| HYDRO-FRACKING FOR NATURAL GAS |
 |
 |
 |
|
April 15, 2010 The Cooper Union Institute for Sustainable Design
HYDRO-FRACKING FOR NATURAL GAS How this “clean” fuel technology threatens our water, our health, our landscapes and our energy future
Kevin Bone is the director of the Cooper Union Institute for Sustainable Design and a partner in Bone/Levine Architects. Joseph Levine his partner is the founder of NY H20 and co-founder of Damascus Citizens. In his introduction Mr. Bone reminded the audience that Rachel Carson’s SILENT SPRING caused an uproar in the chemical industry. A law suit was brought against Houghton Mifflin to stop publication. Time magazine stated in 1999:
“Carson was violently assailed by threats of lawsuits and derision, including suggestions that this meticulous scientist was a "hysterical woman" unqualified to write such a book. A huge counterattack was organized and led by Monsanto Company, Velsicol, American Cyanamid — indeed, the whole chemical industry — duly supported by the Agriculture Department as well as the more cautious in the media.”
Matthiessen, Peter (March 29, 1999). "Environmentalist RACHEL CARSON". Time Magazine
This was an apt introduction to Dr. Theo Colborn, president of the Endocrine Disruption Exchange and one of the leading experts on the impacts of toxic chemicals used in fracking fluid. http://www.endocrinedisruption.com/home.php
The title of her lecture was IT’S YOUR WATER, IT’S YOUR AIR. She spoke in detail about the stages of gas development. The topics were drilling, fracturing, gas treatment and waste handling. You can view some of her photos of gas production here: http://www.endocrinedisruption.com/chemicals.photos.php
Dr. Theo Colborn was emphatic when she stated that air pollution must be taken as seriously as water pollution. Her conclusion was based on the fact that NOx combined with high VOCs create ozone. Ozone is produced in several natural gas processing phases. It is a known respiratory irritant. The World Health Organization (WHO) has detailed studies that link exposure to ozone to premature death, asthma, bronchitis, heart attack and other cardiopulmonary problems. According to scientists with the U.S. EPA susceptible people can be adversely affected by ozone levels as low as 40 ppb. The Clean Air Act directs the EPA to set National Air Quality Standards including ground-level ozone. She suggested that this might be a path to a better monitoring of natural gas production facilities.
Dr. Michel C. Boufadel, director of the Temple University Department of Environmental Engineering reviewed the costs and benefits of gas drilling and the extent to which the reality matches up. He began his presentation with:
The precautionary principle states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those who advocate taking the action.
He stated that this principle should apply to the natural gas industry. His slides left no doubt that the impact of gas drilling is so extensive on human health and environmental conditions that it should not be undertaken without cumulative studies that include risk maps similar to total maximum daily load (TMDL) analysis. These would be similar to flood plain maps. He stated that fracking chemicals will stay in our aquifers for over 100 years and that one of the consequences of gas drilling is that since the negative effects emerge over very long periods we will have no recourse to company liability.
He presented animated slides of ground water pollution. His slides of underground plumes that can travel great distances and carry a lot of toxic fracking chemicals. These slide illustrations were new to me. They offer a very effective way to illustrate the invisible underground spread of chemical plumes.
In conclusion: He believes that the total costs of gas drilling when considered from cradle to grave do not add up to the benefits that the gas companies constantly hype.
He is associated with The Center for Natural Resources Development Protection (NRDP) http://www.temple.edu/environment/index.shtml
Al Appleton, former Commissioner of the New York City Department of Environmental Protection and a globally known expert on water resources protection and the economics of sustainability.
Mr. Appleton focused on the cradle to grave aspects that is the total life cycle of natural gas production, extraction and economics emphasizing that the costs do not add up to a sustainable industry. He stated that perhaps instead of a Marcellus well every square mile the DEC might develop a spacing of 5 or 10 miles per well in areas which do not have the sensitive receptors or the wet northeast environment that differs so greatly from the places where hydraulic fracturing was developed.
He stated that, “natural gas is a transition to what?” His conclusion was that if we do not begin to develop green energy that is now available we will be investing money in a 19th & 20th century fossil fuel which has played out it’s sustainable life cycle. He believes that the investment in natural gas would be better used to develop new green energy for the 21st century.
He continued by stating that a total accounting of the carbon emissions from the natural gas industry is essential if we are to understand the extent of natural gas pollution to our environment. A national study is has not been undertaken at this time.
James Herman
|