ShareThis Page
Letter to the editor: Pipelines mean jobs | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Pipelines mean jobs

There seemed to be both good and bad news in your recent story “Report: Number of drilled but uncompleted oil and gas wells in U.S. continues to rise” (May 3, TribLIVE) about the number of unfinished wells in the United States. The good news is that the number of unfinished wells in natural-gas dominant areas is falling. More Americans now can benefit from this affordable, clean resource.

The bad news is that, where there is infrastructure left dormant, there are jobs that could be filled, but aren’t.

Your piece mentioned that one of the reasons wells have been left unfinished is because there isn’t enough pipeline capacity. I know we could increase that capacity if activists would stop trying to shut down pipeline development, either by pushing citywide bans on natural gas, asking for new regulations, or by suing over and over again to keep a project from moving forward.

Your story should be a call to action for lawmakers to provide the pipeline capacity we need to get these wells running so we can get people working.

James T. Kunz Jr.

O’Hara

The writer is business manager and international vice president of Local Union 66, International Union of Operating Engineers (www.iuoe.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 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.