. people get cancer from nasty brew of sekrit fracking khemicals
10. open for-profit cancer treatment centers and advermatize all over teevee
11. PROFIT!
12. people go broke paying for unproven cancer treatments and die, leaving their families in debt
13. get sweetheart backroom deal on foreclosed land by bribing the local tax board
14.PROFIT!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Comparing a gas to a liquid by volume is not very meaningful. Wikipedia's 35 mg/l is 0.0035% by weight, or 35 ppm. It's milligrams in one kilogram. Actually this source and this other source both give around 0.026 g/l or 26 mg/l , which is 0.0026% solubility of methane in water at 17 C and one atmosphere, or 26 ppm. Pretty much a trace.
At first glance I thought it said "US Energy Panel Cautiously Endorses Fucking."
Then again, since that activity is usually done with the lights off, it'd probably save electricity if more people were doing it.
"Politicians who supported the industry had tried for years to exempt fracking from the Safe Drinking Water Act, the 1974 law that regulates the injection of waste and chemicals underground. The EPA's 2004 study was used to justify that effort. With the help of then-Vice President Dick Cheney -- the former head of Halliburton -- President George W. Bush's landmark energy legislation, the 2005 Energy Policy Act, included a provision that prohibited the EPA from regulating fracking under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Regulation would be left to the states, many of which had underfunded agencies, looser standards and less manpower than the federal government."
Thank God Halliburton had a Vice-President in the White House, eh?
http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/2011/06/27/hydrofracking_and_the_epa
It is a well respected newspaper, certainly in the same league as major daily papers such as the NY Times and Washington Post,
Faint praise indeed.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
Seconded. It doesn't just recycle AP or reuters stories. It doesn't make outlandish statements just to sell more. And it has less to do with religion than Fox or other fake news services do.
one day, the money will be gone.... who will pay for the cleanup?
look at some of the EPA superfund sites, take Pitcher oklahoma for example.
eventually, you run out of places to exploit.
>Drillers say they would like to keep the exact formula of the chemicals they use secret because it represents a competitive advantage."
When i read this, the only thing i think of is the BP disaster and how because of such subterfuge, all was hidden until it was too late, then everything was reviewed, and now seems to be swept under the rug, but we never got anywhere , no trials, nothing happened.....no one was hung for the spill.
This to me will just allow them to do the same with this industry.
Natural gas has half the carbon footprint of coal or petroleum. A massive shift away from these to to natural gas will reduce US carbon emissions. Plus there s an economic incentive to use gas. Bio fuels and solar require huge government subsidies which may not survive in this era of government cutting.
The main scientific caveat is methane is a strong greenhouse gas in its own right- twenty times more power per pound than CO2. Its half life-time in the atmosphere is 20 years compared to millennia for CO2. I've seen calculations that if six percent of the natural leaks at production or shipping, then it will cancel its greenhouse effectiveness. There isnt very good data as to current industry leakage rates. Some of the pessimists put at least six percent.
the gas companies are fracking people sideways?!!!
BASTARDS.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Anecdotal accounts my ass. Fracking contaminates fresh ground water supplies, it IS as simple as that.
When it's something as vital to life as FRESH WATER, it seems reasonable to err on the side of caution, does it not?
The fracking companies have been ordered by US courts to supply fresh water (in trucks that fill giant basins) to the people who's lives they have destroyed with this process. What other evidence do you need?
The majority of fresh water that supplies major US metropolitan areas is contained in a few watersheds. These people ARE going to fuck up OUR fresh water supply for PROFIT.
Get a clue already. When you don't have fresh water to drink, cook with, bathe with, and do your laundry with, it will be too fucking late.
Destroying water sources for energy is a bad trade. These assholes getting rich off it in Washington don't fucking care about you. Get a grip, and stop being a puppet. Fresh water as a resource cannot be replaced. You need it to live. And you're going to sit idly by waiting for 'evidence' that's already out there, but you're too thick to acknowledge.
Make no mistake, this process destroys the environment, and destroys sources of fresh water. Fill in the blanks my friends, connect the dots, and see where we are without fresh water and whether a trade for tiny amounts of energy (in the grand scheme of things) is worth it.
In all the news about this, I have seen no mention that the waste water from fracking is radioactive (due to radioactive materials with the natural gas being brought up with the waste water). Why is this not being mentioned?
If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
I cant recall any technology in recent memory that either the DOE or the energy panel in question has refused.
then again when our regulatory agencies are comprised of a majority of industry members,
I cant imagine anything short of an energy source powered by third trimester abortions being approached with anything less than cautious optimism.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Most complete and informative site in the business:
www.theoildrum.com
Warning: Reading the posts and commentary there will cause you to learn about the world's energy situation :p(
"Lost time is not found again."
Unless it was in a Five-Year Plan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-Year_Plans_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China
the entirety of Appalacia will look like fucking Mordor.
The use of the word "contaminating" with reference to methane is bit of a misnomer. If by contaminated you mean "not pure" then it's true, but then no groundwater is pure because there are always minerals that will leach into it and alter it's quality. Since methane is not toxic, tasteless and odorless, claiming it contaminates water is disingenuous, as it implies a danger, or degradation of quality where none really exists.
Letting this "contamination" stand in the way of tapping underground gas reservoirs is not reasonable. There is no real health concern associated with it, nor does it alter the subjective quality of the water. Only under close scrutiny is the presence of methane even evident.
Also, I would like to point out that the the study in question did not monitor any wells before fracking took place, and therefore is not conclusive.
Alas, that's exactly why when it happens, the company cuts and runs leaving the low income people in the area to deal with the flammable well water on their own.
The CSM has a fine record, but the innocently-named Washington Times is owned by Sun Myung Moons Unification Church and their content clearly reflects that.
http://www.realjournalism.net/times.htm
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Though there are many side effects to hydrofracking (one of them being delicious natural gas production, another being fire-breathing kitchen sinks), earthquakes are not one of them. The cause of the earthquakes earlier this year in Arkansas is more-or-less agreed upon to be due to the injection wells, not the hydrofracking.
That is, fracking requires a huge amount of fracking liquid, gels, and god knows what else. Once it's been used, they need to do something with it. It's easier for them to drill a big well and inject all the liquid down there than it is for them to truck all the liquid away to some distance disposal area. Unfortunately, the waste water injection wells have been show to induce earthquakes. They don't necessarily induce them everywhere, but they do in Arkansas and several other places. It's probably best to spend the money trucking the liquid away.
Quibble: "mitigated by best practices." Is this an accurate or PR term? When the choice is between best practices and higher profits, which will a business choose when its sole obligation is shareholder profits? What about an EPA lawsuit to help fund clean up? That will result in maybe a $500,000 fine in 10 years, which is just a minor cost of doing business when you're making billions from environmental damage; and can scatter that fine among bankrupt subcontractors.
Even if it were safer than one might think, who cares?
Do you think your wife and kids will have no problem drinking water that smells funny and ignites?
What do you think it will do to the value of your house if the water ignites? I suspect you'll suddenly find yourself with a mortgage on a house that you can't even give away.
I want us to surround the sun, build a Ringworld.
I LOVE NUCLEAR POWER.
That said Fracking is just about the worst possible thing you can do, it destroys the environment in several ways. It destabilizes the earth. Pushes INSANELY toxic substances directly into the water table. Renders large segments of the earth uninhabitable in the 50 - 100 year timeframe. It is so insanely bad it's CRAZY. I'd provide a link to an article but just Googling Fracking you can find your own.
What makes it even more insane that they're doing it near populated areas is that this is one of the most available fuels. There is an enormous amount pressurized all over the place, under the icecaps for example. This is madness.
There are so many things wrong with this industry that it's hard to write a concise response; but I will try.
The actual 'fracking' may or may not be the culprit---maybe it's the drilling process itself that releases toxins into the groundwater. The drilling process releases hundreds of elements--ranging from Radon to Barium and other radioactive material from underground where it has lay dormant for eons. The fluids themselves are poisonous--flaws in the cement casing around the drill holes can allow the fracking fluids to leach into the ground water. There is also no true 'guarantee' that the rock above the shale layer will hold the fluids (which are still under immense pressure) underground.
Then, let's talk about the 'Marcellus Shale Commission', who's responsibility it was to produce a report for the Corbett Administration on 'recommendations' for the industry. This 'neutral' body was made up of 13 members of the Oil and Gas industry (coincidentally these 13 companies provided 1.4 million dollars to Corbett's campaign, as well as being the companies with the most violations for Marcellus Drilling), several administration and/or staffers who were appointed directly (or indirectly) after Corbett was elected, some local government staff from affected areas, and four environmental or health groups, with only one (Chesapeake Bay Foundation) that you could truly call an Environmental group. No Public Health representation, btw..
While I would love to see a ban on Fracking (as has been done in other countries for various reasons), I'm sane enough to know the $$$ talks, everything else walks. We need safe practices, with sufficient oversight to ensure that accid
In America today you can murder land for private profit. You can leave the corpse for all to see, and nobody calls the c
I hope they frak.
Please please please god let them frak!
I want them to frak so bad.
Then please post the video of you crying about your poisoned drinking water on you tube. I want to watch that too. It gets boring on some Friday nights. It will be teh funny!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-26/solar-may-be-cheaper-than-fossil-power-in-five-years-ge-says.html
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
I think the trade secrets mantra is total bullshit. The chemicals they all use (probably all drillers use the same anyway, no real trade secret) are incredibly toxic. The trade secrets mantra is just a smokescreen to hide the truth from the public that would never okay this fracking tech once they know the toxins being pumped into the aquifers.