^I sense a little tongue in cheek.
I agree with stevehull about the independence aspect of the natural gas industry, but for me a fossil fuel is a fossil fuel. Burning anything created over the last few million years is unsustainable and potentially dangerous (on many fronts). I don't think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. In fact, I believe the exact opposite is true. The only advantage to any energy source is a subjective view of "development". This is a first-world belief, where we must always advance and it's perpetual; the more we advance the faster and further we want to go. Think about the 9 year old girl who wanted a white iPhone for Christmas and got a black one instead, yelling and screaming at her parents for getting it "wrong". This is an American stigma; it's never good enough. More, more, more. Unfortunately, more NG means more GHGs.
I also believe in the
precautionary principle, where we don't put all of our eggs into one basket, so to speak, until we know what will happen. Unfortunately, we already know what could happen: flammable tap water. What about the water table for the natural environment? Flora digs deep into the ground to find that now contaminated water, causing growth and reproduction issues. This *could* directly affect both the habitats of fauna as well as industries such as logging.
With regards to the videos you posted, I found it glaringly obvious who created each video. The first one was obviously from skeptics (at best) and the second was obviously a supporter of the gas industry. Notice how the first video said the "other" chemicals were in the range of about 700 and the second video said there were a "few"? I'm guessing it's somewhere in between there, but that is a large range.
Long story short, I think we should start pushing our other sources further, rather than the current options. Other countries have proved this viable: Sweden, Canada, and Brazil, to name a few.