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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>Commenters explained that flammable water is common in places where fracking pollutants have contaminated the ground water.
I don't think it's the contaminants from the fracking fluid itself, more that you can get natural gas finding its way into the water supply that creates this (and it can happen naturally even without fracking). The stuff in the fluids that's a problem is mainly a problem because it's toxic, not flammable.
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.
16 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 39.6 ms ] threadOver 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
- 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.
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
I don't think it's the contaminants from the fracking fluid itself, more that you can get natural gas finding its way into the water supply that creates this (and it can happen naturally even without fracking). The stuff in the fluids that's a problem is mainly a problem because it's toxic, not flammable.
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.