Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS


June 14, 2012
The Times Observer

Dear editor,

I've finally found the time to respond to AP article of May 16, 2012.

As soon as I read the heading, 3,000 violations, 4,000 wells. The first thing I did was to see who the writer was. It was "Associated Press." I knew before I read, it was AP, anti productive. However, sales had been made, the "hook" was set. So I read on. To the banking industry and the academician it would be alarming. To the 7 percent of us who work in the productive sector, it was biased and full of "borrowed" percentages. However the heading had already established the mindset. Three out of 4 were somehow wrong.

Now it's my turn to play with the numbers. Out of 3,000 violations, 2,133 of them were administrative. Paper work, filing deadlines, etc. So, no DEP, we only had 867 violations. Twenty-five of these were environmental. (what it's all about) On my calculator that's six-tenths of one percent. (.6%) I would settle for that any day. Back to the 2,133 administrative errors. Just on filing the permits, there are over 500 chances for administrative error. On 4,000 wells that comes to 2,000,000 chances for error. On a graded test paper that would be 99.9%. I would call that an "A" not an "F", as the industry was given. I really don't believe we can legislate away that one-tenth of one percent.

Thank you,

Dave White




I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web