Over a decade ago I was searching for a dissertation topic and a self-reporting fracking site had come online (only CO and TX were required to track IIRC) that showed promise for helping to assess impact.
Before jumping blindly into the data, I interviewed several former field workers and engineering professors. The consistent narrative was that water spills with the fracking chemicals where extremely common and only had to be reported under a very limited set of situations, if they were even reported at all.
To the person, the field hands were personally worried about future cancers and other health conditions. All the field hands had since moved on to graduate school themselves, several in medicine.
Further, not all the chemicals being leaked, spilled, or entered into the water supply via bad casings were reported, as any that had trade secrets (at the time and to the best of my recollection) were excluded.
In Colorado, that’s starting to change, but it’s far from resolved.
Following SB 19-181, the Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission (now ECMC) overhauled many rules. One rule now requires operators to disclose all chemicals used in fracking and in spills, including trade secret ingredients, but there's a catch:
They still don’t have to reveal the exact chemical identity to the public — only to regulators and, in limited cases, medical professionals.
Additionally:
The rule rollout has been slow, and compliance remains spotty.
There's no standardized enforcement mechanism to verify what’s actually used on-site.
If a spill happens, the data available to the public is still often vague or incomplete — and trade secret protections can render the chemical list nearly meaningless if you're trying to assess toxicity. (As we've tried, ourselves)
iancmceachern · 7h ago
I was part of a forensic engineering team that did some accident reconstruction for an insurance company after a worker backed their truck into a franking tank and caused it to break open and flood a farmers field and home.
The amounts of water involved are truly remarkable.
fsckboy · 5h ago
>Unsurprising. Over a decade ago I was searching for a dissertation topic and a self-reporting fracking site...
it's unsurprising because in all human endeavors, success has many parents, while failure is always an orphan. Has nothing to do with fracking.
teachrdan · 5h ago
> Has nothing to do with fracking.
I wish you had read OP's comment more carefully:
> Further, not all the chemicals being leaked... were reported, as any that had trade secrets (at the time and to the best of my recollection) were excluded.
The exact mix of chemicals used in fracking fluids is proprietary -- in all likelihood not because it's so valuable as a trade secret, but as an excuse not to report the presumably toxic / carcinogenic contents to the public.
This is absolutely something specific to fracking.
JumpCrisscross · 4h ago
> in all likelihood not because it's so valuable as a trade secret, but as an excuse not to report the presumably toxic / carcinogenic contents to the public
It’s both. The former ranges from performance to make management look like they have a secret sauce to actual chemical breakthroughs in surfactants.
DoctorOetker · 4h ago
They are not mutually exclusive: from the perspective of fracking companies, deceiving the public may itself be the trade secret?
fsckboy · 4h ago
"non shale drillers turn on each other as toxic waste..."
would that headline surprise you? it has nothing to do with fracking. The news is that there is a fracking related toxic water issue, one entirely similar to what we are very familiar over a history of the handling of many toxic chemical industrial sites. It has nothing to do with turning on each other which is what the headline says is the news.
sgt101 · 7h ago
The peak and decline of US oil production is going to be one of the geopolitical stories of the next 25 years. If US renewables and nuclear don't fill the gap the need for global naval dominance is going to come knock knock knocking again. It looks very like there are three factors that are going to mean that reasserting dominace isn't just very hard:
- Missile tech has advanced and proliferated.
- US ship building is crippled, and expanding it (especially where needed) is going to be very difficult. Basically the US is going to need a lot of SSN and it won't be able to make them.
- There is a competitor power with sufficient resources to make it a real competition, and a very different conceptualisation of how the world should work.
mrtksn · 13m ago
America was doing very well on renewable energy, it started a bit late than EU but accelerated quickly and just caught up. For some reason the new administration decided not to proceed any further.
arevno · 5h ago
I don't know to what extent naval dominance will be useful. Even with EOR and TOR, Ghawar continues to decline, along with most of ME and Russian fields.
Global conventional peaked a long time ago, and EOR/TOR will only keep the game going another decade or so. Renewables and nuclear are the only long-term options. There's also coal, of which we have at least a hundred years in the PRB alone, if we're willing to match China in the "fuck the environment" game.
IIUC the U.S. has over a millenium's worth of energy usage in natural gas reserves. It does require using it, which means either EVs or nat. gas burning engines, and since we're already on our way to EVs that makes sense.
mempko · 4h ago
I don't think people realize that at current growth rates we have only 60 to 100 years or oil left. Growth will obviously flatten and decline way before then. The age of oil is over folks.
cryptonector · 4h ago
We've been saying that for 60 years.
vdupras · 1h ago
I don't think people care. After all, they don't care about the degradation of our life support, which doesn't have much more than that either, at least at a civilization-sustaining level.
downrightmike · 4h ago
Don't worry, I'm sure they are working to deliver war drones via ICBM
grepfru_it · 6h ago
Nuclear replaces one problem with another (waste). Renewables are the only way
wpm · 6h ago
Nuclear "waste" is barely even waste, it's still full of a bunch of energy that could be put to use if we improved the reactors. It's just unusable in what we have now.
It's also miniscule.
sidewndr46 · 6h ago
The US to date has primarily approached the problem of civilian nuclear waste by planning for and building a single facility, then cancelling the entire thing before any waste was ever moved there. There are a couple pilot plants, those are exactly what they sound like.
The US will never solve the problem of nuclear waste.
RealityVoid · 4h ago
Encase it in a big block of concrete. Dump it in the ocean. There, solved it. I know it sounds horrid because of the public perception issue, but it's really not a bad solution. Yes, I mean it. Be aghast!
cryptonector · 4h ago
Dropping nuclear waste in the Marianas trench is not a bad idea.
jollyllama · 6h ago
Maybe 20 years ago. Something tells me if the nuke guys could get their shit together and grab the ear of the current admin, they could get their hole in the desert that they have always wanted. But instead they are more likely to play Nobody's Favorite as Big Oil continues to Big Oil and solar/wind continue to reap decades of subsidies.
cptskippy · 5h ago
> It's just unusable in what we have now.
I really hate all of the defense of nuclear based on hypotheticals that realistically will never become reality by conveniently ignoring externalities like capitalism.
Our regulatory and governance environment is so unstable and can change significantly every 4 years. Companies play the long game and delay or resist change to outlast administrations.
This prevents any meaningful advance of the technology preventing it from becoming a viable solution.
idiotsecant · 6h ago
Nuclear waste is not a substantial problem, technically. It's a NIMBY problem. It's just tradeoffs. Nuke is a wonderful power source that works today. That's better than tech that will work once we have 30 years of investment into storage and transmission networks. We do need renewables. We also need something to fill the gap in the meantime that isn't spewing carbon into an ecosystem that is already past a tipping point.
No comments yet
no_wizard · 5h ago
this is nothing more than FUD. Waste can be repurposed, sometimes decades after the fact, as reactor technology improves. In fact, the latest reactors in service elsewhere in the world can recycle a portion of the waste as fuel, further minimizing it.
We also know its dangers and how to store it properly, and compared to the waste that simply oil and gas extraction creates, its significantly less (up to 90% less), and its exceedingly predictable.
harimau777 · 2h ago
Even if we know how to store it properly, that doesn't mean that we will store it properly. I don't see any reason why we should trust the MAGA regime (and the Democrats aren't much better) to handle it properly or to make things right if there is an accident.
Teever · 6h ago
Nuclear waste is in no way comparable to the environmental damage incurred from the use of hydrocarbons in our economy.
krunck · 6h ago
Nuclear fission replaces one problem with another (waste).
cryptonector · 4h ago
> The peak and decline of US oil production...
The peak and decline of global oil production -not just U.S.- has been predicated for longer than I am alive. It's still in the future, and reserves have grown significantly. And the U.S. has natural gas reserves that are enormous, so at least the energy side is covered (though not non-fuel things like plastics and lubricants).
As for U.S. ship building... that could probably be fixed, though it will take years, but not so many that the USN's current advantages dissipate completely.
chasd00 · 4h ago
> The peak and decline of US oil production is going to be one of the geopolitical stories of the next 25 years
people have been saying that since the 70s at least. The reason why no one is fracking is because oil/gs is so cheap it's not worth it. If the price rises enough the wells turn back on and everyone starts doing it again. Renewables, demand, and regional stability is keeping prices low so putting in the extra effort fracking requires just isn't worth the return. Google says the average break even price of a fracking well in the Permian Basin (SW Texas) is $65/barrel. And the price of oil as of this comment is $65.98 so that would mean a lot of wells are just sitting there because it's not worth the money to pump.
vdupras · 1h ago
And that's what it's all about: Energy Return on Investment. Conventional oil has a much much better return than fracking, and the US is out of it. This is what is meant by "decline". Sure, there's plenty of oil, but it's more expensive to get out, so we don't.
On the flip side, our economy is dependent on a certain EROI. Below that, it chokes because we don't have enough energy "slaves" to render the services we've came to depend upon.
mistersquid · 6h ago
A popular meme YouTuber ("Daily Dose of Internet" [0]) featured a clip of someone lighting their tap water on fire. Commenters explained that flammable water is common in places where fracking pollutants have contaminated the ground water.
The rods in my hot water tank were separating the hydrogen and oxygen. Called electrolysis
stockresearcher · 4h ago
Powered water heater anodes are now a thing. Supposedly they can make your water heater last almost indefinitely and get rid of any bad smells from sulfur in the water.
Perhaps just a little dangerous if you've got fracking contamination?
I have installed one of these before in a domestic hot water tank exposed to unfavorable water supply (well, midwest aquifer), and they do what is on the tin. Also, working with their customer support department (Québec) is an experience (both positive and unvarnished), highly recommend.
bickfordb · 4h ago
When I read things like this, I'm amazed that 50% of the nation thinks this practice is preferable to solar and windmills
I've been involved in a grassroots effort fighting a massive fracking project near our homes in SE Aurora, Colorado. If anyone's curious, I built this site with more details: https://savetheaurorareservoir.org/
The plan includes over 160 wells across a dozen pads—right next to a major reservoir serving Eastern Denver/Aurora, a Superfund site, a landfill, and a growing suburban community.
In April, Chevron had an uncontrolled blowout at their Bishop well in Galeton, CO. Cleanup is still ongoing. Meanwhile, a new study from the Colorado School of Public Health showed increased childhood leukemia risk linked to proximity to oil and gas wells. We've asked regulators to address how their current rules fall short in light of these findings.
There are over 40 existing pads nearby, all relying on a small volunteer fire department. We've documented consistent gaps in spill/leak reporting and monitoring. Despite this, the State and County continue approving new pads.
We organized over 2,000 public comments against the largest proposed pad—more than any public-works project in County history. Our group was also the first activist group in the state granted “affected party” status to participate in hearings for a Comprehensive Area Plan (CAP).
The CAP was approved anyway. So were the well pads. Regulators thank us for our feedback, then move forward regardless.
One example: I flagged that a pad's construction would disrupt Mule Deer mating season. The operator paid a $6,000 preemptive fine and got the green light.
Another time, I pointed out that a required public document wasn’t posted—an error that should’ve triggered a new comment period. It didn’t. The site was approved after a closed-door session to review the issue with the document not being made available.
To borrow from my recent comment:
"Lastly, I want to return to a point raised by one of the Commissioners today, drawing a comparison between Commission approval and a driver’s license: that by the time the license is stamped, the tests have been passed and the boxes checked.
It’s a fair analogy. In fact, I’ve used it myself to describe both the County and ECMC processes. But I would add this: imagine an applicant standing at the DMV
counter, ready to be approved. Now imagine 100 people surrounding them—neighbors, relatives, retired law enforcement, health professionals—each holding
documentation of prior violations or evidence of risks, warning that issuing the license could result in injury or death. Would that clerk still confidently apply the stamp?"
The pressure to approve these projects seems to outweigh the purpose of the review process itself. We’re still fighting.
click the toggle for "directional wellbores" and look north of Denver. Then, look at SE Denver and see how they are starting to build out around my home.
Extensively, and the result is quite the opposite. This is land owned by the State Land Board and their mandate is essentially to utilize it for tax revenue.
If you are meaning the Reservoir, the superfund site, and/or the nearby landfill. We've pushed the related agencies (including the EPA) to enact protections surrounding the sites - the most we've gotten is stopping the wells being drilled directly-under them (but they can/will still go right up against).
Horrifying. That beautiful property at the corner of Industrial Drive and Robert E. Lee Street has been desecrated. Will Sweetwater ever recover?
setr · 7h ago
This article seems perfectly valid? They aggregated all of the blades, and it’s ugly, and it Sweetwater never actually gets to processing (eg bankrupts), it’s effectively permanent.
Though I don’t see why sweetwater cant simply put up a fence and call it a day
jeffbee · 6h ago
There are fields of unneeded pipes in the area that are multiple times as large as this little lot full of fiberglass, and unlike the fiberglass the drilling pipes are contaminated with heavy metals from the "thread compound" which is 30% lead. Spending any time or attention to the supposed waste of wind energy in West Texas is completely ridiculous, and lending any credence to it as a valid issue is to be a pawn in the petrochemical propaganda game.
antisthenes · 4h ago
I opened the article, read '30 acres of wind turbine blades' and immediately closed it.
Come on, 30 acres in Texas? What a nothingburger compared to the footprints of other dirty industries.
That whole stretch of Midland/Odessa on 20 is one of the most miserable landscapes I've ever driven through. The crushing heat, the off-gassing flame stacks across the horizon, the man camps, the junk and trash everywhere... all of it is grim.
billfor · 7h ago
Is it really a lot of water? There are significant variations but I thought, as a broad generalization, an average fracking well uses, in its lifetime, about as much water as an average golf course in two weeks.
tokyolights2 · 7h ago
FTA
> pumped so much fluid underground in the Permian Basin that it leaked into a prolific oil-producing layer of rock, making it all but impossible to extract crude, according to an April court filing.
> The Permian produces almost as much oil as Iraq and Kuwait combined. But its wells generate up to five barrels of chemical-laden waste fluid for every barrel of crude, creating a growing disposal challenge.
its a lot of water
codingdave · 7h ago
That is not a fair comparison... not that I love the high use of golf courses, either, but at least that use is just water. It flows back into the water cycle, and thereby can be re-used infinitely. But fracking water has been poisoned. It removes the infinite re-use and makes it into toxic waste.
ryao · 5h ago
The water cycle involves a natural distillation. Distillation removes pollutants, so the water can be reused.
jasonephraim · 4h ago
At least in Colorado, they use "injection wells" to inject the fracking liquids deep below aquifers. This water does not (at least, by design) re-enter the water cycle. It is permanently sequestered in deep geologic formations.
chiffre01 · 7h ago
According to the USGS:
Water use per well can be anywhere from about 1.5 million gallons to about 16 million gallons.
I think a Golf course might use a bit more per year, but this is per well and the state of Texas has 279,615 active oil and gas wells. Not sure of all of them are fracking wells or not.
moomin · 7h ago
I have no idea if your rule of thumb is accurate but you’re not comparing like with like. The problems being described here are to do with the disposal of contaminated wastewater. Whatever you think of golf courses, dealing with the wastewater is a pretty solved problem.
maxglute · 4h ago
Chatgpt napkin math, entire lifetime of US shale water uses is ~2% of annual US agriculture irrigation (300k wells, 5 million gallons per well, 1.5 trillion gallons lifetime)
Or
About 1 year worth of US almond production.
freejazz · 6h ago
> about as much water as an average golf course in two weeks.
Over a decade ago I was searching for a dissertation topic and a self-reporting fracking site had come online (only CO and TX were required to track IIRC) that showed promise for helping to assess impact.
Before jumping blindly into the data, I interviewed several former field workers and engineering professors. The consistent narrative was that water spills with the fracking chemicals where extremely common and only had to be reported under a very limited set of situations, if they were even reported at all.
To the person, the field hands were personally worried about future cancers and other health conditions. All the field hands had since moved on to graduate school themselves, several in medicine.
Further, not all the chemicals being leaked, spilled, or entered into the water supply via bad casings were reported, as any that had trade secrets (at the time and to the best of my recollection) were excluded.
EDIT: https://archive.is/gaQ5x
Following SB 19-181, the Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission (now ECMC) overhauled many rules. One rule now requires operators to disclose all chemicals used in fracking and in spills, including trade secret ingredients, but there's a catch: They still don’t have to reveal the exact chemical identity to the public — only to regulators and, in limited cases, medical professionals.
Additionally:
The rule rollout has been slow, and compliance remains spotty.
There's no standardized enforcement mechanism to verify what’s actually used on-site.
If a spill happens, the data available to the public is still often vague or incomplete — and trade secret protections can render the chemical list nearly meaningless if you're trying to assess toxicity. (As we've tried, ourselves)
The amounts of water involved are truly remarkable.
it's unsurprising because in all human endeavors, success has many parents, while failure is always an orphan. Has nothing to do with fracking.
I wish you had read OP's comment more carefully:
> Further, not all the chemicals being leaked... were reported, as any that had trade secrets (at the time and to the best of my recollection) were excluded.
The exact mix of chemicals used in fracking fluids is proprietary -- in all likelihood not because it's so valuable as a trade secret, but as an excuse not to report the presumably toxic / carcinogenic contents to the public.
This is absolutely something specific to fracking.
It’s both. The former ranges from performance to make management look like they have a secret sauce to actual chemical breakthroughs in surfactants.
would that headline surprise you? it has nothing to do with fracking. The news is that there is a fracking related toxic water issue, one entirely similar to what we are very familiar over a history of the handling of many toxic chemical industrial sites. It has nothing to do with turning on each other which is what the headline says is the news.
- Missile tech has advanced and proliferated.
- US ship building is crippled, and expanding it (especially where needed) is going to be very difficult. Basically the US is going to need a lot of SSN and it won't be able to make them.
- There is a competitor power with sufficient resources to make it a real competition, and a very different conceptualisation of how the world should work.
Global conventional peaked a long time ago, and EOR/TOR will only keep the game going another decade or so. Renewables and nuclear are the only long-term options. There's also coal, of which we have at least a hundred years in the PRB alone, if we're willing to match China in the "fuck the environment" game.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_River_Basin>
It's also miniscule.
The US will never solve the problem of nuclear waste.
I really hate all of the defense of nuclear based on hypotheticals that realistically will never become reality by conveniently ignoring externalities like capitalism.
Our regulatory and governance environment is so unstable and can change significantly every 4 years. Companies play the long game and delay or resist change to outlast administrations.
This prevents any meaningful advance of the technology preventing it from becoming a viable solution.
No comments yet
We also know its dangers and how to store it properly, and compared to the waste that simply oil and gas extraction creates, its significantly less (up to 90% less), and its exceedingly predictable.
The peak and decline of global oil production -not just U.S.- has been predicated for longer than I am alive. It's still in the future, and reserves have grown significantly. And the U.S. has natural gas reserves that are enormous, so at least the energy side is covered (though not non-fuel things like plastics and lubricants).
As for U.S. ship building... that could probably be fixed, though it will take years, but not so many that the USN's current advantages dissipate completely.
people have been saying that since the 70s at least. The reason why no one is fracking is because oil/gs is so cheap it's not worth it. If the price rises enough the wells turn back on and everyone starts doing it again. Renewables, demand, and regional stability is keeping prices low so putting in the extra effort fracking requires just isn't worth the return. Google says the average break even price of a fracking well in the Permian Basin (SW Texas) is $65/barrel. And the price of oil as of this comment is $65.98 so that would mean a lot of wells are just sitting there because it's not worth the money to pump.
On the flip side, our economy is dependent on a certain EROI. Below that, it chokes because we don't have enough energy "slaves" to render the services we've came to depend upon.
Among the many examples:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfHcypKLxgc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LP5fIKqobm0 (This is not an example of fracking pollution, according to child comment.)
I was stunned, to say the least.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/@DailyDoseOfInternet
The rods in my hot water tank were separating the hydrogen and oxygen. Called electrolysis
Perhaps just a little dangerous if you've got fracking contamination?
https://www.corroprotec.com/
The plan includes over 160 wells across a dozen pads—right next to a major reservoir serving Eastern Denver/Aurora, a Superfund site, a landfill, and a growing suburban community.
In April, Chevron had an uncontrolled blowout at their Bishop well in Galeton, CO. Cleanup is still ongoing. Meanwhile, a new study from the Colorado School of Public Health showed increased childhood leukemia risk linked to proximity to oil and gas wells. We've asked regulators to address how their current rules fall short in light of these findings.
There are over 40 existing pads nearby, all relying on a small volunteer fire department. We've documented consistent gaps in spill/leak reporting and monitoring. Despite this, the State and County continue approving new pads.
We organized over 2,000 public comments against the largest proposed pad—more than any public-works project in County history. Our group was also the first activist group in the state granted “affected party” status to participate in hearings for a Comprehensive Area Plan (CAP).
The CAP was approved anyway. So were the well pads. Regulators thank us for our feedback, then move forward regardless.
One example: I flagged that a pad's construction would disrupt Mule Deer mating season. The operator paid a $6,000 preemptive fine and got the green light.
Another time, I pointed out that a required public document wasn’t posted—an error that should’ve triggered a new comment period. It didn’t. The site was approved after a closed-door session to review the issue with the document not being made available.
To borrow from my recent comment:
"Lastly, I want to return to a point raised by one of the Commissioners today, drawing a comparison between Commission approval and a driver’s license: that by the time the license is stamped, the tests have been passed and the boxes checked.
It’s a fair analogy. In fact, I’ve used it myself to describe both the County and ECMC processes. But I would add this: imagine an applicant standing at the DMV counter, ready to be approved. Now imagine 100 people surrounding them—neighbors, relatives, retired law enforcement, health professionals—each holding documentation of prior violations or evidence of risks, warning that issuing the license could result in injury or death. Would that clerk still confidently apply the stamp?"
The pressure to approve these projects seems to outweigh the purpose of the review process itself. We’re still fighting.
If you want a real idea of the scope of these operations: Invite you to check out the Colorado GIS mapping tool https://cogccmap.state.co.us/cogcc_gis_online/?lat=39.572042...
click the toggle for "directional wellbores" and look north of Denver. Then, look at SE Denver and see how they are starting to build out around my home.
If you are meaning the Reservoir, the superfund site, and/or the nearby landfill. We've pushed the related agencies (including the EPA) to enact protections surrounding the sites - the most we've gotten is stopping the wells being drilled directly-under them (but they can/will still go right up against).
Though I don’t see why sweetwater cant simply put up a fence and call it a day
Come on, 30 acres in Texas? What a nothingburger compared to the footprints of other dirty industries.
30 acres is probably, what, 2 H-E-B parking lots?
> pumped so much fluid underground in the Permian Basin that it leaked into a prolific oil-producing layer of rock, making it all but impossible to extract crude, according to an April court filing.
> The Permian produces almost as much oil as Iraq and Kuwait combined. But its wells generate up to five barrels of chemical-laden waste fluid for every barrel of crude, creating a growing disposal challenge.
its a lot of water
Water use per well can be anywhere from about 1.5 million gallons to about 16 million gallons.
I think a Golf course might use a bit more per year, but this is per well and the state of Texas has 279,615 active oil and gas wells. Not sure of all of them are fracking wells or not.
Or
About 1 year worth of US almond production.
That's a lot of water, no?