Carl Johnson and son Justin, who have complained for years about spills of oilfield wastewater where they raise cattle in the high plains of New Mexico, stroll across a 0.61 hectare patch of sandy soil — lifeless, save for a scattering of stunted weeds.
Five years ago, a broken pipe soaked the land with about 1.6 million liters of wastewater, a salty drilling byproduct that killed the shrubs and grass. It was among dozens of spills that have damaged the Johnsons’ grazing lands and made them worry about their groundwater.
“If we lose our water,” Justin Johnson said, “that ruins our ranch.”
Illustration: Yusha
Their plight illustrates a side effect of oil and gas production that has worsened with the past decade’s drilling boom: spills of wastewater that foul the land, kill wildlife and threaten freshwater supplies.
An Associated Press analysis of data from leading oil and gas-producing states found more than 662 million liters of wastewater spilled from 2009 to last year in incidents involving ruptured pipes, overflowing storage tanks and even deliberate dumping. There were about 21,651 individual spills. The numbers are incomplete because many releases go unreported.
Though oil spills get more attention, wastewater spills can be more damaging. Microbes in soil eventually degrade spilled oil. Not so with wastewater — also known as brine, produced water or saltwater. Unless thoroughly cleansed, salt-saturated land dries up. Trees die. Crops cannot take root.
“Oil spills might look bad, but we know how to clean them up,” University of Tulsa environmental engineer Kerry Sublette said.
“Brine spills are much more difficult,” he said.
In addition to extreme salinity, the fluids often contain heavy metals such as arsenic and mercury. Some ranchers said they have lost cattle that lapped up the liquids or ate tainted grass.
“They get real thin. It messes them up,” said Melvin Reed of Shidler, Oklahoma.
“Sometimes you just have to shoot them,” he said.
The AP obtained data from Texas, North Dakota, California, Alaska, Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Kansas, Utah and Montana — states that account for more than 90 percent of US onshore oil production. In 2009, there were 2,470 reported spills in the 11 states; by last year, the total was 4,643. The amount spilled doubled from 79.9 million liters in 2009 to 162.8 million liters in 2013.
Industry groups said waste is often recovered during cleanups, although some can soak into the ground.
“You’re going to have spills in an industrial society,” said Katie Brown, a spokeswoman for a research arm of the Independent Petroleum Association of America. “But there are programs in place to reduce them,” she added.
Concentrated brine, much saltier than seawater, exists in rock thousands of feet underground. When oil and gas are pumped to the surface, the water comes up too, along with fluids and chemicals injected to crack open rock — the process known as hydraulic fracturing. Production of methane gas from coal deposits also generates wastewater, but it is less salty and harmful.
The spills usually occur as oil and gas are channeled to metal tanks for separation from the wastewater and the water is delivered to a disposal site — usually an injection well that pumps it back underground. Pipelines, tank trucks and pits are involved.
Equipment malfunctions or human error cause most spills, according to state reports reviewed by the AP. Though no full accounting of damage exists, the scope is sketched out in a sampling of incidents: In North Dakota, a spill of nearly 378 million liters in 2006 caused a massive die-off of fish and plants in the Yellowstone River and a tributary. Cleanup costs approached US$2 million. Two larger spills since then scoured vegetation along an almost 3.2km stretch.
Wastewater from pits seeped beneath a 2,400 hectare cotton and nut farm near Bakersfield, California, and contaminated groundwater. Oil giant Aera Energy was ordered in 2009 to pay US$9 million to grower Fred Starrh, who had to remove 800 hectares from production.
Brine leaks exceeding 151 million liters on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation in Montana polluted a river, private wells and the municipal water system in Poplar.
“It was undrinkable,” resident Donna Whitmer said. “If you shook it up, it’d look all orange.”
Under a 2012 settlement, oil companies agreed to monitor the town’s water supply and pay US$320,000 for improvements, including new wells.
The loudest whistleblowers about spills are often property owners, who must allow drilling access to their land if they do not own the mineral rights.
“Most ranchers are very attached to the land,” said Jeff Henry, president of the Osage County Cattlemen’s Association in Oklahoma. “It’s where we derive our income, raise our families.”
Some are reluctant to complain about an industry that is the economic backbone of their communities.
“If they treat us right, we’re all friends of oil,” said Mike Artz, a grower in North Dakota’s Bottineau County who lost a 2.02 hecatre barley crop in 2013 after a saltwater pipeline rupture.
“But right now, it’s just a horse running without the bridle,” he said.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS