I read the Sept. 21 Letter to the Editor by Pat Kornick, as well as the article of Sept. 23 on the pipeline route changes and the recent mailing by PennEast touting their pipeline as the means to greater American energy security. Remember those compositions you had to write in school to persuade someone to your point of view or defend your position on the debate team? Well, PennEast has written their composition and hopes we will buy into it.

What is not mentioned from PennEast is the missing and inaccurate information they submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. There was so much missing and inaccurate information that on the date of Kornick's letter there was also an article on the Environmental Protection Agency issuing their "significant concerns" about the incomplete information. The EPA's concerns include the need for this pipeline; direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on the environment, public health, the environment, etc. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service also have spoken out against it.Carbon County's commissioners in a Sept. 9 article noted the same concerns but also that the project and the Kidder compression station were not approved by either the Kidder Township planning commissioner or board of supervisors, even though a previous Department of Environmental Protection document states otherwise. The pipeline, they stated, does not conform with the county's Comprehensive Plan and Greenway Plan.And these groups and agencies are not alone in their objections and concerns about this pipeline. Many local, county and state agencies in Pennsylvania and New Jersey have objections and concerns. Documents submitted during the comment period provided their own analysis that this pipeline will not lower the costs of natural gas to customers; PennEast has not proved the need for this pipeline; there is enough pipeline already in the region to supply customers; the number of jobs to be created are inflated and temporary; etc.In the Sept 23 article, PennEast states they moved part of the route, but when checking the route maps they still plan on horizontal directional drilling in Beltzville State Park with the drill exiting 25 feet from the Bethlehem Water Authority's pipeline. The DEIS also stated that the area where they want to drill is highly susceptible to landslides.Kornick talks of lower costs to consumers, but a Sept. 26 Times News article titled "Honeymoon over on gas drilling royalties" is about natural gas producers taking deductions out of royalty checks for transportation and processing, reducing a landowner's royalty payment by 80 or 90 percent. PennEast is not a driller, but it should make us ask if they can pass the costs of building and maintaining the pipeline on to the consumer. An article in politico.com on Sept. 12 titled "Pipeline project generates a new kind of controversy" states they can.So remember, PennEast is a for-profit company. And of the 12 shippers that signed onto the pipeline project, five of them are owners in PennEast.So go to the FERC website and search for information on the PennEast pipeline using the project number CP15-558-000. Read articles pro and con on the web. You may just find yourself on the debate team.Lucy FreckTowamensing Township