SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
California's epic drought is pushing Big Oil to solve a problem it's struggled with for decades: what to do with the billions of gallons of wastewater that gush out of wells every year.
Golden State drillers have pumped much of that liquid back underground into disposal wells. Now, amid a four-year dry spell, more companies are looking to recycle their water or sell it to parched farms as the industry tries to get ahead of environmental lawsuits and new regulations.
The trend could have implications for oil patches across the country. With fracking boosting the industry's thirst for water, companies have run into conflicts from Texas to Colorado to Pennsylvania. California could be an incubator for conservation efforts that have so far failed to gain traction elsewhere in the U.S.
If you were thinking California's drought might accelerate desalinization technology, you're wrong. It's actually helping the oil and natural gas industries make more money.
Original Submission
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 13 2015, @01:39AM
You'll find that chemicals such as benzene, chromium-6, lead, arsenic, radium and others contaminate the water in far higher concentrations than allowable limits.
You assume that the waste water will have those contaminants in it. I see no indication that they're doing that. After all, if they dump highly contaminated waste water into an open air aqueduct, then that's going to be treated as a chemical spill by both California and the US EPA. Further, any crops contaminated will simply be unsellable. This is a problem that has already been solved.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Monday July 13 2015, @05:38PM
This is a problem that has already been solved.
Maybe. But with lax enforcement, weak regulations, secrecy regarding chemicals used (you have to test for particular chemicals to find them), industry's tendency to avoid costs, etc. I do not hold high hopes for the process. Maybe if the cost for transgressions was significant enough, holding corporate officers personally responsible rather than allowing them to vanish in a puff of bankruptcy, this might fly, but we know that won't be the case.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 13 2015, @10:50PM
But with lax enforcement
Then fix the actual problem.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Tuesday July 14 2015, @05:21PM
The problem is that too many people refuse to admit that a problem could exist until a disaster occurs as a result. It is of course too late at that point. If you are talking about food and water supplies, we should err on the side of caution and make anyone proposing potentially dangerous changes prove they will not cause harm. There is no fixing something like this if it goes wrong.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 14 2015, @08:57PM
f you are talking about food and water supplies, we should err on the side of caution and make anyone proposing potentially dangerous changes prove they will not cause harm.
Those "potentially dangerous changes" include applying the precautionary principle. When your processes are self-consistent, get back to me.