Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Oil-and-gas wells produce radioactive waste

rollingstone.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 109 posts

Re: Oil-and-gas wells produce radioactive waste

#71

Post by DuskStar »

foota wrote: post #69
rayiner wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump has rolled back a lot of things, yes, but a lot of the Obama-era rules were vast overreaches. Ask yourself how agencies like the EPA managed to find new sources of authority, like the authority to regulate ponds on farms, in 47-year old statutes? Congress did not create the EPA as an agency that has plenary authority to regulate environmental issues. Such an agency would not be constitutional, because it would…

Actually, it's exactly because Republican law makers by and large don't give a shit (especially the Senate)

> Congress should be updating these laws to address new types of issues, but it’s not. It’s not because Republicans don’t care about these issues, and Democrats aren’t willing to spend the political capital to make these issues a priority. Whatever the reason, however, that doesn’t mean it’s okay for agencies like the EPA to creatively interpret statutes to expand their powers into new areas.

I read the GP's post as "It's not (updating laws) because Republicans don't care about these issues", which I have to agree with. (though with the caveat that Democrats don't care much, either)

Re: Oil-and-gas wells produce radioactive waste

#72

Post by makomk »

capableweb wrote: post #13
acidburnNSA wrote: post #10

Technically 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.

Sounds 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.

No, 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.)

Re: Oil-and-gas wells produce radioactive waste

#74

Post by jmkb »

OrgNet wrote: post #68
Nicholas_C wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here’s an example of some I found the other day. Each one of those white dots is a well pad where they cleared the land for a drilling rig to work. If you look closely you can see surface pumps on many of them. Some have storage tanks as well. This entire region (the Permian Basin) is pockmarked like this. (31.6643861, -103.0348924) Dropped pin Near Winkler County, TX https://goo.gl/maps/J2zi8VwD2QjKUpbk8

holy shit, this is not even the worst spot... this one appears to be more dense: https://goo.gl/maps/9YZrP4of97tDgQmH6 .... I think I found out where they dump all those waste products: https://goo.gl/maps/ZkfDDKM26gfmtQTL6

No way anyone in West Texas would bother driving all the way to Sabine... see this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22149320

Re: Oil-and-gas wells produce radioactive waste

#75

Post by nyrosis »

They 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.

Re: Oil-and-gas wells produce radioactive waste

#76

Post by Boondox543 »

OrgNet wrote: post #68
Nicholas_C wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here’s an example of some I found the other day. Each one of those white dots is a well pad where they cleared the land for a drilling rig to work. If you look closely you can see surface pumps on many of them. Some have storage tanks as well. This entire region (the Permian Basin) is pockmarked like this. (31.6643861, -103.0348924) Dropped pin Near Winkler County, TX https://goo.gl/maps/J2zi8VwD2QjKUpbk8

holy shit, this is not even the worst spot... this one appears to be more dense: https://goo.gl/maps/9YZrP4of97tDgQmH6 .... I think I found out where they dump all those waste products: https://goo.gl/maps/ZkfDDKM26gfmtQTL6

More likely here...

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Midland+County,+TX/@32.288...

Re: Oil-and-gas wells produce radioactive waste

#77

Post by andromeduck »

hanniabu wrote: post #61
keeganjw wrote: post #2

We'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.

I 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.

A 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.

Re: Oil-and-gas wells produce radioactive waste

#78

Post by alach11 »

throwaway100773 wrote: post #48
jiofih wrote: post #42

> 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?

I’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 i…

The 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.

Re: Oil-and-gas wells produce radioactive waste

#79

Post by chii »

capableweb wrote: post #20
asguy wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I 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?

Me 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.

but 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.

Re: Oil-and-gas wells produce radioactive waste

#80

Post by rayiner »

jcranmer wrote: post #63
rayiner wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wonder how many of them would even care. This week the EPA dismantled the Clean Water Rule. This week, the EPA rolled back an Obama-era executive order interpreting the Clean Water Act. Hard to see how rescinding a three year old executive order could “dismantle” a 47-year old statute. The Obama-era interpretation was ridiculous on top of everything else. The Wikipedia article is actually pretty good: > The Clean…

> So the Clean Water Act says the EPA can regulate ”the waters of the United States,” which is defined consistent with “navigable waters,” contemporaneous with Congress’s Commerce Clause authority over navigable waterways. The Obama EO extended it to include even small bodies of waters like ponds, such that farmers would have to get EPA permits to make modifications on their own land that was nowhere near navigable w…

That’s not a correct reading of Rapanos. Rapanos says that “the meaning of ’navigable waters’ in the Act is broader than the traditional understanding of that term, SWANCC, 531 U. S., at 167; Riverside Bayview, 474 U. S., at 133.3 We have also emphasized, however, that the qualifier ’navigable’ is not devoid of significance, SWANCC, supra, at 172.“

Rapanos doesn’t define exactly what navigable waters are, but casts sharp doubt on two types of waters: ephemeral streams, and wetlands without a surface water connection to navigable water.

The key changes to the 2020 rule are to exclude those things: https://www.eenews.net/stories/1062159101

> Specifically, the new rule will erase protections for so-called ephemeral streams, which flow only after rain or during snowmelt.

> The rule also erases protections for wetlands that do not have surface water connections to intermittent or perennial streams, which account for more than 51% of the nation's wetlands.

Post reply on HN