How Can a Bully be a Good Neighbor?

Last week, the roller coaster ride between some of the municipalities I represent and some of the extreme elements of the natural gas industry public-relations machine took a few more twists and turns. What has already been a bizarre relationship is getting more and more bizarre by the day.

Last month, Robinson Township Board of Supervisors was forced to turn down two drilling permit applications when the drilling company, Range Resources, refused to submit an adequate sound study or site plan. This alone was bizarre, since Range’s lawyers were given multiple chances to correct the situation but didn’t; the lawyer refused to answer any questions at one hearing and refused to participate in another.

Range spokesman Matt Pitzarella issued a statement saying the company was “more than willing to make changes” to the plan, but failed to explain why they didn’t even though they had multiple opportunities to do so. One possibility is their lawyers’ resources were being directed elsewhere, because before the Board of Supervisors had even issued a final ruling, Range Resources filed a lawsuit against Robinson Township.

On the surface, it makes little sense; why go through all the trouble of a lawsuit which will require taxpayer dollars to defend when Range could have avoided it by answering the township’s questions on two separate occasions?

It almost seemed like Range wanted to be denied so it could go on the offensive against Robinson Township and portray the supervisors as “anti-drilling,” even though the township has permitted 32 wells from four different drillers since 2007—a whopping 27 of which belong to Range Resources.

Although I had hoped Range’s refusal to fully participate in the permit hearings was not a publicity stunt designed to attack the township supervisors, it became clear very quickly that was exactly what they were doing.

Last week, a scathing personal attack against Robinson Supervisor Brian Coppola was published on the website of Energy In Depth (EID), a gas industry-funded public relations campaign founded by the Independent Petroleum Association of America in 2009.

According to its website, Range Resources is a member of the IPAA.

The post, written by EID staffer Joe Massaro, featured aerial photos taken of Coppola’s home, a detailed analysis of what he had on his property and a totally baseless and false implication that Coppola was denying residents the ability to make money from leasing their land because he was financially comfortable himself. The post featured multiple quotes from Range’s Matt Pitzarella, which suggests Range either condoned the hit piece or helped arrange it. Range Resources has a direct stake in Energy In Depth, yet has failed to condemn any of their work, which speaks volumes.

Even for Energy In Depth, this was a new low; they ultimately took the post down after people who normally support their efforts called them out for their tactics. To many, including myself, it was the equivalent of targeting civilians. Township supervisors basically work for nothing, and Mr. Coppola has worked very hard to become one of the most educated municipal officials in Pennsylvania and led the charge to strike down the elimination of local control under Act 13.

During his tenure, Robinson Township approved 32 consecutive drilling permits without denying any. Painting him as “anti-drilling” when his township is one of the most active drilling communities in the state is almost laughable. And just in case anyone thinks this is a purely political defense of Mr. Coppola, please note he and I belong to opposite political parties. This issue transcends political parties and has actually created real bipartisan cooperation among many elected officials from different political parties and levels of government who are not against drilling but want to see it done using the best practices possible so the economic benefits are long-lasting and sustainable for the region for decades to come. We were here before the first trucks rolled up from Texas and we’ll be here after the last one leaves, and we want to make sure we avoid the mistakes made from the coal era a century ago.

Last week in Cecil Township, Range Resources sent its lawyer into a township meeting to ambush the township supervisors, even though Range had no business on the agenda.

The lawyer, with an unidentified man with a video camera capturing every word, proceeded to grill the supervisors for no apparent reason; there are no pending drilling permits in the township. The tactic was even more suspicious because Range Resources has recently filed two separate lawsuits against the township; in effect, Range was engaging in an ethically questionable public cross-examination that belongs in the courtroom, not the township meeting room.

In Cecil, the tactic backfired; the supervisors were able to answer the questions factually and actually called Range out for the handling of a local water impoundment. The pond was originally designed for fresh water from local drilling sites but is now being used to haul in waste water from all over the place. Residents who had been cheering on Range’s attack suddenly got pretty quiet at the suggestion that their town was being used as a potentially toxic waste dump without their knowledge. Range stirred up a controversy they probably would have rather avoided if they hadn’t been so dead-set on making a scene at the meeting.

Another theme from the Cecil meeting was the attempt by Range to turn leaseholders and non-leaseholders against one another. People stood up and said that because they own more land in the township, they deserve more of a voice than people living in residential neighborhoods. It’s a pretty inflammatory charge, but it’s also a totally false argument based on a fundamentally faulty premise.

In Cecil Township, there are zero drilling permit applications pending, no drilling permit has ever been denied and drilling is not banned anywhere in the township. So how exactly is the Board of Supervisors holding a company like Range Resources back again? Shouldn’t leaseholders be asking Range why they haven’t applied for the necessary permits to drill on their property? How can the township be responsible for something that isn’t even before them to decide? In fact, Range spokesman Jim Cannon said at a public meeting in December 2012 that Range would not be drilling in Cecil Township until at least 2014 and the delay was more about market conditions and had nothing to do with the actions of the township supervisors. This isn’t a minor detail that can be simply overlooked—Mr. Cannon made the statement in a public meeting that was widely attended by the public and the media.

If a company doesn’t want to drill in a community right now because natural gas prices are so low that they can’t make any money from drilling, or because they are waiting to see how the Supreme Court rules on Act 13 so they can bypass local zoning requirements, that is their prerogative. But if that’s the case, the company owes the local government, residents and most importantly their leaseholders an honest and consistent explanation about their motivations instead of vague accusations about townships being “anti-drilling” when there is simply no evidence to back it up.

Is anyone else getting tired of watching our communities being taken over by these stunts seemingly designed to pit neighbor against neighbor and generate drama for the media as ammunition in an endless and largely senseless public relations war?

At what point do we look at the common denominator here as the potential source of the problem?

Not to single out one company, but doesn’t it seem odd that Range Resources is the only company dominating both local and national headlines regarding its aggressive tactics with local governments?

The company is filing numerous lawsuits against the taxpayers, taking over local meetings with lawyers and camera crews for no apparent reason and allowing township officials to be stalked by funding organizations that post pictures of their families’ homes on the internet.

Yet in the same breath we hear about how they want to “work together” and be “good neighbors”, which is a total contradiction.

Why? What’s the point? What’s the end game? Is it really necessary to make our communities look so bad in the media on a constant basis? And perhaps most importantly, how can anyone be expected to work together with a company who operates this way?