Kari Pohl – 1/4/17

 


This page was last updated on January 9, 2017.


Shell can afford an environmentally friendly plant; Sister Kari Pohl (KP); Beaver County Times; January 4, 2017.

In the interest of disclosure, I attended St. Titus grade school in Aliquippa during the 1950s and 1960s.  The Sisters of St. Joseph operated St. Titus.  I also worked for an evil <g>, multinational oil company (not Shell).

KP gave a speech at the 12/15/16 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) hearing about the proposed Shell ethane cracker plant in Potter Township.  KP’s source for the Nigeria portion of her speech was an Amnesty International (AI) press release interpreting a United Nations report.  I don’t know if AI’s interpretation is correct or not, but why did KP rely on a third-party press release instead of the report itself?  KP failed to mention Shell “remains committed to playing its part in implementing the recommendations of the UNEP Report and contributing its share of the environmental restoration fund once the appropriate governance arrangements are put in place.”

Previous letters from other Sisters of St. Joseph (SSJ) are here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.


“Shell’s recent $150,000 donation to CCBC is even further evidence that the corporation which generated over $272 billion in revenue last year alone has the resources it needs to construct an environmentally friendly ethane cracker plant.  The problem?  They’re just too cheap.”

[RWC] Before I get into the review, it’s important to remember the hubbub about the Shell plant is all about the religion of manmade global warming and the left’s desire to ban natural gas production regardless of its source.  Shale opposition groups couldn’t stop fracking directly (except in NY), so now they’re trying to block processing plants and pipelines.  For example, local/national lefty activist Carl Davidson (KD) once wrote, “Compared to making steel, the pollution from the ‘cracker’ itself is fairly low.  The problem is that it needs about 100 ethane gas wells to feed it, wells that often release methane, which is far more problematic than CO2 as a greenhouse gas.  That’s where there’s a far more serious danger to air and water. … In the meantime, keep the ‘cracker’ under tight regulation, and support Wolf’s plan for the extraction tax on fracking.”

Even if the impossible happened and the Shell facility emitted zero pollutants, those opposed to the cracker would find additional reasons to oppose the plant.  Think Charlie Brown, Lucy, and a football.

As another letter-writer, KP didn’t say how she defines “environmentally friendly.”

When someone can’t get past the first paragraph without name-calling, that’s bad.  To the best of my recollection, the Sisters of St. Joseph who taught me didn’t engage in name-calling.

“Shell prefers to spend its money on public relations mailings and token donations rather than investing real dollars into protecting the people of Beaver County from the effects of this proposed plant.”

[RWC] The Shell “public relations mailings” I’ve received gave Shell’s side of the issues raised by KP and others.  Cracker opponents seem annoyed Shell defends itself.  Is Shell not allowed to respond to accusations by opponents?

Should we assume KP also didn’t like the Shell “token donations” of clothing and toys to the Salvation Army in Aliquippa (Christmas 2015) and Rochester (Christmas 2016)?  I’ll go out on a limb and guess the recipients of the clothing and toys didn’t think they were “token donations.” 

“Instead of putting money into soundproofing their construction site, Shell requested what was essentially an exemption from the local noise ordinance.  Rather than building a plant that abides by our clean air laws, Shell is looking for a way to manipulate the regulations (trading NOX for VOC credits) so that they can dump even more carcinogenic waste into our air than is currently permitted.  To skirt our modern clean water regulations, Shell is asking the DEP to piggyback onto the Horsehead zinc smelter’s old permit -- as if a zinc smelter is in anyway similar to an ethane cracker plant.”

[RWC] “soundproofing their construction site?”  The only way to soundproof a construction site is not to build, KP’s goal.  There’s also the issue of who would “suffer.”  On the plant side of the river, there’s no one within range to bother.  From what I can tell from Google Maps, on the other side of the river downriver from the Vanport Bridge there’s the Interstate Chemical terminal and other businesses like 84 Lumber and KMA Manufacturing.  Away from the river, there appears to be a handful of houses shielded by the aforementioned business.  Downriver from Interstate Chemical, there’s no one to bother until Industry, but that’s downriver from the construction site.  Upriver from the Vanport Bridge, there’s only a small piece of the plant property directly across from Vanport.

Through her wording (“manipulate” and “skirt” are examples), KP wants readers to believe Shell is violating our laws.  If readers pay close attention, however, KP actually tells readers Shell is playing by the rules by requesting variances.  Just about all regulations provide a means for requesting a variance because “one size fits all” doesn’t work.  Though this wasn’t KP’s intent, her comment that “a zinc smelter [isn’t] in anyway similar to an ethane cracker plant” is why the variance process is necessary.

“Shell has the resources to build a clean plant and just doesn’t want to; it would rather pour money into getting exemptions, amendments, and concessions than in simply building a plant that won’t poison us.”

[RWC] As with “environmentally friendly,” KP didn’t define “clean plant.”  Why wouldn’t any company want “to build a clean plant,” even if for no other reason than anything that escapes a plant represents lost profit?

Does KP’s employer claim to be a non-profit organization and take advantage of non-profit loopholes?  Does KP’s employer accept donations made possible because it’s designated a charitable organization?

“The citizens of Pennsylvania are already subsidizing this plant with a $1.65 billion tax break and now the residents of Beaver County are being expected to subsidize it with our air, water and health.  We deserve better than this.”

[RWC] I don’t like so-called tax breaks.  The problem is everyone likes to tax businesses until the cows come home, then those same people wonder why new businesses don’t view PA favorably.  Get rid of so-called “business taxes” and tax breaks go away.


© 2004-2017 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.