Here's the other side of the coalbed methane story

Your April 29 story "Why Gas Bonanza Is No Boon to Landowners," which is sympathetic to a landowner who is not getting a share of the profits from the coalbed methane produced on this property, presents only one side of the story.

I am the vice president of investor and public relations for CNX Gas Corp., the largest coalbed methane producer in the Appalachian Basin.

Quite simply, the landowner featured in the story wants a share of the profits from something that does not belong to him -- the gas in the coal that either he or the prior owners of his farm apparently sold. Thus, the value derived from this sale was either realized by the featured landowner or reflected in a lower price paid for the farm by the landowner. In either event, the landowner has already received value for the coal and associated coalbed methane.

With the ownership of coalbed methane clearly established by the state Supreme Court, companies such as Pittsburgh-based CNX Gas are investing millions to develop this valuable resource. In fact, in a speech on April 27, Nicholas J. DeIuliis, president and chief executive officer of CNX Gas, outlined investment plans for southwestern Pennsylvania totaling $90 million in 2007 and a total of $350 million for 2007-09 to produce this valuable resource.

Finally, while some coalbed methane producers may be more aggressive in asserting their rights to develop this natural resource, CNX Gas has a policy of negotiating with surface owners and paying damages for well sites and pipeline rights of way. We strive to be fair, because we want to be good neighbors. We just wish that this story had presented a more fair and balanced picture of the issues.

DANIEL J. ZAJDEL
CNX Gas Corp.
Robinson

---

Recipe for chaos

Dan Simpson's April 29 column "Disarm America? Here's How" was interesting both in what was said and what wasn't. I agree that a disarming of America would require cordoning off and searching every business, dwelling and building in America by armed government forces.

This requires ignoring properly executed search warrants on everyone. The government must therefore ignore the Constitution's Second, Fourth and 14th amendments. If local newspapers complained, then the newspapers would be silenced -- eliminating the First Amendment. A government that deliberately ignores these four constitutional guarantees in the pursuit of guns will ignore the entire Constitution.

Mr. Simpson glosses over the seizure of weapons from citizens. Let's apply some probabilities to these confiscations. Assume there are 100 million people in the United States who have guns, and 99 percent of them gave up their weapons; 1 million "criminals" still have guns. Assume the "special police" are very good, and in 90 percent of the confrontations with these "criminals" there are no fatalities. That results in 100,000 fatalities. This does not include collateral damage that could occur if these armed "criminals" decide to go on the offensive against their fellow citizens who they perceive have betrayed them instead of waiting passively to be disarmed.

Would Americans put up with the slaughter of 100,000 citizens when the killing of 3,000 soldiers in Iraq upsets them? Would a government that deliberately kills 100,000 of its citizens ever give up power?

RICHARD GUARDIANI
Ohio Township

---

Scary notions

Maybe I have been out of the loop, but I would expect a former U.S. ambassador to have a firmer understanding of the Constitution ("Disarm America? Here's How"). I am not talking about narrow interpretations of the Second Amendment, but rather the Fourth and Fifth Amendments -- you know the ones about unreasonable search and seizure and due process. Maybe he was being facetious, which I hope was the case, for if it wasn't, then I am indeed frightened this person ever held the post of ambassador.

I am not some gun-toting nut, but I do believe that if you are of sound mind you should be able to possess firearms (and I know of no National Rifle Association members who possess anti-tank weaponry), yet I balance this with the knowledge that background checks and cooling off periods are important.

Most modern criminologists reject gun control as a fruitful strategy and criminological research has repudiated virtually every element of the conventional argument for banning handguns, or any guns, to the public. Regardless of the weapon, Seung-Hui Cho would have found a way to kill those students at Virginia Tech. He would have walked into the hall strapped with dynamite, or carrying gasoline, and there would have been a conflagration. One way or another he would have found a way to murder and gone down in history as one in a long line of psychopathological mass murderers.

Mr. Simpson's solution is utter sophistry.

JOHN J. ELIYAS
Level Green

The writer is an adjunct professor of criminology at Penn State New Kensington.

---

Taints all liberals

Regarding the April 29 column by Dan Simpson: I thought it was satire until he finished. This guy is serious! He wants to lock up all the guns (except during hunting seasons) and penalize every gun owner with a year in jail and $1,000 fine. He also suggests regular police sweeps across random neighborhoods and searches of "even Grandma with her walker"! He considers profiling criminals a greater crime than law-abiding citizens carrying guns.

If this is a "liberal" view, as he indicates, of how to handle the "crime" of owning guns, recognizing that this is exactly what Hitler did in Germany, then let's be sure we never allow liberals to be in charge.

The Nazi name, by the way, is an acronym for National Socialist Party. Yes, they were liberal and had all of these really neat ideas that were motivated by good intentions that led to hell. No thanks.

Thankfully, all liberals aren't as radical as Mr. Simpson. He tarnishes them all with proposals as heavy-handed and bigoted as this one.

DOUG McGEE
Brady Lake, Ohio

---

Generation what?

"Generation Columbine" (Forum, April 22) was the most embarrassing, deranged headline choice I saw in the fiasco of media coverage in the days following the Virginia Tech tragedy.

The headline represents shameless yellow journalism and is offensively indiscriminate in its broad connotations of a nationwide angst-ridden, gun-toting student population. All that the murderers of Columbine and similar incidents desired was attention and recognition, and now they are chosen to be emblematic of an entire American generation.

Calling the nation's younger demographic "Generation Columbine" based on the actions of a handful of ostracized psychotic losers is akin to calling the World War II generation "Generation Neo-Nazi" because the American Nazi Party arose in 1959 and recruited a handful of loners to its cause. Or perhaps Generation X is growing tired of that old and overused moniker; how does "Generation McVeigh" sound to you?

Remember, the killers in these incidents professed to have acted so resulting from their perceived societal abandonment; how then are they chosen as the figureheads of a society in which they are not even recognized?

KEVIN HANDERHAN
Rosslyn Farms

The writer is a sophomore at Carlynton High School.

---

UPMC is working to reduce the use of SS numbers

A writer on these pages expressed dismay over the use of Social Security numbers by hospitals ("End this Practice," April 24 letters). This is clearly a legitimate area of concern, and at UPMC we are doing all that we can to ensure the privacy of all our patients while continuing to provide the highest-quality health care.

More than a year ago, UPMC formed a task force to review the use of SSNs throughout our system and to develop ways to limit their usage in response to growing public concern about privacy and identity theft. While it is not possible to eliminate the use of Social Security numbers within the health-care environment, because of the need to accurately associate a patient with his or her medical records, UPMC has been actively working to reduce the unnecessary deployment of SSNs.

Historically, UPMC has used a patient's SSN as the patient's medical record number (MRN). Since the patient's past medical information is linked to the patient's MRN, the SSN becomes a key element for locating this information. While necessity dictates that we use the SSN to locate information, we are in the process of reducing the display of the SSN.

For new patients -- ones who have never been treated at a UPMC facility -- we now are using a unique nine-digit patient identifier instead of the SSN. It is important to note that UPMC is required under Pennsylvania law to submit information to the Health Care Cost Containment Council by a patient's SSN. UPMC also must use the SSN to match patient information with our health-care service partners, as is the case when ordering blood products or lab tests.

UPMC is committed to taking whatever action may be necessary to protect the privacy of our patients, while continuing to provide the highest-quality health care.

JOHN P. HOUSTON
Vice President
Privacy and Information Security
Assistant Counsel
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center
Oakland

---

We welcome your letters. Please include your name, address and phone number, and send to Letters to the Editor, 34 Blvd. of the Allies, Pittsburgh 15222. E-mail letters to letters@post-gazette.com or fax to 412-263-2014. Letters should be 250 words or less, original and exclusive to the Post-Gazette. All letters are subject to editing for length, clarity and accuracy and will be verified before being published.

---