By Tom Gallitano
Regarding “Pipelines rupture” (Editorial, May 23):
The editorial cited damage to California’s shoreline as a result of the recent pipeline oil spill there and how we don’t want to see the same in New Jersey. Yet every day, barges move oil and petroleum products up and down the Hudson River, putting some of our most sensitive environmental areas — the river and the Jersey shore — at risk. A spill downriver would likely wash up along the Jersey coast. As you said, we must find the best possible method to move oil; that method is still a modern pipeline.
By Al Frontauria
Regarding “Protesters demand information on oil trains” (Page L-1, May 18):
Marchers in Sunday’s “oil train” rally are right to demand safer trains and more information.
However, they are wrong to lump together oil trains and modern pipelines, such as the proposed Pilgrim Pipeline. Unlike with oil trains, first responders know the specific locations and products shipped in pipelines.
Because Pilgrim Pipeline would be underground with a constant product flow, it is not susceptible to explosions, as pipeline opponents claim.
Replacing fossil fuels with wind and solar remains a “pipe” dream, as these sources generate only 4.8 percent of grid electrical energy and have virtually zero impact on transportation energy. For now, we’re stuck with oil, and pipelines are the safest way to move it.
Pipeline opponents’ oily logic: The alternatives are much worse for the environment, The Star Ledger, March 26, 2015
The map offered another interesting bit of information: Not one, but two pipelines ran through the preserve, the Texas Eastern Pipeline and the Buckeye Pipeline.
As it happens, the issue of a proposed pipeline had come up in the question-and answer section of the town hall.
–Read More of the Star Ledger article
By W. Gregory James
EDITOR: I read with interest your front-page story concerning the recent public meeting to discuss the proposed Pilgrim Pipeline Project (“Hundreds huddle on pipeline,” March 5).
One salient facet I glean from the story, although billed as an “informational session,” was the lack of proponents of Pilgrim Pipeline at the meeting.
– Read More of the New Jersey Hills article
By Mark Longo
I would like to take issue with several statements in your editorial of Feb. 23.
To begin with the headline — “Pilgrim Pipeline: too much of a risk” — there is no mention of any kind of risk in the editorial. Yet the headline prepares the reader and public officials to oppose the pipeline.
– Read More of the Daily Record article