3 ms·
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 tr
by tomrod 1y ago
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 https://archive.is/gaQ5x
- jasonephraim 1y agoIn 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 1y agoI 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 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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 1y agoThey are not mutually exclusive: from the perspective of fracking companies, deceiving the public may itself be the trade secret?
- fsckboy 1y 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.