John Arway and drilling

[PSH]

For those who have not yet seen it, and for those who might not believe it, John Arway (Exec Dir of PFBC) has not only permitted drillers access to natural gas under Commission properties, he is proving water for the drillers from Commission-owned dams. He is taking money from the folks he is supposed to monitor. If nothing else, this is a huge conflict of interest.

 

[pcray1231]

Don't think the PFBC is supposed to monitor drillers. That is up to DEP and DCNR. PFBC is charged with monitoring fish populations, which includes effects of gas drilling, but thats about as far as the "monitoring" goes.

But yeah, I'm conflicted on the use of PFBC property.

 

[RLeep2]

I don't know all the minute details, but I have confidence in John and do not believe he would do anything that could be judged as untoward, unethical or as compromising the well being and integrity of the resources he is charged with protecting.

Given that this Marcellus thing is going to keep happening anyway, I much prefer the Commission to be an active participant than to see them remain completely removed from the fray.

Better for the fish, IMHO..

 

[Chaz]

First John Arway isn't getting any personal gain. By allowing the drilling under the fish commission property he is only guaranteeing that when the drillers do drill under the PFBC land that PFBC is compensated. Otherwise the drillers can still drill and PFBC doesn’t receive a cent.
I know John and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't do anything that was unethical. The only conflict I see is that if he didn't allow the drilling the Commonwealth wouldn't get a dime.
Wouldn't we all do the same thing if we were offered the amount of rioyalties being paid?

 

[franklin]

Do you have details on the PFBC supplying water for drilling?

 

[JF_]

You should all read the current is of "Pa Angler...", he explains his decision. I have no problem with it based on what he explained.\
John

 

[Maurice]

pcray1231 wrote:
Don't think the PFBC is supposed to monitor drillers. That is up to DEP and DCNR. PFBC is charged with monitoring fish populations, which includes effects of gas drilling, but thats about as far as the "monitoring" goes.

But yeah, I'm conflicted on the use of PFBC property.

Um, ahhh, the PF&BC IS responsible for the waters of the commonwealth. This includes water quality in addition to fish pops.

The DEP is responsible for permitting and enforcement of such. But the F&BC does have a dog in the hunt. In fact when this all ramped up they were asked by the DEP to ramp up their water quality surveys to aid in the overall water resources aspect of Marcellus Shale play.

 

[PSH]

John Arway may be a great guy, but this is a bad decision. The PFBC is charged with protecting our fisheries. Marcellus Shale drilling is the biggest current threat to our fishable waters, with the potential to do as much or more harm than coal and logging did in the past. Just ask the folks who live near or fish Towanda Creek, site of a recent major spill from drilling activity. The PFBC should not be getting in on the action. They should be protecting us from the drillers, not forming business arrangements with them.

Arway's position is that drilling is happening, so the PFBC might as well get something out of it. That's kind of like selling matches to an arsonist under the logic that he is going to burn whether or not I sell to him.

Franklin - The PFBC is planning to supply water from Commission-owned (yours and mine) reservoirs to the drillers.

 

[sandfly]

same for the collages, Mansfield is going to allow on their property. Unbelievable.

 

[timmyt]

"First John Arway isn't getting any personal gain."

If you really believe this I don't know what to tell you...

 

[timmyt]

anyone who is PO'ed about drilling check out my thread about the rally to force these pigs to at least pay taxes, this saturday in SE PA

 

[RLeep2]

>>"First John Arway isn't getting any personal gain."

If you really believe this I don't know what to tell you...>>

If you have credible evidence of what you suggest that goes beyond the usual anti-authoritarian, knee-jerk agency distrust stuff that gets thrown around a lot, I'd certainly be eager to see you present it so we can all come up to speed.

Then, you wouldn't have to be concerned with what to tell us. We'd already know...

I have pretty significant doubts that you have any such evidence, though.

 

[RLeep2]

BTW, rejecting the notion that John Arway is in league with the Marcellus industry in such a way that the relationship creates a conflict of interest with his position and being, as anglers, very concerned about the impact of this drilling on our sport and our aquatic resources are not contradictory positions. Not at all.

Just thought that needed said.

 

[timmyt]

In this case neither of us have any evidence, you can't prove he didn't get paid off and I can't prove he did. that doesn't really change my opinion on the matter though...

 

[wgmiller]

I'll second JF_'s comments. If you read the current PA Angler and Boater, he explains his rationale for allowing this to occur. To pretty much sum things up, he states that with our without their approval, it's going to happen anyway, so why not get compensated for it? It's a good article, so read it if you get the chance...

 

[timmyt]

not sure how it could happen without their approval but I will make sure to read the article, is it online anywhere?

 

[franklin]

PSH wrote:
John Arway may be a great guy, but this is a bad decision. The PFBC is charged with protecting our fisheries. Marcellus Shale drilling is the biggest current threat to our fishable waters, with the potential to do as much or more harm than coal and logging did in the past. Just ask the folks who live near or fish Towanda Creek, site of a recent major spill from drilling activity. The PFBC should not be getting in on the action. They should be protecting us from the drillers, not forming business arrangements with them.

Arway's position is that drilling is happening, so the PFBC might as well get something out of it. That's kind of like selling matches to an arsonist under the logic that he is going to burn whether or not I sell to him.

Franklin - The PFBC is planning to supply water from Commission-owned (yours and mine) reservoirs to the drillers.

Are they getting paid for the water?

 

[vcregular]

Download 'Straight Talk' from this link.

http://www.fish.state.pa.us/anglerboater/2011ab/vol80num3_mayjune/toc_v80n3.htm

 

[PSH]

I have no evidence to suggest that John Arway is taking a payoff, nor have I suggested it. But, here is how this decision effects Arway very personally, professionally and financially.
Arway's boss, the governor, is the biggest drilling cheerleader in the country. Corbett is fanatical in his support for the drilling activity. Want to drill on state lands? Go right ahead, be my guest! Tax the drillers? Not under his watch.
So, as Arway stated in the PA Angler announcement, he could "... ignor this opportunity and fight this industry to my death and not theirs," he recognizes that the governor would likely fire him if he did the right thing. I believe Arway has found a way to rationalize this decision - fight the drillers and get nothing, or join them and get something for the PFBC. The fact that it is what his boss wants? Well, I'll leave it to you to speculate on whether or not that entered into his decision-making, consciously or unconsciously.

 

[drews]

Is he getting a kickback or isn't he... Is corbet "on the pay roll" or isn't he. Bottom line who cares. More important question is how do "we the preople" change things and do the job of both these gentlemen and look out for our natural resources when they obviously won't and worse yet seemingly (corbet) wont let anyone else do it either. How do we get people in places of authority to do what they were elected or hired to do? Protect the people abs lands of Pa! Oh that's right wait until elections until then just grin and bare it I guess. I guess those who either are or stand to make a s$$$ load of money could just move elsewhere when their job is up so they won't have to worry about it anyway. What we should be asking is what about the in the meantime? So what is or isn't on the take perhaps the guy is trying to save his job, wonder how many people wouldn't do the same thing? It's the leader who has " set the tone" for these types of things to happen.