Pipeline & pols
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Thursday, Dec. 19, 2013, 8:55 p.m.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has been asked to give permission to Spectra Energy to install a new 36-inch pipeline to carry Marcellus shale natural gas to market.
Spectra's TEAM 2014 Project proposes an additional 600,000 dekatherms of natural gas in high-pressure interstate pipelines. There is a history of safety issues with Spectra Energy.
In 2011, the U.S. Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration cited Spectra for 17 violations in safety operations and procedures.
Texas Eastern, the Spectra subsidiary that would build the new pipeline, received the EPA's seventh highest penalty assessment on record for PCB contamination.
One would think that local, state and federal politicians would be concerned for their constituents' welfare. I have notified their offices on more than one occasion of the impending dangerous pipeline. State Rep. Deberah Kula, D-52, and state Sen. Richard Kasunic, D-32, were the only concerned elected officials.
There is a need to establish and enforce ethical standards to insulate regulatory agencies from political or financial influences provided by the natural gas companies and their agents.
It is my concern that the elected officials who did not respond to my information are being influenced by either financial means or another method of persuasion.
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.
- Corbett’s choice
- Invest in pre-K
- Islam & women
- ‘We the people’ are veterans
- Beneficial, irreplaceable
- Medicaid’s future