Pipeline plan questioned
Published: Tuesday, Dec. 11, 2012, 8:53 p.m.
The news story “Proposed path of liquid fuel pipeline frightens North Huntingdon neighborhood” (Dec. 2 and TribLIVE.com) raises some questions about the 45-mile Sunoco Logistics Partners LP project: How much tax revenue is our state getting through this project? How many permanent jobs? Whatever these benefits may be, do they justify the life-threatening risks of explosion inherent in such a transmission line?
Can there be any doubt that this project is hugely benefiting the oil and gas industry, not the public?
Property owners should know that if the industry tries to use eminent domain to claim land for the “public good,” they need to contact local conservation and citizen groups — Westmoreland Marcellus Citizens Group, Local Authority Western PA and Mountain Watershed Association. Such action has been stopped elsewhere and it can be stopped here!
Lastly, citizens need to ask the following questions of their municipal, county and state elected officials:
• Where is this fuel coming from and going, specifically?
• Which companies will profit?
• What parts of the public sector will receive revenue through the project?
• What are the associated risks?
• What is the pipeline company's safety record?
• What is the lifetime maintenance plan for this pipeline? Has it been made public? Will it be, if eminent domain is used? Who is responsible for implementing this plan?
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.
- ACA deserves support
- Harming, not improving
- Hunt where the deer are
- About time for Gilpin
- Handled it well
- Remember Pearl Harbor
- ACA ramifications I
- Lies and disrespect I taught …
- Forcing their beliefs
- Valid comparison?
- Prevailing wage downsides II