Choose a fracking contractor with experience

Reading Don Hopey’s March 28 article “Contentious Crowd Dismisses Shale Drilling Plan,” I had a memory flash. I was visiting a friend who had acquired some acreage with the intent of developing a resort community. As we sat on the porch of the former farmhouse, I admired the view of the lake he had created by damming up a stream on his property.

“So when are you going to start building the vacation homes you have envisioned?” I asked. “Never,” he replied. “You see when I created the lake, the spring water that fed the drinking wells necessary for any future development became permanently contaminated.” I then proceeded to ask him why he had built a fence around the lake. He explained that he had created a “conspicuous nuisance” and had to protect himself from the liability of the unintended consequences of his decision.

Although U.S. Steel in Braddock should be lauded for switching from coal to cleaner burning gas for the production of steel, several concerns come to mind. What “unintended consequences” could arise from fracking for gas rather than using existing gas supplies? Why risk possible contamination of the river located in short proximity to the drilling site? The river that supplies drinking water, not to a few vacation homes, but to thousands of people.

Why choose a fracking contractor that has zero experience with this kind of fracking? If I had to undergo a serious operation, I would pick the most experienced surgeon I could find. Finally, who is going to build that fence to protect us from those “unintended consequences” that could occur from this potential “conspicuous nuisance?”

MICHAEL TOBIAS

Squirrel Hill