Friday, October 28, 2011

Whatever Happened to Albany's Ban?

Jennings Vetoes Fracking Ban, Cites DEC

As expected Albany Mayor Jerry Jennings today vetoed a city-wide ban on hydraulic fracturing, a controversial natural gas extraction process.

The ban was a largely symbolic one, given Albany is not a source of natural gas reserves, unlike the Southern Tier.

What was interesting about the veto message was the mayor, a close ally of Gov. Andrew Cuomo, specifically cited the ongoing study by the Department of Environmental Conservation to determine rules and regulations for hydrofracking.

http://www.capitaltonight.com/2011/10/jennings-vetoes-fracking-ban-cites-dec/

Seems like Jennings has chosen to wait for the experts to weigh in... Does this symbolic veto mean that some common sense prevails and people are finally rising above the ideology that the discussion is only about being for or against. Not that this discussion should really matter, because I doubt that any gas companies will be drilling at the state capital. Actually maybe it does matter, if the ban had prevailed, the story would have made media headlines and all the Facebook, tweet and email chatter.

Sunday, October 23, 2011

Does Cancer and the Barnett Shale Region Equal Cancer in The Marcellus Shale Region

Recently there has been a resurgence of stories hitting the news media relating to cancer. The stories are based on the 2010 report from the Texas CEQ. The agency reported that invasive breast cancer rates were higher in the counties that have Barnett shale natural gas extraction. The idea that cancer rates are increasing is a serious allegation. On first read it implies that there is something in that population that is triggering the clinical process which leads to cancer development. However, tucked in all those stories is this article that links to the report done in response to those cancer cluster allegations. It tells a different story.

In summary; the cancer rates found in those Texas counties fell within those expected nationally except for the invasive breast cancer rates which appear to be on the rise. The TCEQ report attributed this rise to, among other things, an increase in the population in the area and the probability of an increase in breast cancer screening rates

The TCEQ report also talks about cancer causes. It states that cancer attributed to environmental exposure account for only a few of the cancer cases (less than 10 percent). Most cancer results from a combination of factors which include genetic disposition, heredity, diet, tobacco use and a host of other factors.

Another point not addressed in the recent media reports is the fact that cancer is primarily a disease of the older populations (contrary to popular belief), and also the fact that it takes 10 to 30 years after exposure to a carcinogen for cancer to be diagnosed. Shale development has just not been going on long enough to be the only potential culprit.

If the source of the cancer is elsewhere or from another source, then we need to focus our investigative resources to find it. If not, and we continue on the path of blaming the wrong causative agents, there will be a cost to human health. The concept that shale development is guilty by locale is not a scientific based conclusion, while it may make common sense, it a thin argument that may only warrant a second look and not a conclusion. The TCEQ did take a second look. They looked for pathways between the natural gas development chemicals that have the potential to cause cancer and the population. They were unable to find any links.

The TCEQ’s conclusion did little to settle people’s concern nor did it make headlines, possibly because some people still do not understand the concept of risk. The simple reality is that, it really doesn't matter how toxic a chemical is, or what its potential adverse effects may be, as long as it is contained or as long as there is no exposure, there will be no associated negative adverse health effects. If this type of associative fear is our logic, then we should not limit our fear to the chemicals used in natural gas development but should also be focused on the toxicity of ALL the "toxic" chemicals that exist in our midst. For example, we should be equally as worried about the anti-freeze that flows through our radiator tanks based on the sheer volume of anti-freeze that exist in close proximity of our day to day lives (all the cars we come in contact with). We should then be developing health impact assessments for antifreezes, lubricants, and gasoline, or whatever other chemicals in our cars that concern us. Or we could do what we have always and continue to do; simply trust in the containment techniques designed by engineers and the regulations that govern the designs to protect us from any adverse effects related to chemical exposure from the “toxic” chemicals found in our cars. Its not a perfect solution but it has worked before, so why not now?

Edited to include:

In response to the CDC 2011 report:

"The region’s high rates have been noted by cancer researchers who are studying it, but who are also unsure of the cause, according to Dr. Keith Argenbright, medical director of Moncrief Cancer Institute at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas

“We’re not entirely sure why that is happening,” Argenbright said, adding that it could be a mix of a number of factors.

The medical school has secured funds to conduct screenings, since those rates, too, are lower than the national average. For about every 1,000 screenings the medical school provides, they find about six new cases of breast cancer, Argenbright said, in part because the group targets low-income and underserved areas."

From: Breast Cancer Rates Climb Up from the Denton Record-Chronicle

Saturday, October 15, 2011

Can Planes Fly on Natural Gas? YES!

Airline flies first passenger flight on natural gas

LONDON | Tue Oct 13, 2009 6:27am EDT

(Reuters) - The world's first commercial passenger flight powered by a fuel made from natural gas completed late on Monday a six-hour journey from London to Qatar, one of the biggest producers of natural gas.

"Today's flight opens the door to an alternative to oil-based aviation fuel," Malcolm Brinded, Royal Dutch Shell's executive director upstream international, said in a statement late on Monday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/10/13/us-britain-gas-flight-idUSTRE59C1NJ20091013

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

Marylanders Opposed to Natural Gas and Local Prosperity Speak up

Quotes from Tonight’s meeting:

“The gas company uses chemicals that will kill you just by looking at them!”

“Maybe I should be protecting my land and not profiting from it”

“Those people (in Dimock) have NO water; Cabot brings them ALL the water they use”

“Imagine all those people living for today”

The bottom line Maryland is just fine as it is. Nothing should change.

Town of Board of Maryland to Hear From l Residents…really?

The discussion on gas development moves to the open mike tonight at the Schenevus Central School. Tonight the spectacle comes to Maryland. People will line up to have their opinions on gas development heard.

The topics de jour will be nothing new; they will focus on the usual:

Our drinking water will be contaminated forever _ we want water quality just like New York City and Syracuse
There will be no economic progress from developing our resources just a lot of sickness and death
The roads will be ruined by the trucks and the industry will not fix them.
Carcinogens, toxic chemicals will abound putting the town folks at risk for certain disease and death for generations
Some may mention about the inadequacy of the NYSDEC and their hastily and hurriedly written permit conditions and regulations.
Maybe someone will mention how the gas industry is one large Ponzi scheme set up to rip people off and make the industry rich
And to top it off, the Duke “All water drinking will get contaminated study.”

There will be usual bemoaning on how much we love the Town of Maryland, its beauty, its pristine waters, rolling hills and we do not want it turned into an industrial wasteland. I feel for the Town Board members who have to sit through the same overplayed talking points, presented with sentiment, emotion, passion and genuine fear. This tactic of putting pressure on the Town board to make a decision that puts the Town in such a vulnerable position is so counterproductive.

In the Market for a New Truck?

GM to Introduce CNG-Powered Pickup Trucks

They still guzzle gas, just a different kind.

General Motors has announced plans to introduce bi-fuel-capable versions of its full-size pickup trucks that can run on either compressed natural gas (CNG) or gasoline. Sales begin at the end of 2012.

Both Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra models will be available to commercial and fleet buyers, but the company has not yet specified if they will be based on the light or super duty versions of the trucks.

GM currently offers CNG versions of its full-size vans that are powered by 6.0-liter V8 engines, but they are not bi-fuel capable. The conversions are handled by Indiana-based supplier IMPCO Automotive, who will also be responsible for the pickup trucks, but sales are handled directly through GM. Drivers of the pickups will be able to switch between gasoline and CNG power at the press of a button.

Monday, October 3, 2011

Natural Gas Vehicles in the News today

Natural gas powered vehicles are coming. Imagine fueling your car at home from your natural gas line. New technology has made natural gas convenient, local and affordable.

USATODAY Honda prices new tragically ignored natural-gas Civic.

The most tragically ignored vehicle in the universe is getting a new name and new price.

It's the natural-gas powered version of the all-new 2012 Honda Civic Natural Gas. It used to be called the Civic GX, which was, frankly, a bit confusing as names go. The new Civic Natural Gas is being priced at $26,155.

Driving a car powered by natural gas cuts a driver's fuel bill by a third or more. Natural gas burns so cleanly that it's eligible for car-pool lane access in some states that otherwise would be available only to electric vehicles. You can refuel a natural gas in your own garage by tapping into the home's gas line. Plus, there is an well-established network of natural gas stations -- not as many as for gasoline, of course, but far more than, say, electric-car recharging stations.

Tampa Bay Area's First Compressed Natural Gas Station Opens Friday

The Tampa Bay area's first compressed natural gas opens Oct. 7 in Clearwater.

In an era of solar power, hybrid vehicles and electric cars, the city is planning on another alternative fuel to help power its fleet and residents' rides as well.

A compressed natural gas station to help power new garbage trucks and other vehicles in the city's fleet, opens Friday (Oct. 7). The station, near the Clearwater Airpark on Hercules Avenue, will also be open for public use.

It is the third compressed natural gas filling station in the state. There is one in Ft. Lauderdale and another in Milton. Another will also open at Tampa International Airport.

More…..

The Honda Civic is currently the only private use vehicle that comes available with a CNG conversion. Lagille owns one, but had to travel to Cocoa Beach to get it. He also has a CNG fuel pump in his garage. Those pumps are small, about the size of a suitcase, and cost around $3,000, he said.

“I have a Civic with CNG and I just drove to Kissimmee and back,” Langille said. “You really don’t notice the difference in everyday driving.””