ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

Drilling is not ungodly

| Thursday, May 29, 2014, 8:55 p.m.

Re. the May 15 letter “Deer Lakes drilling ungodly”: I respectfully disagree with the author, Ron Slabe. The subsurface lease, which has been approved by Allegheny County Council, is one of the most comprehensive non-surface agreements in the state and is being looked at as a model for future development.

The area around Deer Lakes Park already has oil and gas development. For many years, there has been conventional production; more recently the area and its landowners have benefited from Marcellus development.

The author also takes a stab at hardworking union members, calling them “fat cats.” These so-called “fat cats” are local residents who support the lease and the jobs with which they support their families. A recent Associated Press story stated, “In 2008, (Laborers International Union) members worked about 400,000 hours on (natural gas jobs); by 2012, that had risen to 5.7 million hours.”

Mr. Slabe also invokes his Judeo-Christian upbringing and the Catholic catechism to oppose oil and gas development. I would argue — without getting too religious — these resources were put here for us to develop and through this development, we're bettering ourselves as a nation and civilization.

Pennsylvania has seen an amazing 259 percent increase in oil and gas jobs since 2007. New York City has the cleanest air in nearly 50 years because of the shift to natural gas, a transition fueled by the Marcellus shale.

Shale development is on track to strengthen us as a nation for decades to come and our “creator” is most certainly content with its continued development.

Joseph P. Massaro


The author is a spokesperson for Energy In Depth, a research and educational outreach arm of the Independent Petroleum Association of America.

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