ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

Deals defended

| Friday, Sept. 17, 2010

To suggest in the editorial "Rendell's gas leases: Public be damned" (Sept. 7 and TribLIVE.com) that recent state forest land leases are anything but in Pennsylvanians' best interest shows the Trib lacks an understanding of the facts and what these agreements mean for protecting our treasured public lands.

In May, Anadarko Inc. paid $4,000 per acre to lease 27,185 acres -- the same average price Pennsylvania received in a competitive lease sale in January -- plus $2,000 per acre for 5,711 other acres that are not as promising for production and probably would not have yielded as much if bid competitively.

A separate January agreement with Anadarko for land in Sproul State Forest generated $2.3 million at a price that was competitive at the time the deal was negotiated -- nine months before it was finalized. The editorial's claim that these agreements "cost taxpayers dearly" is pure speculation and not rooted in reality.

The bottom line is that because Anadarko held leases on adjacent tracts, these transactions made the most sense and limited the risks to our state forests. Instead of disturbing 1,000 acres, the May deal will affect fewer than 300 acres, which is in the best interests of the state's citizens without question.

John Quigley

Harrisburg

The writer is secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.

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