[HN Gopher] Shale Drillers Turn on Each Other as Toxic Water Lea...
___________________________________________________________________
Shale Drillers Turn on Each Other as Toxic Water Leaks Hit Biggest
US Oil Field
Author : toomuchtodo
Score : 149 points
Date : 2025-07-21 14:58 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bloomberg.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bloomberg.com)
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| https://archive.today/gaQ5x
| billfor wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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
| moomin wrote:
| 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.
| codingdave wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| The water cycle involves a natural distillation. Distillation
| removes pollutants, so the water can be reused.
| jasonephraim wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| freejazz wrote:
| > about as much water as an average golf course in two weeks.
|
| That's a lot of water, no?
| maxglute wrote:
| 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.
| tomrod wrote:
| Unsurprising.
|
| 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
| iancmceachern wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > _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 wrote:
| > 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.
| fsckboy wrote:
| "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.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _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 wrote:
| They are not mutually exclusive: from the perspective of
| fracking companies, deceiving the public may itself be the
| trade secret?
| jasonephraim wrote:
| 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)
| chiffre01 wrote:
| Drill baby drill ?
| jeffbee wrote:
| Bookmark it as a reply for the next time someone tries to claim
| that end-of-life wind turbine blades are a major waste problem in
| West Texas. Like these idiots https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-
| politics/sweetwater-wind-t...
| setr wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Here's a 300-acre pipe yard. https://www.google.com/maps/
| @31.8107601,-102.3917116,2359m/d...
|
| 30 acres is probably, what, 2 H-E-B parking lots?
| kubectl_h wrote:
| 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.
| nocoiner wrote:
| Horrifying. That beautiful property at the corner of Industrial
| Drive and Robert E. Lee Street has been desecrated. Will
| Sweetwater ever recover?
| sgt101 wrote:
| 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.
| grepfru_it wrote:
| Nuclear replaces one problem with another (waste). Renewables
| are the only way
| Teever wrote:
| Nuclear waste is in no way comparable to the environmental
| damage incurred from the use of hydrocarbons in our economy.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| 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.
| wpm wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| jollyllama wrote:
| 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.
| RealityVoid wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Dropping nuclear waste in the Marianas trench is not a
| bad idea.
| cptskippy wrote:
| > 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.
| krunck wrote:
| Nuclear _fission_ replaces one problem with another (waste).
| no_wizard wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| arevno wrote:
| 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.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| PRB: Powder River Basin, for the curious:
|
| <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_River_Basin>
| cryptonector wrote:
| 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.
| downrightmike wrote:
| Don't worry, I'm sure they are working to deliver war drones
| via ICBM
| mempko wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| We've been saying that for 60 years.
| vdupras wrote:
| 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.
| chasd00 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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.
| cryptonector wrote:
| > 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.
| mistersquid wrote:
| 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.
|
| 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
| hippich wrote:
| First video comment from author:
|
| The rods in my hot water tank were separating the hydrogen and
| oxygen. Called electrolysis
| stockresearcher wrote:
| 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?
|
| https://www.corroprotec.com/
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| 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 (Quebec) is
| an experience (both positive and unvarnished), highly
| recommend.
| jasonephraim wrote:
| 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.
|
| 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.
| downrightmike wrote:
| Is anyone mapping out the sites? Sounds like areas around them
| should be designated sacrifice zones
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrifice_zone
| jasonephraim wrote:
| 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).
| bickfordb wrote:
| When I read things like this, I'm amazed that 50% of the nation
| thinks this practice is preferable to solar and windmills
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-07-21 23:01 UTC)