web1_KnoxMine.jpg

Our Opinion: Pain and politics of coal mining remain as fresh as ever in NEPA

web1_JonesBillColor.jpg

Bill Jones: Help area’s United Way counteract the sting of childhood poverty

In a <a href="https://www.timesleader.com/opinion/letters/501289/letter-to-the-editor-upside-to-natural-gas-industry-deserves-equal-coverage" target="_blank">recent letter to the editor</a>, George Stark, representing shale gas drilling company Cabot, mentions several studies that he claims illustrate the desirability of exploiting shale gas in Pennsylvania. Although no examples of research-based conclusions are provided, one may reasonably assume that studies headed by the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Geological Survey represent what Mr. Stark seems to imply are acceptable environmental impacts associated with unconventional drilling.Fracking proponents like to quote the headline that accompanied most major media summaries of the EPA study on fracking that asserted &#8220;no widespread, systemic&#8221; problems. The actual report for this study exceeds 1,000 pages, a lot of details in which to hide the fracking devils. The EPA admits that it cannot account for 11 percent of the substances added to frack solutions, so-called proprietary industrial secrets. So, during this five-year study, the EPA failed to even complete a comprehensive list of what they allegedly studied. The use of the words &#8220;widespread&#8221; and &#8220;systemic&#8221; simply indicate that problems associated with unconventional drilling differ in relation to location, presumably a function of local geology.As for the USGS, browsing its studies reveals little more than results intended to provide the drilling industry with information about the effectiveness of unconventional drilling as a means of recovering shale gas, nothing about environmental impacts.After a protracted battle against Cabot, some landowners in Dimock, Susquehanna County, have begrudgingly settled with the driller. As per seemingly standard procedures surrounding the interactions between land owners and drilling companies, the details of this settlement are hidden behind non-disclosure agreements signed by the landowners. But we do know that some affected properties were purchased by a subsidiary of Cabot, and homes were demolished. Commenting on a parcel where one of these toxic homes had just been leveled, George Stark said, with apparently no intention of invoking irony, &#8220;We thought it should be preserved for green space.&#8221;Stark&#8217;s function appears to be the equivalent of a well-funded industrial minister of propaganda. He seeks the power to save face for an industry beset with technical problems they do not know how to solve.David WasilewskiHunlock Creek

Letter to the Editor: Environmental impacts of natural gas drilling still a question mark