Off-target on bromides
The news story “Bromide down in Mon, still elevated in Allegheny” (Nov. 9 and TribLIVE.com) simplified and sensationalized the issue unnecessarily, incorrectly targeted permitted treatment of wastewater from conventional oil and gas operations (i.e., not from Marcellus shale operations) as a prominent source for isolated incidents of elevated bromide levels and requires the insertion of important facts and historical information.
Facilities that treat conventional oil and gas wastewater have reported bromide levels in incoming and treated water to the state Department of Environmental Protection for many years. The DEP has not established a limit on bromides in treated discharges because bromides are not toxic.
Treatment of wastewater from conventional oil and gas operators has been reduced by an average of 50 percent to 80 percent in the past four years — with volumes at their lowest in nearly 15 years. This fact should point any investigation about potentially elevated bromides in surface water to the many other sources known, including coal-burning power plants and acidic mine discharges.
Even with those additional sources, elevated bromides were found in the Allegheny River during a handful of days of low stream flow. These isolated periods are far outside the norm and create an overstated potential for concern.
Pennsylvania's oil and gas industry is at the forefront of improving every aspect of its operations, especially with recycling and advanced technologies in wastewater treatment for conventional and unconventional wells.
Louis D. D'Amico
The writer is president and executive director of the Pennsylvania Independent Oil & Gas Association (pioga.org).
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- UAW won in Tennessee
- Tax hits seniors
- Corbett better choice
- HUD & Larimer
- Thanks to searchers
- Wolf & ObamaCare
- Buffer zones needed II
- Ex-Im & Westinghouse
- Expanding their options
- Who’s responsible?
- Lawsuit against West Franklin cost taxpayers