Editorial was flawed

From Rob Ludwig, White Lake Township:

First of all, I want to thank you and your staff for providing the much-needed local news coverage most of our area publications lack. You and your team do a fine job of exploring and answering the tough questions we face in our communities.

With that said, I would like to comment on the ‘Frack Pack’ legislation opinion piece (Spinal Column Newsweekly, Sept. 5). Since the Great Lakes watershed contains 20 percent of the world’s freshwater supply, I think some very important aspects of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) were not mentioned in the opinion piece:

No. 1, apparently, your article defines hydraulic fracking as it has been practiced for over 50 years in Michigan, with “not one case of contaminated groundwater, or flammable tap water.” Obviously, this is not the kind of fracking being introduced and practiced today. I’m certain you are aware that new forms of fracking, specifically horizontal fracking, are becoming more mainstream because they are more productive and can extract natural gas from up to two miles away. As the opinion clearly states, the old method of fracking was much safer. In contrast, horizontal fracking poses many additional challenges to the extraction and delivery process that have been proven to be problematic. And while your opinion attempts to dispel all of the problems as minor, sprinkling the article with phrases like “sometimes methane can seep naturally…” and “…it was decided that the most likely culprit was gas well coverings that were leaking — a problem easily fixed,” you are clearly misleading the reader. In his white paper on fracking, Duke University’s Robert Jackson also notes that someone living within 1,000 feet of a well head is seven times more likely to find methane in their water — something you failed to mention.

No. 2, your opinion states that (House Bill 5149) would require gas and oil companies to follow the same rules in respect to groundwater withdrawal and use. The opinion later states that the Spinal Column (Newsweekly) is at a loss why the bill was introduced. As you know, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 contains a provision that exempts the gas drilling and extraction process of natural gas from the Safe Water Drinking Act (SWDA) of 1974. The Safe Water Drinking Act also designates each state as the primary body of government in charge of maintaining those standards. Ironically, bottled water companies that extract water for resale purposes are also exempted for from the SWDA but are regulated by the (U.S. Food and Drug Administration). So they are being regulated in some form; whereas, there is no legislation that specifically regulates fracking by any federal agency. More importantly, your opinion fails to mention the recommendations made by the quoted source, Robert Jackson, in his white paper on fracking, which includes regulating hydraulic fracturing under the SWDA of 1974.

No. 3, as stated, Duke’s Robert Jackson concluded: “As a cleaner source of energy, and as a bridge to a carbon constrained future, natural gas has many desirable qualities. Despite these benefits, more research is needed to assess the mechanisms of water contamination and possible methane losses to the atmosphere. Moreover, some additional oversight may be needed to protect communities and the environment from water contamination near extraction and disposal sites.” This, I think, does a fine job of explaining why (state Rep.) Lisa Brown (D-West Bloomfield, Commerce, Wolverine Lake) courageously introduced (House Bills) 5150 and 5151.

As a reader of the Spinal Column Newsweekly, I find your opinion on ‘Frack Pack’ legislation is lacking and misleading. If you used Robert Jackson as a source for your article, why not mention any of his other statements that question the safety of fracking? Why didn’t you explain the difference between horizontal fracking and traditional fracking when mentioning safety concerns, rather than basing Michigan’s safety record on an obsoleted practice. And finally, why did you proclaim a study and one year moratorium as “foolish” when it was recommended by a source you quoted in your article? The Great Lakes region and lakes area deserves, and expects, better. In short, your opinion is based on flawed reasoning, outdated practices, and without regard for your main source’s other, more important, statements and recommendations.