ShareThis Page

Letter to the editor: Cost of seismic testing court settlement too high for Monroeville residents

| Monday, Dec. 18, 2017, 11:00 p.m.
An Apex Energy drilling-rig operation
Christian Tyler Randolph | Tribune-Review
An Apex Energy drilling-rig operation

Were Monroeville's residents sold out by settling a court case with Geokinetics that will allow the company to do seismic testing throughout our municipality?

Council compromised the hard-fought ordinance citizens wanted and now our property and health are compromised. The weakened ordinance now allows seismic testing as close as 50 feet from a structure, whereas the ordinance as passed was to have testing no closer than 100 feet from your home. Geokinetics wanted our ordinance to read 35 feet from a building, so 50 feet was the compromise. Other items required by the ordinance were eliminated by the settlement agreement.

Seems the judge urged Monroeville to fold, since the company's permit to conduct seismic testing (a precursor to fracking) was done prior to the enactment of the ordinance. This is what you get when council drags its feet. Knowing fracking was going on in communities all around us, it should have had an ordinance in place three or more years ago. The same goes for an amendment to an oil and gas ordinance to mention unconventional wells, which was proposed in 2012 but has yet to see the light of day.

Monroeville may save money to avoid further litigation, but the cost to residents whose health and property will suffer the consequences of seismic testing and fracking is too high.

Adrienne Weiss


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.

click me