Share This Page

Corbett & pooling

| Sunday, July 21, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

The news story “Corbett defends new drilling law” (July 11 and TribLIVE.com) contains serious accusations against Gov. Corbett's support of Senate Bill 259 but omits one critical element: actual facts about the bill.

To be clear, nothing in the new law compels a landowner to permit oil or gas development, or alters the terms of an existing lease. In fact, doing so would be unconstitutional, as Corbett noted in a recent letter to the General Assembly.

Rather, the bill clarifies that existing leases — for people who already have consented to oil and gas development — may be developed more efficiently through the use of horizontal drilling. This leads to fewer well pads, fewer stream crossings, less forest fragmentation and less earth disturbance.

It is unfathomable that a self-proclaimed environmental group like PennFuture would oppose such a measure.

The story also fails to mention that SB 259 passed with overwhelming, bipartisan support — including 48-2 in the Senate — after lawmakers debated and ultimately dismissed these same claims.

SB 259 also contains significant new provisions requiring drillers to disclose information to landowners regarding their royalty payments. These much-needed provisions will help ensure that royalty owners receive the payments they are due.

Patrick Henderson

Harrisburg

The writer is Gov. Tom Corbett's energy executive.

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.