Published: Wednesday, Oct. 23, 2013, 9:01 p.m.
The editorial “Forced Utica shale pooling? Change the law” (Oct. 9 and TribLIVE.com) on Utica shale integration highlighted a single landowner but overlooked the 98 percent of my friends and neighbors in the leasing unit who support Hilcorp's plan to protect and preserve our right to develop our land.
The facts are that this plan will ensure efficiency, maximizing production while minimizing time, traffic and land disturbance. Without this responsible plan in place, more wells would be drilled over a longer period to properly develop our land.
Also, despite the false impression that the editorial left readers with, not one square inch of Bob Svetlak's surface land will be used or impacted if the application is granted.
Pennsylvania's Environmental Hearing Board has a detailed process in place to balance the various rights and interests of all stakeholders.
Development affects the entire community, so what right does any one individual have to dictate that we use more land, tolerate more traffic and lose economic activity when he will see no impact to his surface land?
Simply put, without integration, 98 percent of us will see less benefit from the activity in our community. That means more uncertainty for landowners, dramatically impeding their right to develop their land as they see fit.
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.
- Forcing their beliefs
- Valid comparison?
- Lies and disrespect I taught …
- Nukes, not hoops
- Fearful homogenization
- Hunt where the deer are
- Failing patients & public
- About time for Gilpin