fracking
Newsletter
Photo by Piron Guillaume on Unsplash
Colorado kids with leukemia are more than twice as likely to live near dense oil and gas development
A recent study suggests that living near a higher density of oil and gas wells increases childhood cancer risk.
A recent study found that Colorado children who’d been diagnosed with Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia were more than twice as likely to live near dense oil and gas development, including both conventional and fracking wells, than healthy children throughout the state.
Oil and gas wells emit chemicals that have been linked to increased risk for this type of leukemia — the most common form of childhood cancer — including benzene and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, among others.
Previous research in Colorado and Pennsylvania, which are among the top 10 energy-producing states in the country, have also linked living near oil and gas wells with higher risk for childhood leukemia, but this is the first to assess whether the density of wells and the volume of oil and gas being produced leads to greater risk.
The new study, published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, looked at medical records for more than 3,000 children born in Colorado between 1992 and 2019. The researchers found that children who were diagnosed with leukemia between the ages of two and nine were more than twice as likely to live within five kilometers — about three miles — of dense oil and gas development compared to healthy children. The study also found that Children who’d been diagnosed with leukemia during this time period were between 1.4 and 2.64 times more likely to live within 13 kilometers (about eight miles) of dense oil and gas development.
“Considering the density of oil and gas development is really important,” Lisa McKenzie, lead author of the study and associate professor of environmental and occupational health at the Colorado School of Public Health, told EHN. “If you were in the unusual situation of having just one oil and gas well within a kilometer of your home, that might not have increased your child’s risk for leukemia. However, we found that if you had lots and lots of wells within 13 kilometers [about eight miles] of your home, that did increase the risk for childhood leukemia.”
The study included 451 children with leukemia and 2,706 healthy children, and considered the density of oil and gas development near their homes starting at the time their mothers conceived them through the time of their diagnosis (or a similar time frame for healthy children). The researchers assessed the density of oil and gas production by looking at the number of wells present, how close they were to a child’s home, the number of new wells being drilled, and how much oil and gas was being produced at various times within three, five, and 13 kilometers of their homes.
“Children living near the densest areas of oil and gas development had the highest risk increase,” McKenzie said, “but we also found that children with leukemia were much more likely to be living within three or five kilometers of any oil and gas wells than children without leukemia.”
The researchers controlled for other childhood cancer risk factors including other sources of pollution around the home, UV exposure, distance to the nearest highway, the mothers’ ages, and the child’s biological sex and birth weight.
“This study has numerous strengths,” Cassandra Clark, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Minnesota's Division of Pediatric Epidemiology and Clinical Research, told EHN. Clark, who was not involved in the study but co-authored a 2022 paper on childhood cancer risk and fracking in Pennsylvania that made similar findings, said this study’s strengths include using a larger sample size than previous research, controlling for other childhood cancer risks, and focusing on the age range where childhood leukemia incidence is highest.
“We have now seen three high-quality case-control studies documenting increased pediatric leukemia risk associated with proximity to oil and gas development, and the effects observed are relatively consistent across studies,” Clark said, adding that there’s now enough research on this for policymakers to “develop health-protective policies for oil and gas development.”
In 2020, Colorado legislators increased the state’s setback distances — the minimum distance between new fracking wells and homes, schools, hospitals, and businesses — from 500 feet from homes and 1,000 feet for high-occupancy buildings like schools, to 2,000 feet (a little more than half a kilometer) from all schools and homes. Those distances are among the most health-protective in the country.
In Pennsylvania, for example, the setback distance is 500 feet (about 0.15 kilometers) for any occupied building, but this can be waived by property owners, and some facilities operate within 300 feet of residential buildings. Public health experts have warned that these distances are not great enough to protect public health, but efforts to expand setback distances in the state have repeatedly been shot down by Pennsylvania lawmakers.
“Our research suggests that just increasing setback distances isn’t enough,” McKenzie said. “Current setback laws only consider where one new well is going. I would really encourage policymakers to consider the cumulative impacts of everything going on around homes or in areas where new oil and gas development is going to protect vulnerable populations like young children.”
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: navintar/Big Stock Photo
New Mexico wrestles with risks and costs of reusing fracking wastewater
New Mexico lawmakers are weighing whether to treat and reuse toxic fracking wastewater as the state faces worsening drought, but environmental groups warn that current technology can't guarantee public safety.
In short:
- In 2024, a fracking wastewater geyser erupted in Toyah, Texas, highlighting the dangers of orphaned wells and the growing challenge of managing "produced water" across the Permian Basin.
- New Mexico has considered treating this wastewater for off-field uses like data center cooling, but environmental groups argue the chemical mix is too complex and poorly regulated to ensure safe reuse.
- A 2025 proposal to fund produced water treatment was scaled back and ultimately blocked, amid protests, cost concerns, and unresolved questions about long-term health risks.
Key quote:
“It should be the industry’s responsibility to clean up that produced water.”
— Rachel Conn, deputy director of water conservation organization Amigos Bravos
Why this matters:
Fracking wastewater poses serious environmental and health risks, especially in arid states like New Mexico where water scarcity makes unconventional reuse proposals more tempting. This wastewater often contains radioactive substances, heavy metals, and trade-secret chemicals that evade regulation. Even advanced treatment can’t fully remove all contaminants, and some may not be detectable with current tests. If reused water enters the environment or groundwater, it could affect ecosystems and public health in ways we don’t yet understand. As fossil fuel production continues and drought intensifies, pressure to repurpose produced water grows — but so do the dangers of rushing into policies that might trade one crisis for another.
Related: Fractured: Harmful chemicals and unknowns haunt Pennsylvanians surrounded by fracking
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: digidreamgrafix/Big Stock Photo
New Mexico halts plan to release treated oilfield wastewater amid contamination concerns
New Mexico regulators have rejected a proposal to discharge treated oil and gas wastewater, citing a lack of safeguards to prevent contamination of the state's dwindling water resources.
In short:
- The New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission voted May 14 to block a rule that would have allowed pilot projects to discharge 84,000 gallons of treated fracking wastewater daily into state waters.
- Known as "produced water," the waste from oil and gas operations contains toxic substances like arsenic and benzene. The state produces about 84 billion gallons of this wastewater annually.
- While pilot projects testing water purification methods will continue, they must fully contain the treated water and cannot release it until state regulations are in place.
Key quote:
“... there is no scenario where a person could discharge treated produced water in a way that fulfills the requirements of the Water Quality Act and Produced Water Act in a protective, predictable and reliably safe manner.”
— Jason Herman, program manager, Ground Water Quality Bureau
Why this matters:
Fracking produces vast amounts of "produced water," a toxic byproduct laced with undisclosed industrial chemicals, many of which have unknown health effects. As oil and gas drilling expands, especially in arid states like New Mexico and Texas, managing this waste safely becomes more urgent. Proposals to clean and reuse the water for agriculture or industry are attractive in a region facing severe water shortages; climate models project New Mexico could lose a quarter of its surface and groundwater in the next half-century. But the current lack of regulatory oversight, chemical transparency, and scientific certainty means the risk of contaminating drinking water supplies, farmland, and ecosystems remains high. Allowing wastewater discharge without firm standards could put residents, particularly those in rural and tribal communities, at elevated risk for exposure to carcinogens and endocrine disruptors.
Related EHN coverage:
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: Craig Cooper/Unsplash
European crops fueled by fracked U.S. gas despite clean fertilizer claims
Despite pledges of sustainable production, European chemical giants Yara and BASF are using fracked shale gas from Texas to make ammonia-based fertilizer, a new investigation reveals.
In short:
- The Yara and BASF ammonia plant in Freeport, Texas, touted as sustainable, actually relies on hydrogen derived from fracked shale gas in the Permian Basin, contradicting its green branding.
- Documents show the hydrogen byproduct used in ammonia production comes from Dow’s ethylene cracker, which is powered by natural gas, indirectly increasing fossil fuel demand.
- Despite its environmental impact, ammonia from the Texas plant is exported to Europe, where it's used in fertilizer manufacturing, with Ireland, the UK, and Spain among top importers.
Key quote:
“The Freeport facility is making ammonia out of hydrogen derived from fossil gas – plain and simple.”
— Taylor Hodge, agrochemicals campaigner, Center for International Environmental Law
Why this matters:
The global fertilizer industry is a massive but under-scrutinized driver of climate change. Fertilizer production, especially ammonia synthesis, consumes immense energy and produces significant emissions — more than aviation and shipping combined. While companies increasingly tout “green” technologies and lower-carbon innovations, many still rely on fossil fuel infrastructure. This creates a façade of sustainability while deepening dependence on polluting energy sources. Fracked gas, central to the Freeport plant’s process, emits high levels of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, and pollutes air and water near extraction sites. Communities in the U.S. Gulf South disproportionately bear these harms, while the end products fuel industrial agriculture thousands of miles away.
Read more: Soils reveal a hidden cost of farming, and fertilizers
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: Pixabay
Fracking company drops Pennsylvania water plan amid stream flow concerns
A Pittsburgh-based natural gas firm has backed off its plan to withdraw millions of gallons of water daily from a sensitive western Pennsylvania creek after determining climate-driven changes in stream flow would make the operation unworkable.
In short:
- PennEnergy Resources voluntarily surrendered permits to take 1.5 million gallons of water a day from Big Sewickley Creek, citing natural changes in stream conditions that would prevent compliance with permit requirements.
- The company had previously attempted a larger withdrawal, but regulators denied the request due to risks to a threatened fish species; local environmental advocates had opposed the plan, urging alternative sources like the Ohio River.
- Environmental groups noted the creek's low and erratic flow, worsened by climate change, could not support industrial-scale water use without degrading water quality and harming wildlife.
Key quote:
“With climate change, and this variability increasing, I would not be surprised to see something like this happening more often.”
— Emma Bast, staff attorney at PennFuture
Why this matters:
As climate change reshapes rainfall patterns and stream flows, long-established assumptions about water availability are breaking down. Fracking operations, which require millions of gallons of water per well, often target small, nearby waterways to cut costs and logistics. But these creeks — especially in biodiverse regions like western Pennsylvania — are increasingly unreliable and vulnerable. Surface water users like PennEnergy are discovering the limits of extracting from fragile streams in a changing climate. Meanwhile, data centers, agriculture, and municipalities are vying for the same resource, increasing the risk of overdrawn watersheds. The decision to abandon a withdrawal site on Big Sewickley Creek may be an early signal of the kind of recalibration that industrial users will need to make as weather whiplash becomes the new norm.
Related: How the “Halliburton Loophole” lets fracking companies pollute water with no oversight
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: Keith Ramsey/Big Stock Photo
Fracking operators in Colorado dodge chemical disclosure rules despite legal mandate
Colorado oil and gas companies have injected at least 30 million pounds of chemicals underground in the past 18 months without complying with state rules requiring full disclosure of their ingredients.
In short:
- Despite Colorado’s 2022 law banning PFAS use and mandating full chemical disclosure within 150 days of fracking operations, more than 60% of wells fracked since July 2023 lack required filings. Chevron, operating over 375 such wells, is the largest non-compliant operator.
- A blowout at Chevron’s Noble Bishop site in April released toxic chemicals into the air near Galeton, exposing residents to benzene levels up to 10 times the safety threshold. Students measuring air quality at the site described overwhelming fumes and health effects.
- Environmental and public health advocates say the lack of transparency hampers medical care, exposes communities to toxic substances, and undermines state efforts to protect water, air, and health. Enforcement of disclosure rules remains weak nearly two years after the law took effect.
Key quote:
“This just kind of proves that you need to be transparent about what you’re putting in those wells. Because when incidents like this happen, people don’t know what they’re breathing, they don’t know what’s going into the air.”
— Jared Stickney, graduate student, Colorado State University
Why this matters:
Colorado’s attempt to lead the nation with stricter transparency laws was meant to pierce the veil of “trade secret” protections that have long shielded the oil and gas industry from scrutiny. But the weak enforcement of these new rules leaves many residents vulnerable to unknown exposures. PFAS and other persistent chemicals used in drilling fluids can contaminate drinking water, linger in the environment, and accumulate in the human body over time. Even short-term exposure to substances like benzene is linked to leukemia and other health problems. And when spills and blowouts occur, the lack of chemical disclosure means first responders and medical professionals are left guessing about what people were exposed to.
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: Gudella/Big Stock Photo
Texas pushes fracking wastewater reuse, raising fears over liability and pollution
Oil companies in Texas want legal immunity as they promote treated fracking water as a solution to the state’s growing water crisis, despite warnings from scientists about gaps in safety data.
In short:
- Texas lawmakers are advancing House Bill 49, which would limit legal liability for oil companies, water transporters, and landowners if treated fracking water — also called produced water — is reused and later causes harm.
- As Texas faces water shortages fueled by population growth and climate change, the oil industry says it can treat billions of gallons of wastewater for industrial or agricultural use, but it won’t proceed without legal protection.
- Environmental scientists warn that treatment technologies remain unproven and that regulators lack sufficient data to ensure the reused water is free from harmful chemicals, potentially shifting cleanup costs to taxpayers.
Key quote:
“We’re basing the responsibility for outcomes on the safety net of our regulatory system with this bill. Not on what outcomes might be possible in a best-case scenario.”
— Nichole Saunders, senior attorney at the Environmental Defense Fund
Why this matters:
As Texas reels from record-breaking droughts and an aging water system, pressure is mounting to find new water sources. Oil and gas wells produce staggering volumes of contaminated water — up to five barrels for every barrel of oil — and reusing this waste seems promising. But produced water contains hundreds of chemicals, many of which remain untested or poorly understood. Discharging it into rivers or repurposing it for crops or livestock introduces a host of environmental and health risks. Without rigorous science and reliable oversight, contaminants could enter ecosystems and food supplies. The proposed legal shield could leave communities and ecosystems exposed if treatment fails, while also letting polluters off the hook.
Read more: How the “Halliburton Loophole” lets fracking companies pollute water with no oversight
Keep reading...Show less
ORIGINAL REPORTING
MOST POPULAR
CLIMATE
