Beaver Run reclamation a failure |

Beaver Run reclamation a failure

Consol Energy has established an extensive network of Marcellus shale gas wells in the Beaver Run watershed on Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County property. MAWC has made public reports regarding the continued high water quality of Beaver Run Reservoir despite the drilling — and that’s great.

What Consol does not make public is the very poor land reclamation at the aforementioned Marcellus sites.

In April 2013, Consol distributed a press release praising its work done on the 60-acre Aikens Pad adjacent to Beaver Run Reservoir. Craig Neal, a Consol employee, boasted, “Consol Energy aims to reclaim land post-energy development back to its original or better condition … we have already planted 2,300 trees on two different sites.”

I challenge anyone with the most basic understanding of the environment to inspect the “reclaimed” sites. They will find tree mortality on about 90 percent of both unprotected young spruce trees and hardwoods planted in tubes.

Of those tubed hardwoods (oaks), many of the few survivors have limbs twisted into a non-viable limb-ball because the netting on the tubes was never removed. Since the day of planting, which was a big media event, these trees have not been tended — a guarantee for failure.

Millions of dollars in profit from gas exploration has come out of Beaver Run. Why can’t Consol put money, time and effort into a viable and sound reclamation?

If what Consol says differs so greatly from what it does regarding reclamation, why should we trust anything the company says about gas exploration?

Jeffrey R. Pope

Washington Township

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.