WRITE ON: Reed’s Defense of Property Act and Real Estate Values

This commentary was written by Michael J. Fitzgerald, who has been a magazine and newspaper journalist for nearly 40 years. He lives around Seneca Lake and writes a weekly column which is published in the Finger Lakes Times on Fridays. He is involved with “We Are Seneca Lake“, an organization that is working to stop the storage of LPG in the salt caverns  near Seneca Lake, and emceed the We Are Seneca Lake rally  on January 31. He has also written a novel, The Fracking Wars.

This article was published on February 6, and is republished with the permission of both the author and the Finger Lakes Times.

no-lpg-babyNew York Congressman Tom Reed has been simultaneously trying to calm the fears — and stoke the fires — of hydrofracking advocates ever since New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced in December the state won’t allow use of that gas extraction technology.

Then Reed introduced the federal “Defense of Property Rights Act” in late January, a bill that hydrofracking proponents are waving around as enthusiastically as if it is a latter-day Magna Carta.

“The bill would defend private property rights by providing an option for compensation on behalf of those unfairly harmed by government action,” Reed’s office says.

“Far too often private property owners are left on the sidelines while local, state and federal governments make decisions for them on what they can and cannot do with their property. This is not right; it is not fair; and it is not the American way.”

Reed’s placating paean aimed at his pro-gas constituents and donors seems to be reasonable on one level. But when you unwrap the American flag draped around it, it’s clear this bill is simply aimed at getting compensation for New York land owners who sought to cash in on hydrofracking, but now can’t.

If this bill ever made it into federal law, what a national regulatory nightmare. It suggests any rules or laws that could be considered a restraint on a property owner could be overturned in a judicial blink — and require compensation paid by taxpayers to boot.

Who would have thought Tom Reed was a closet libertarian?

The chances of the “Defense of Property Rights Act” getting any traction in any congressional committee is remote at best, probably why the publicity about it is mostly limited to pro-hydrofracking websites and energy company-sponsored newsletters.

But Reed is right about one thing.
A debate about property owners’ rights and property values is long overdue when it comes to the wild expansion of energy company facilities across the nation and in the Finger Lakes.

At the south end of Seneca Lake, a liquid propane gas storage proposal by the Crestwood Corporation has been the target of critics because of its potential for catastrophe, negative impacts on the region’s burgeoning tourist industry and the unwelcome industrialization that would be part of the Texas company’s plans.

But virtually no public discussion has taken place about the impact it would have on private property values, resale or costs of insurance.

Finger Lakes real estate agents are understandably reluctant to comment publicly on the topic.

But when an explosion last week of about 1,500 gallons of LPG leveled a hospital in Mexico City, killing several people and injuring many others, the potential local danger became very real.

Since then, gas storage critics have publicly compared the numbers between Mexico’s tragedy and Crestwood’s plan to store 88 million gallons of LPG in unlined salt caverns on the sloping shore of Seneca Lake.

Even a single railroad tank car carrying propane to the proposed Town of Reading site will have 20 times more LPG in it than the propane spilled in the Mexico explosion.

Twenty times.
And there will be many LPG railcars dropping off propane at Crestwood every day.

It’s doubtful that Rep. Reed would be eager to sponsor a bill to ensure homeowners receive compensation if energy company’s facilities are responsible for a decline in their property values, whether in the Finger Lakes or anywhere else.

But perhaps constituents should contact Reed anyway. They could see if they get the same level of prompt legislative attention as landowners who can’t cash in on the hydrofracking bonanza.

dopra
Advertisements

About pystew

Retired Teacher, political science geek, village trustee. I lean a little left, but like a good political discussion. My blog, the New NY 23rd (http://newny23rd) is about discussing the issues facing the people of our new congressional district. Let's hear all sides of the issues, not just what the candidates want us to hear.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

78 Responses to WRITE ON: Reed’s Defense of Property Act and Real Estate Values

  1. BOB McGILLl says:

    the ” we are Seneca Lake ” people are deleting comments and blocking people who try to present the truth about this project on facebook. There are about 110 gas storage facilities within 150 miles of the Crestwood location. The gas is non-toxic and not soluble with water. There are 26 underground storage facilities in western New York and I know of NO ACCIDENTS 🙂
    Michael J. Fitzgerald is looking for 15 minutes of FAME and it just could backfire.

  2. BOB McGILLl says:

    forgot, the state is working on regulations for ” GAS FRACKING “, that is fracking with LPG, instead of water. Maybe that is why they need the storage 🙂
    gotta watch your slick Democratic Governor !

    • pystew says:

      How many are within 2 miles of a lake? Are they considered to be the LPG Hubs of the Northeast?

      • BOB McGILL says:

        who cares ? the gas is NON-TOXIC and insoluble in water, meaning it will vaporize and float to the surface and dissipate into the atmosphere not harming the water at all. Penn Yan’s sewage treatment plant does more damage and you have to use rock salt on the roads in winter, putting more salt into the lake than the salt mines. Keuka Outlet is a HUGE SOURCE of pollution in Seneca Lake !!!! DID YOU FLUSH YOUR TOILET TODAY ? 🙂

        • BOB McGILL says:

          hey pstew, is Penn Yan’s sewage treatment in violation like Watkins Glenn’s ?

          • pystew says:

            I am not familiar with Watkins Glen’s Waste Water Treatment Plants violations.

            • BOB McGILL says:

              geneseenow.com/2012/10/village-penn-yan-awarded-grant/‎
              Robin Humphrey — Thursday, October 18, 2012
              The New York State Environmental Facilities Corp. (EFC) has awarded the Village of Penn Yan a $985,537 grant for a $4 million upgrade of the waste water treatment plant.

              Earlier this year, EFC approved a $4 million, interest-free loan for the village to install new filtration equipment, among other improvements, at the treatment plant.

              “When combined with our no-interest financing, EFC’s grant to Penn Yan will save the village more than $1 million in total costs, while also improving public health and the environment

              IS IT DONE YET ? HAVE YOU COMPLETED PHASE 2 ?

            • pystew says:

              Bob, the $4 million interest free loan, and the $985,537 grant, is for new digesters and a composting project that was being designed before I got on the board in 2008. The composting will save the villages a few thousand dollars per month. We now transport our sludge to Canandaigua and they treat it and disposes of it. Our Waste Water Treatment plant is has seven acres of fields. The in-house refined sludge will be spread on the fields, and a certain type of reed will be grown on it. When the reed dies, it will be part of the composting material.

              We know that the compost will be free for Village residents. We have not decided if it will be free for others (farmers/gardeners out side of the village) or not. (It probably will after we get the whole process going for a year or so to see how much we create and clean up the bugs (pun intended!). I don’t know what phase we are in and I’m not going to look it up. We have replaced the digesters, and we will stop send sludge to Canandaigua later this year.

              Penn Yan’s Waste Water Treatment Plant process the waste from the Towns of Milo, and Jerusalem as well as the Village of Penn Yan. Obviously the Towns pay us for the service, but they also have to pay for capital projects, which this is one. Even though part of their bill pay back the $3.1 million (The $4 million interest free loan minus the grant–both from NYS), they have already seen a decrease in their bills.

              This may not be high tech, but it is a way that we are reusing nature instead of doing the same old wasteful method. Oh, yes, we in 2010 we banned treating waste products from fracking–we don’t have the necessary equipment and we don’t want any radioactive materials in our waste.

              Is that what you mean when you stated “Penn Yan’s sewage treatment plant does more damage”? Did you mean more damage that Watkins Glen’s Waste Water Treatment plant? Did you mean more damage than what Crestwood?

              Thanks for asking.

        • pystew says:

          Cite the source for your accusations.

          • BOB McGILL says:

            http://www.observer-review.com/wastewater-plant-exceeds-state-bacteria-levels- cms-2386
            WATKINS GLEN
            ADVERTISEMENT
            Wastewater plant exceeds state bacteria levels
            WATKINS GLEN—The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation reported the Watkins Glen Wastewater Treatment Plant is allowing water into the lake with higher than normal levels of bacteria.
            According to the June 24 inspection report, which was discussed at the Monday, July 18, board meeting, the plant has consistently exceeded the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit limits for fecal coliform and total coliform since 2007. The New York State Department of Health said that fecal coliforms are bacteria found in people’s and animals’ digestive tracts and in their waste.Total coliform is bacteria found in soil and water that has been influenced by surface water and waste

            Board member Scott Gibson said the DEC is saying it would fine the village up to $37,500 a day if Watkins were to do nothing. The board agreed to hire a consultant as the DEC requested, not to exceed $5,000. The state made no other immediate orders of the wastewater treatment plant concerning bacteria. Gibson said at the moment the village doesn’t know why the bacteria levels are too high.

        • whungerford says:

          It is a small point, but LNG is mostly methane; the solubility of methane in water is between 28 and 30 mg/L

          • BOB McGILL says:

            Cite the source for your accusations. 🙂

          • whungerford says:

            Why Bob, I’m surprised you would need to ask. I suggest a Google search for “methane soluble in water.” I hope you are more careful to use correct data in your business.

            • BOB McGILL says:

              just where do you think I got my information ?

              References[edit source | edit]^ a b “methane (CHEBI:16183)”. Chemical Entities of Biological Interest. UK: European Bioinformatics Institute. 17 October 2009. Main. Retrieved 10 October 2011.
              ^ “Safety Datasheet, Material Name: Methane” (PDF). USA: Metheson Tri-Gas Incorporated. 4 December 2009. Retrieved 4 December 2011.
              ^ NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IN THE ATMOSPHERE, Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, Vol. 24: 645-661 (Volume publication date November 1999, DOI: 10.1146/annurev.energy.24.1.645
              ^ Carbon Dioxide, Methane Rise Sharply in 2007. Noaanews.noaa.gov (2008-04-23). Retrieved on 2012-05-24.
              ^ David A. Hensher, Kenneth J. Button (2003). Handbook of transport and the environment. Emerald Group Publishing. p. 168. ISBN 0-08-044103-3.
              ^ NIST Chemistry Webbook. Webbook.nist.gov. Retrieved on 2012-05-24.
              ^ Ayhan Demirbas (2010). Methane Gas Hydrate. Springer. p. 102. ISBN 1-84882-871-3.
              ^ Baik, Mu-Hyun; Newcomb, Martin; Friesner, Richard A.; Lippard, Stephen J. (2003). “Mechanistic Studies on the Hydroxylation of Methane by Methane Monooxygenase”. Chemical Reviews 103 (6): 2385–419. doi:10.1021/cr950244f. PMID 12797835.
              ^ Bordwell, Frederick G. (1988). “Equilibrium acidities in dimethyl sulfoxide solution”. Accounts of Chemical Research 21 (12): 456. doi:10.1021/ar00156a004.
              ^ Golam Rasul, G.K. Surya Prakash, George A. Olah (2011), “Comparative study of the hypercoordinate carbonium ions and their boron analogs: A challenge for spectroscopists”. Chemical Physics Letters, volume 517, issues 1–3, pages 1–8 doi:10.1016/j.cplett.2011.10.020
              ^ Bernskoetter, W. H.; Schauer, C. K.; Goldberg, K. I.; Brookhart, M. (2009). “Characterization of a Rhodium(I) σ-Methane Complex in Solution”. Science 326 (5952): 553–6. Bibcode:2009Sci…326..553B. doi:10.1126/science.1177485. PMID 19900892.
              ^ Drysdale, Dougal (2008). “Physics and Chemistry of Fire”. In Cote, Arthur E. Fire Protection Handbook 1 (20th ed.). Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association. pp. 2–18. ISBN 978-0-87765-758-3.
              ^ March, Jerry (1968). Advance Organic Chemistry: Reactions, Mechanisms and Structure. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. pp. 533–534.
              ^ Clayton B. Cornell (April 29, 2008). “Natural Gas Cars: CNG Fuel Almost Free in Some Parts of the Country”. “Compressed natural gas is touted as the ‘cleanest burning’ alternative fuel available, since the simplicity of the methane molecule reduces tailpipe emissions of different pollutants by 35 to 97%. Not quite as dramatic is the reduction in net greenhouse-gas emissions, which is about the same as corn-grain ethanol at about a 20% reduction over gasoline”
              ^ Düren, Tina; Sarkisov, Lev; Yaghi, Omar M.; Snurr, Randall Q. (2004). “Design of New Materials for Methane Storage”. Langmuir 20 (7): 2683–9. doi:10.1021/la0355500. PMID 15835137.
              ^ “Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG), Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) and Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)”. Envocare Ltd. 2007-03-21. Retrieved 2008-09-03.
              ^ Fuels of the Future for Cars and Trucks, Dr. James J. Eberhardt, U.S. Department of Energy, 2002 Diesel Engine Emissions Reduction (DEER) Workshop, August 25–29, 2002
              ^ Huzel, Dieter K. (1992). Modern engineering for design of liquid-propellant rocket engines. Washington, DC: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
              ^ “Lox/LCH4”. Encyclopedia Astronautica. Retrieved 2012-12-04.
              ^ “XCOR Aerospace Completes Successful Development of Methane Rocket Engine” (Press release). XCOR Aerospace. 20050830. Retrieved 20121203.
              ^ “XCOR Aerospace Begins Test Firing of Methane Rocket Engine” (Press release). XCOR Aerospace. 20070116. Retrieved 20121203.
              ^ Todd, David (2012-11-20). “Musk goes for methane-burning reusable rockets as step to colonise Mars”. FlightGlobal Hyperbola. Retrieved 2012-11-22. “”We are going to do methane.” Musk announced as he described his future plans for reusable launch vehicles including those designed to take astronauts to Mars within 15 years, “The energy cost of methane is the lowest and it has a slight Isp (Specific Impulse) advantage over Kerosene” said Musk adding, “And it does not have the pain in the ass factor that hydrogen has”.”
              ^ Todd, David (2012-11-20). “Musk goes for methane-burning reusable rockets as step to colonise Mars”. FlightGlobal Hyperbola. Retrieved 2012-11-22. “”SpaceX’s initial plan will be to build a lox/methane rocket for a future upper stage codenamed Raptor. … The new Raptor upper stage engine is likely to be only the first engine in a series of lox/methane engines. … “.”
              ^ Morring, Jr., Frank, ed. (7/13/2009). “Lunar Engines”. Aviation Week & Space Technology 171 (2): 16.
              ^ “Methane Blast”. NASA. 5/4/2007. Retrieved 7/7/2012.
              ^ http://www.ihi.co.jp/var/ezwebin_site/storage/original/application/39643f92ec27734cc0aa746f166ddbc9.pdf
              ^ M. Rossberg et al. “Chlorinated Hydrocarbons” in Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry 2006, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim. doi:10.1002/14356007.a06_233.pub2
              ^ Hamilton JT, McRoberts WC, Keppler F, Kalin RM, Harper DB (2003). “Chloride methylation by plant pectin: an efficient environmentally significant process”. Science 301 (5630): 206–9. Bibcode:2003Sci…301..206H. doi:10.1126/science.1085036. PMID 12855805.
              ^ Thomas, Claire “Methane Emissions

            • whungerford says:

              Bob, where in all that bs does it say methane is insoluble in water?

          • BOB McGILL says:

            http://www.chemguide.co.uk/atoms/structures/molecular.html
            Why doesn’t methane, CH4, dissolve in water?

            The methane itself isn’t the problem. Methane is a gas, and so its molecules are already separate – the water doesn’t need to pull them apart from one another.

            The problem is the hydrogen bonds between the water molecules. If methane were to dissolve, it would have to force its way between water molecules and so break hydrogen bonds. That costs a reasonable amount of energy.

            The only attractions possible between methane and water molecules are the much weaker van der Waals forces – and not much energy is released when these are set up. It simply isn’t energetically profitable for the methane and water to mix.

            • whungerford says:

              Nice try, Bob, but the concept of dissolve in the article you dredged up isn’t the same as solubility of gasses in liquids. There is no need to try again: you can’t fool Mother Nature.

            • Anne says:

              Can you tell us what you think that means?

            • This is not what I think it means. This IS what it means.

              Solubility is the property of a solid, liquid, or gaseous chemical substance called solute to dissolve in a solid, liquid, or gaseous solvent to form a homogeneous solution of the solute in the solvent. The solubility of a substance fundamentally depends on the physical and chemical properties of the solute and solvent as well as on temperature, pressure and the pH of the solution. The extent of the solubility of a substance in a specific solvent is measured as the saturation concentration, where adding more solute does not increase the concentration of the solution and begin to precipitate the excess amount of solute.

              Most often, the solvent is a liquid, which can be a pure substance or a mixture. One may also speak of solid solution, but rarely of solution in a gas (see vapor–liquid equilibrium instead).

              The extent of solubility ranges widely, from infinitely soluble (without limit) (fully miscible[1]) such as ethanol in water, to poorly soluble, such as silver chloride in water. The term insoluble is often applied to poorly or very poorly soluble compounds.

              Under certain conditions, the equilibrium solubility can be exceeded to give a so-called supersaturated solution, which is metastable.[2] Metastability of crystals can also lead to apparent differences in the amount of a chemical that dissolves depending on its crystalline form or particle size.

              Solubility is not to be confused with the ability to dissolve or liquefy a substance, because the solution might occur not only because of dissolution but also because of a chemical reaction. For example zinc, which is insoluble in hydrochloric acid, does dissolve in hydrochloric acid but by chemical reaction into hydrogen gas and zinc chloride, which in turn is soluble in the acid. The smaller a particle is, the faster it dissolves.

            • Anne says:

              Yes, we can see that you have cut & paste skills; what do you think it means in the context of this conversation?

            • Compared to the solubility of silver chloride at
              520 μg/100 g at 50 °C. I would have to think it would be quite micible. How about explaining what you think it means?

            • Without the cut and paste that was done most people would not understand the numbers being used.

            • Deb Meeker says:

              Interesting. Where did you receive your degree?

              Why doesn’t methane dissolve in water?
              The methane, CH4, itself is not the problem. Methane is a gas, and so its molecules are already separate – the water doesn’t need to pull them apart from one another. The problem is the hydrogen bonds between the water molecules. If methane were to dissolve, it would have to force its way between water molecules and so break hydrogen bonds. That costs a reasonable amount of energy.

              The only attractions possible between methane and water molecules are the much weaker van der Waals forces – and not much energy is released when these are set up. It simply isn’t energetically profitable for the methane and water to mix.

              http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Inorganic_Chemistry/Crystal_Lattices/Lattice_Basics/Molecular_Structures#Solubility_in_water

            • It’s nice to see you found Bob McGill’s comment! I am not debating whether it dissolves or doesn’t I was pointing out the number was wrong and what the solubility in water for methane is. Don’t believe me, look it up. Wikipedia. You do not need a degree for that 😉

            • The article isn’t about methane though so the comments have strayed from the point.

            • Deb Meeker says:

              Thanks, now I know you aren’t a bot. What is your interest concerning LNG storage on Seneca Lake and/or Tom Reed’s use of an ALEC manufactured piece of legislation? Those are what the article is about. Do you have financial interests in that area? Do you actually have an opinion about the article’s points (since most of your original comments were to defend Mr.Crea)?

            • My original comment was in regards to the railroad and the cars so actually my statement was in regards to the article but with all the other nonsense methane and ethics I am sure it was easy to miss.

            • Deb Meeker says:

              Right, so now can you answer my questions?

            • I did. The other questions are irrelevant to the article.

            • To clarify, when I say irrelevant is that my interest, personal and or financially, are of no one’s concerns. That is NOT what the article is about.

            • solodm says:

              It was not relevant to the article that you defended Mr. Crea’s reasons for offering his unlicensed opinion either, yet you did. To be coy doesn’t bring much to the table or make one’s opinion of much value.

            • To attack a person based on an opinion doesn’t hold much weight for the attacker in regards to their opinion 😉 Answering questions in regards to personal information is no one’s business and offers nothing but enables folks who don’t have a reasonable response to attack another person. Nice try though.

      • Teppco is right across the street so they are within a 2 mile radius. I believe all of them are considered hubs of the northeast.

  3. BOB McGILL says:

    the first paragraph, but you questioned my source 🙂
    There is methane in most private water wells around here but it is NON-TOXIC
    http://energyindepth.org/marcellus/sgeis-methane/

    Jul 5, 2011 … For today, our focus will be on methane in private wells and … The presence of naturally occurring methane in ground seeps and water wells is well documented throughout New York State. … NYDEC SGEIS Pg. 4-39. In 1987 …
    ” The presence of naturally occurring methane in ground seeps and water wells is well documented throughout New York State. ”
    NYSDEC SGEIS Pg. 4-38

    ” The existence of naturally occurring methane seeps in New York has been known since the mid 1600s “.

  4. Deb Meeker says:

    It’s worth wading down through the garbage comments ( which I personally read) to say, thanks for this article. I’m going to share it on several pages, including We Are Seneca Lake, and Corning Enough Tea.

    • solodm says:

      *don’t read

      • BOB McGILL says:

        you mean ” CAN’T READ ” pstew replied ” Is that what you mean when you stated “Penn Yan’s sewage treatment plant does more damage”? but I never said that . I said Keuka Outlet was a huge source of pollution, and asked if Penn Yan’s sewage plant was in violation like Watkins Glenn’s.

  5. I’m curious as to when 7 became many because last I knew from DEC that is the amount of rail cars to be added. Seems to me like someone is trying to make mountains out of mole hills with this article. These same railways already carry dangerous material and has for years.

    • solodm says:

      Since you seem to enjoy history, you might find this interesting:
      http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1043&context=ulj

      Seems little has changed in the energy corporations mode of operation, since there is also this:
      http://gdacc.org/2014/09/17/fractracker-alliance-off-the-rails-risks-of-crude-oil-transportation-by-freight-in-ny-state-and-beyond/

    • I don’t know what your point is. Dangerous materials are transported on these same rails that are being discussed, if they weren’t why would Schumer want regulations on hazardous train cargo to move faster?http://m.uticaod.com/article/20141217/News/141219544

    • Deb Meeker says:

      Ms. Dillon, I don’t remember “attacking” you at all. However, your comment: “His ethics have NOTHING to do with the article! So these comments are irrelevant.” might have been construed as an attack on the author. And, “How do you know he doesn’t have one for NY? You don’t know the reason why he used that title. It may have been used to present that he has knowledge of the situation. Seems to me that you are trying to attack Mr.Create and that is not what the article is about.” Could be construed as calling someone else out for what you do yourself.
      You just can’t have it both ways. 🙂

      • Did I say you did? You can misconstrue anything you wish. Call me coy, call me an atracker, call me whatever you feel fits. This is just more nonsense to add to the rest of the off topic nonsense comments on this page.

        • And another thing Ms. Meeker, I asked for facts not personal information. You want facts, I will be more than happy to answer your question pertaining to the article if I can.

          • solodm says:

            Thank you for your offer, but without knowing your expertise on this topic, I can’t imagine why I would ask you for information I’m quite capable of finding for myself. One’s opinion is always welcome here I’m told. There is usually a generous amount of cutting and pasting ( as anyone can do ) but rarely do experts contribute to the conversation.

            If you work for a natural gas company, or Tom Reed, and do not disclose those facts, that’s not “personal”, that’s relevant. At least Mr. Crea does have background in the field, and disclosed who he is. If you are not an expert, or have nothing to add besides cut and paste – that’s fine, but to dismiss a researched article, or nit pick other’s disagreements with out of date licences – *that* is what is irrelevant.
            If you are concerned citizen, but have no background in the topic, that’s fine too, however, just bringing snarky comments to the table, is not relevant either.

            • I don’t know your expertise either but that has not dissuaded you from pointing out the fact you do not like it when someone defends another person. And your oil articles you keep pointing to does not change the fact dangerous material is transported on these railrods. If I were to dismiss the article I would not have pointed out the fact that the research done in regards to how many cars (which is 7 a day ) is not many when considering how many cars a train can pull and how many times they travel in a day. If you feel this is being snarky That is your prerogative. I suppose you can add that to the list of everything else I’ve been called. I have no financial ties to either gas or Reed not that it would make any difference if I did. And if you had read the comments you would have seen that I already stated those disagreements were irrelevant to the article.

          • solodm says:

            “Seems to me like someone is trying to make mountains out of mole hills with this article.”
            Would that person be you? Go ahead and have the last word, Ms. Dillon, I’ve lost interest in trying to communicate with you.

            • Yes I said that in regards to the MANY that was implied by the article. If you had read the whole comment not just the first sentence you would have noticed that. I am happy you have lost interest in communicating because so far all I have seen that you want to discuss is my character. The only thing in regards to the article you can argue about is my opinion on one sentence. Good day to you.

          • solodm says:

            By the way, Ms.Dillon – your comments at the end of this article speak volumes about your opinions concerning this issue:
            http://www.stargazette.com/story/news/local/2014/12/01/crestwood-protest-arrests-gas-storage-seneca-lake/19741665/

            • I am sure if you do more searching you can easily find more. Off track yet again. You want to discuss my opinions on different articles take it there but as old as that one is I doubt that I would see your comments. Good day to you.

  6. David Crea, PE; Chemical Engineer says:

    The author is confusing a propane leak within a building occupied by people to a leak 1/2 mile from anyone. In this, he’s a deliberate propagandist for the anti-LPG Ithacans, and particularly the Park Foundation, also Heinz and Rockefellers who want to keep Southern Tier land cheap so as to buy it from bankrupt landowners.

    • whungerford says:

      No doubt a propane leak within a building is dangerous, but that isn’t the only danger.
      http://www.aiche.org/about/code-ethics

      • There are many dangers in the world thanks to the world evolving. What are you getting at with the code of ethics?

        • whungerford says:

          I thought David Crea might need to be reminded of his duty to the public. He also ought stop using the title of Professional Engineer as his licence in Idaho, which was never valid in NY, has expired.

          • How do you know he doesn’t have one for NY? You don’t know the reason why he used that title. It may have been used to present that he has knowledge of the situation. Seems to me that you are trying to attack Mr.Create and that is not what the article is about.

            • whungerford says:

              Engineer licenses are a mater of public record. When Mr. Crea uses his title, he needs to be sure his statements are ethical.

            • His ethics have NOTHING to do with the article! So these comments are irrelevant.

            • whungerford says:

              How about these:
              deliberate propagandist for the anti-LPG Ithacans
              The Park Foundation, also Heinz and Rockefellers
              religion
              Steingraber-led group of fanatics
              Do they represent the views of a responsible person; are they relevant?

            • I can not speak for him but he must have felt that it was relevant for people to know where the interest of the author lies. The author only posts opinion articles based on negativity (hence anti.) That is what I comprehend from the comment. The author is affiliated with the protest groups and tries to project fear speculation and doubt by his columns. You can easily look this information up to see for yourself.

            • BOB McGILL says:

              ” Sep 30, 2012 … Andrew M. Cuomo, once poised to approve hydraulic fracturing in several …
              including Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime environmental activist in New York ….
              Joseph Martens, the agency’s commissioner, said last week: …”
              ” The developments have created a sense in Albany that Mr. Cuomo is consigning fracking to oblivion. The governor has been influenced by the unshakable opposition from a corps of environmentalists and celebrity activists who are concerned about the safety of the water supply. The opponents include a number of people close to the governor, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime environmental activist in New York whose sister is the governor’s ex-wife. “

    • Anne says:

      That’s an interesting bit of conspiracy theories….first I’d heard of the Rockefellers coming to town. What’s your source for that particular twist, or did you come up with that all on your own?

      • BOB McGILL says:

        well maybe not the Rockefellers just the Kennedys 😛
        The developments have created a sense in Albany that Mr. Cuomo is consigning fracking to oblivion. The governor has been influenced by the unshakable opposition from a corps of environmentalists and celebrity activists who are concerned about the safety of the water supply. The opponents include a number of people close to the governor, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime environmental activist in New York whose sister is the governor’s ex-wife.

    • whungerford says:

      Chemical Engineers are supposed to know something about industrial processes, but perhaps not much else.

  7. David Crea, PE; Chemical Engineer says:

    I agree with Bob McGill1 about the WeAreSenecaLake people just wiping-out all the reasonable arguments counter to their religion. It is a Sandra Steingraber-led group of fanatics. The locals of Watkins Glen would like them to pack-up and stay away.

  8. Anne says:

    Oh, look…the RW trollbots have found this page.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s