11 ms·
Oil-and-gas wells produce radioactive waste
- keeganjw 7y agoWe're drowning in headlines these days that I feel like this story really fell through the cracks. People who live near fracking really need to know this.
- lostlogin 7y agoIt’s not just those near it - places between the well and the dump site, near the rivers by the dump, near the truck stops, eating the crops the brine has contaminated, using the recycled pipes, washing workers clothes, living in the worker’s houses. If you were designing a dispersal system, you’d be hard placed to make a better one short of perhaps aerial spraying.
- dylan604 7y agoIt's amazing what that monthly check can make people look over when the wells are placed on private property.
- mattbk1 7y agoThat monthly check might not even be very large. Unfortunately, in many places (like North Dakota), mineral rights are severed from surface rights. So as a surface owner you might get a pittance for allowing a pad on your property, all the royalties are going to someone else who bought up mineral rights decades ago.
- stevenwoo 7y agoI grew up near a location in Texas in the 1970-1980's where oil well companies would truck in mud from wells, and dump it in a field to dry up and the liquid would run off, the water in the ditches had an oily sheen for miles (would ride my bike around town as far as I could go). I just checked and the field is still there and brown/empty but the company got replaced by a church and it's across the street from a junior high school now (and across a different street from the de facto segregated part of town where most of the African American kids got on the bus I rode to school).
- hanniabu 7y agoI know we're technically not supposed to discuss politics here, but I feel it's related to this. > People who live near fracking really need to know this. I'm surprised that middle America is so pro-Republican given how many times things like this have happened to them and how pro-corporate and anti-regulation Republicans are.
- andromeduck 7y agoA lot of it is because Democrats choose very strange hills to die on because it appeals to their base in more liberal/urban districts. Taking a weaker stance on policies important for single issue voters like gun rights for example would go an extremely long way.
- makomk 7y agoIt looks like it's not exactly news as such; I found this USGS report about the problem from 1999: https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0142-99/fs-0142-99.pdf https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0142-99/fs-0142-99.pdf
- totalZero 7y ago"Radium, typically the most abundant radionuclide in brine, is often measured in picocuries per liter of substance and is so dangerous it’s subject to tight restrictions even at hazardous-waste sites. The most common isotopes are radium-226 and radium-228, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires industrial discharges to remain below 60 for each. Four of Peter’s samples registered combined radium levels above 3,500, and one was more than 8,500." I wonder how many of these trucks full of radium have driven beside me on the freeway.
- acidburnNSA 7y agoNice to see some numbers. Lot's of articles leave out numbers, which really matter in thing like radiation where the detectable level is sometimes many orders of magnitude below the hazardous level. Ra-226 is mostly an alpha emitter and can't reach you through a piece of paper. Don't drink it though. Ra-228 is primarily a beta emitter which can't go through a metal tank. Also don't drink it.
- capableweb 7y ago> Ra-226 is mostly an alpha emitter and can't reach you through a piece of paper. Don't drink it though. Ra-228 is primarily a beta emitter which can't go through a metal tank. Also don't drink it. What about being in constant contact with the skin via let's say you have a bit of it your shoes? > the rest of the uniform hardly offers protection from brine. “It’s all over your hands, and inside your boots, and on the cuticles of your toes, and any cuts you have — you’re soaked,” he says.
- acidburnNSA 7y agoAlpha particles generally cannot penetrate the skin, much less clothing or shoes. Betas can get through skin but probably not shoes. There is some energy dependence. Secondary decays and energy transitions often emit gamma rays as well which can go through everything, but the majority of the energy with these nuclides are alphas and betas. These are primarily dangerous because they're water soluble and present an ingestion and inhalation hazard. Once a large amount of a strong alpha-emitter is in your intestines it can really cause damage.
- _pmf_ 7y agoWait until they hear about neodymium processing for wind turbines.
- briandear 7y agoThey won’t hear about it. The “proper” narrative is to promote the terribleness of oil and gas.
- sdoering 7y agoI wouldn't say that. I would even say lots of people know about that. At least knowledgeable people do. But they also know how to not derail. Because whataboutism doesn't help a discussion. So I am glad that most people discussing here do not try to derail or play smoke and mirrors.
- wiggler00m 7y agohttps://min-eng.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-real-cost-of-using-neodymium-in.html https://min-eng.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-real-cost-of-using-... "Neodymium is found most often in monazite and bastnasite. Due to the fact that these minerals also contain lanthanides and other rare earth elements, it is difficult to isolate neodymium. The first isolation process involves extracting the lanthanides and metals out of the ores in their salt form. This step is carried out using sulphuric acid, hydrochloric acid, and sodium hydroxide. To further isolate the neodymium from other lanthanides and metals, procedures such as solvent extraction and ion exchange are used. Once neodymium has been reduced to its fluoride form using these processes, it can be reacted with pure calcium metal in a heated chamber to form pure neodymium and calcium fluoride. Some calcium contaminants remain in the neodymium, and vacuum processes are used to remove any of these contaminants. It is an expensive and potentially environmentally harmful process. In a recent posting (February 1st), it was noted that China produces over 90% of the world’s rare earths, and that Beijing’s export reductions in recent years have forced high-tech firms to relocate to China. An article in a UK newspaper claims to have uncovered the distinctly dirty truth about the process used to extract neodymium: it has an appalling environmental impact that raises serious questions over the credibility of so-called green technology. According to the report, hidden out of sight behind smoke-shrouded factory complexes lie vast, hissing cauldrons of chemicals in tailing lakes that are often very poorly constructed and maintained; throughout the extraction process large amounts of highly toxic acids, heavy metals and other chemicals are emitted into the air that people breathe, and leak into surface and ground water. The report concludes that whenever we purchase products that contain rare earth metals, we are unknowingly taking part in massive environmental degradation and the destruction of communities. It is a real dilemma for environmentalists who want to see the growth of the renewables industry but we should recognise the environmental destruction that is being caused while making these wind turbines."
- acidburnNSA 7y agoTechnically speaking they released concentrated naturally-occurring radioactive materials (NORMs). I only emphasize this because most people don't know how much radioactive stuff is natural. Doesn't mean it's not a hazard in concentration, of course.
- capableweb 7y agoSounds like you're trying to correct something that is already correct in the article, as soon as in paragraph 4. > The Earth’s crust is in fact peppered with radioactive elements that concentrate deep underground in oil-and-gas-bearing layers. This radioactivity is often pulled to the surface when oil and gas is extracted — carried largely in the brine.
- acidburnNSA 7y agoThe article does a good job. I'm referring to the headline. For example, nuclear reactors produce radioactive material by fissioning barely-radioactive uranium into highly-radioactive fission products but take great care to not release it. Fracking releases naturally-occurring radioactive materials. Also: "is peppered with" does not imply naturally-occurring. Someone biased to think all radiation is man-made could easily assume it's from us dumping waste.
- jschwartzi 7y agoIf we're using solutions full of this stuff as deicing brine, that's definitionally dumping waste.
- firethief 7y agoI'm sure your terminology is right in the context of nuclear engineering, but I think the headline is right in terms of how most people will read it: oil wells produce radioactive waste in the same sense as they produce oil
- makomk 7y agoNo, the article is misleading. Those radioactive elements aren't just deep underground - they're literally everywhere. The soil is naturally full of them. They've got this damning-sounding quote from an internal report that “almost all materials of interest and use to the petroleum industry contain measurable quantities of radionuclides”, but again, that's true of ordinary soil and all kinds of things. What the oil industry and its regulators mostly seem to worry about is their production processes inadvertently concentrating them in places like pipes. (Incidentally, rare earth production is particularly nasty because it involves taking feedstock that's already quite high in radium, thorium, etc and intentionally concentrating them.)
- jandrewrogers 7y agoNow measure coal waste.
- Frost1x 7y agoThere's a lot. A lot more than I imagined according to a DOE seminar I sat through. It's interesting because an incredibly small fraction of coal (coal varies a reasonable amount in composition across geological regions) contains various radioactive isotopes with long high-lifes. When you burn/combust coal, especially without care and consideration in the process, a lot of these small components are released in the air as particulates. Now at first thought, it doesn't seem like much (were talking 1ppm/1ppb or less levels in some cases depending on the coal type/geological area), but when you consider the entire volume of coal combusted worldwide, that small fraction turns out to be more radioactive waste than is produced by all controlled nuclear energy in the world at the time (about 8-10 years ago). I wish I still had the slide set with all the reference material and derivations.
- jandrewrogers 7y agoCoal ash is a thorium and uranium concentrate, and as you say the Department of Energy publishes the release statistics. They aren't too difficult to find. Each year in the US, we release more than a thousand tons of thorium and uranium into the environment via coal ash dumping, with limited controls. There have also been population health studies in communities that live adjacent to where coal ash is dumped in the US. As I recall, it is correlated with a small but detectable (around 1% IIRC) increase in cancer incidence rates relative to local control populations, and largely attributed to the thorium component of the waste.
- Krasnol 7y ago> Now look elsewhere
- dwd 7y agoOld news... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...
- shiftpgdn 7y agoFor what it's worth this brine is potentially a monster source of lithium.
- capableweb 7y agoHow is that relevant to the story about workers being exposed to brine, not being told it's radioactive and everyone is acting casually around waste management around brine?
- asguy 7y agoI found it interesting. Maybe there’s an avenue to better remediation via using the waste as feeder to another chemical process, which ends in more value?
- capableweb 7y agoMe too, but it's hardy relevant to the subject of the article, which is about contamination and people being affected by it, and the industry not taking the necessary precautions when dealing with waste.
- chii 7y agobut it is relevant - if the waste could be made economically viable to process and extract (and as a side effect, the harmful parts removed/utilized), then there would be less pollution and contamination.
- catalogia 7y agoWith all that lithium, at least the workers won't be depressed about getting irradiated.
- htk 7y agoMany interesting discussions here touch on tangential subjects. I for one found the information relevant.
- JohnJamesRambo 7y agoI used to do the soil lab testing for a guy that dealt with this waste in my state. They did permitting and paid farmers to be able to spread it on their fields and tell them it is good for them and will make the soil more fertile. It can be either the salt brine or the more hydrocarbon based stuff that was basically like tar being spread on the farmer’s pasture. He himself wrote the laws that the state government just rubber-stamped. I felt like I was working for evil, polluting my own state, and quit as soon as I could. Some real Grapes of Wrath type stuff. The old farmers don’t have any money, so the money the oil company will pay to spread that garbage on their land seems like a good deal to them and they weren’t informed about the real dangers of what was being spread. Side note, the owner of that company was a very rich man and also one of the unhappiest people I’ve ever met in my life. It was a good lesson to learn at my young age then.
- LeifCarrotson 7y agoWhat did the tests say was in it? What didn't you test for (like radioactivity) that you felt bad about?
- clumsysmurf 7y ago> they weren’t informed about the real dangers of what was being spread. I wonder how many of them would even care. This week the EPA dismantled the Clean Water Rule. The primary backers for this were farmers and developers.
- gvjddbnvdrbv 7y agoI guess they would care if their land becomes worthless as a result.
- behringer 7y agoThey didn't care about selling their crops when they elected Trump they certainly won't care about their land. They'll just do as Fox tells them to do at any price.
- 7y ago
- jiofih 7y ago> There are over 1 million active oil-and-gas wells across 33 states This is insane. One well per 300 inhabitants of the USA. How is that even economically viable?
- adammunich 7y agoSpoiler, it's not. Gas companies have been bleeding money.
- throwaway100773 7y agoI’m guessing here, but I think the number seems high because shale wells have short lifespans. The declines are much higher than conventional wells, and so there are a great many of them to maintain production as the wells decline. There are large a number of DUCs, or drilled but uncompleted wells. They maintain these so that when one well runs dry, another can be brought online to maintain production targets. Also it’s more economic to drill as many wells as you can as quickly as possible even if it exceeds targets because there are economies of scale when it comes to moving and leasing rigs that drill the wells.
- alach11 7y agoThe vast majority of wells are old vertical wells, not shale wells. For example, in the Permian basin there are around 18,000 horizontal shale wells but over 300,000 vertical conventional wells.
- LargoLasskhyfv 7y agoDoes that hold for the Bakken in ND also? See [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2013/01/16/169511949/a-mysterious-patch-of-light-shows-up-in-the-north-dakota-dark https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2013/01/16/169511949/a...
- alach11 7y agoGreat question. For the Williston Basin, the numbers are 31,905 horizontals vs. 28,330 verticals. It definitely speaks to the difference in when these basins were developed.
- peter303 7y agoUranium precipitates out of igneous hydrothermal waters when it encounters organic carbon. So it is probably concentrated in some oil deposits. Then some radiative isotopes of uranium will decay into radium, alpha particles (ionized helium) and other elements. Most of the worlds commercial helium is mined from natural gas, which may have fractions as much as 5%. This helium is thought to be from uranium decay emitting alpha particles and not primordial helium.
- Proven 7y agoExtremely long alarmist article with very few hard facts.
- 737min 7y agoEverything produces radioactive “waste”, including granite counter tops and bananas. Please look that up before down-voting. There are legit problems w fossil fuel production, but radioactivity isn’t the devil.
- nyrosis 7y agoThey do and unfortunately this knowledge has been available for some time. Here is a simple observation I derived from witnessing much of this over the years. In my experience the bigger your wallet. The more you get away with and the easier it is to change "laws" to further your business interests. I think it is important to understand the lengths people will go to secure a financial interest.
- dghughes 7y agoIt reminds me of the Radium Girls. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- colinprince 7y ago"A Balrog awoke in Moria when the Dwarves had mined too deep for Mithril. It drove the Dwarves out of their home and slew King Durin VI, and the Balrog was thereafter called Durin's Bane" https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Balrogs https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Balrogs
- willj 7y agoI'm glad they wrote about this, but it's certainly not breaking news or anything. Back in 2016, EPA released a report [1] that was years in the making, which covered the history, science, and effects of hydraulic fracturing in the U.S. The executive summary [2] says that produced water can contain "naturally-occurring organic compounds, including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes (BTEX); and oil and grease; radioactive materials, including radium; and hydraulic fracturing chemicals and their chemical transformation products." It also discusses spills from evaporation ponds (e.g., a 2.9 million gallon spill in North Dakota in 2015 that flowed into Blacktail Creek), as well as exacerbation of local droughts due to groundwater withdrawal for fracking. Unfortunately, as happens these days, when the draft report was released in 2015, conservative news outlets [3][4][5][6][7] grabbed hold of a single statement in the executive summary reflecting the usual statements of uncertainty in any scientific report, and they used that to imply there was no evidence of any consequences of hydrofracking on the environment or human health. The draft report's statement that they took hold of was: "We did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States". However, the very next paragraph explains "This finding could reflect a rarity of effects on drinking water resources, but may also be due to other limiting factors. These factors include: insufficient pre- and post-fracturing data on the quality of drinking water resources; the paucity of long-term systematic studies; the presence of other sources of contamination precluding a definitive link between hydraulic fracturing activities and an impact; and the inaccessibility of some information on hydraulic fracturing activities and potential impacts." Even in 2016, when the final report was released, a WSJ article [8] insisted EPA had "political scientists" who rewrote the report to cast doubt on the safety of hydraulic fracturing. (The rewritten statement was: "However, significant data gaps and uncertainties in the available data prevented us from calculating or estimating the national frequency of impacts on drinking water resources from activities in the hydraulic fracturing water cycle. The data gaps and uncertainties described in this report also precluded a full characterization of the severity of impacts."). [1] https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/hfstudy/recordisplay.cfm?deid=332990 https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/hfstudy/recordisplay.cfm?deid=332... [2] http://ofmpub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm.getfile?p_download_id=530285 http://ofmpub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm.getfile?p_download_id=53... [3] https://www.wsj.com/articles/fracking-has-had-no-widespread-impact-on-drinking-water-epa-finds-1433433850 https://www.wsj.com/articles/fracking-has-had-no-widespread-... [4] https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/report-epa-finds-no-widespread-water-pollution-fracking-18748 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/report-epa-finds-... [5] https://www.txoga.org/eid-long-awaited-epa-study-finds-fracking-has-not-led-to-widespread-water-contamination/ https://www.txoga.org/eid-long-awaited-epa-study-finds-frack... [6] https://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/washingtonbureau/2015/06/epa-theres-no-evidence-fracking-has-led-to.html https://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/washingtonbureau/201... [7] https://www.texastribune.org/2015/06/04/epa-fracking-no-widespread-affects-water/ https://www.texastribune.org/2015/06/04/epa-fracking-no-wide... [8] https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-epas-science-deniers-1482099327 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-epas-science-deniers-148209...
- acvny 7y agoThat is a novel not an article