ShareThis Page

A closer look at 'anti-drillers'

| Tuesday, July 16, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

Regarding the letter “Gas needed, not ‘Gasland II'” (July 1 and, in which Murrysville's Maury Fey ponders why the movie's director, Josh Fox, would produce such an anti-natural-gas-industry movie: I would suggest that we need to simply look to the entities (coal, Middle East oil-producing nations, etc.) suffering serious financial harm due to this historic surge in natural gas production.

Here is but one example: In 2011 (the latest year for which data are available), New York state used 540 million gallons of fuel oil at a cost of about $2.5 billion, per the U.S. Energy Information Administration website. New York's statewide fuel oil use has decreased by more than 50 percent since 2007 while its use of natural gas has continued to climb.

The New York Oil Heat Association's website says, “(W)e stop at nothing to represent the industry's interests.” Well, New York fuel-oil interests certainly cannot show up at a public anti-drilling protest and shout, “Our fuel oil sales are down dramatically; this fracking is bad for the environment.” However, I wonder how much funding of anti-drilling groups (and silly movies) can be justified when your industry or foreign nation is facing the ongoing loss of billions of dollars.

And I wonder when some enterprising young reporter is going to thoroughly investigate possible connections between the anti-drilling crowd and groups from whom market share is being captured.

Karl Kimmich


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.