Pennsylvania DEP again delays hearing on driller's pooling request
A court challenge to the law that allows drillers to extract gas from beneath properties without owners' approval will delay a hearing involving a company's request to do that in Lawrence and Mercer counties.
Houston-based Hilcorp Energy Co. reached agreements with most owners of gas rights in the area where it wants to drill and asked the state Department of Environmental Protection for access to gas under the remaining properties as part of a 1961 law that allows what's called “forced pooling.”
The DEP appointed attorney Michael L. Bangs of Cumberland County as a hearing officer to take testimony on the request and issue a ruling. He delayed a hearing in March because some homeowners weren't notified. He delayed another hearing set for Wednesday and Thursday because several property owners asked to be heard in the hearing.
On Friday, those property owners — Suzanne and Martin Matteo, Robert and Carole Valentine, and Steve Emery, all of West Middlesex — challenged the 1961 law in Commonwealth Court. DEP Secretary Christopher Abruzzo on Monday asked Bangs to put the hearing on hold while state judges consider the property owners' challenge.
David Conti is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-320-7981 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
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 â 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.