ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Pipelines are key to realizing Pennsylvania's full benefits

| Friday, Dec. 15, 2017, 8:57 p.m.

Pipelines must adhere to strict state and federal regulation throughout construction, testing and infrastructure replacement to ensure system integrity. According to data collected by the U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, the natural gas delivery system is the safest form of energy delivery in the country.

The Marcellus and Utica shale formations provide great opportunities for Pennsylvania. But the full benefits will not be attained if we do not build the pipelines needed to transport resources to market. A number of key infrastructure projects have been proposed or are in construction right now across the state, and many of our members are on the job today.

But unnecessary regulatory actions, beyond what is normally required, are causing increased delays and environmental risk. One example is a recent agreement among Sunoco, the Department of Environmental Protection and environmental groups that is causing horizontal directional drilling to start and stop, start and stop — something industry experts agree has the potential for greater harm.

Uncertainty around Pennsylvania's regulatory policies is hampering development of pipeline infrastructure and hindering our ability to realize the gain from these projects.

James T. Kunz Jr.

O'Hara

The writer is business manager of the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 66.

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.

click me