Listen to the article
In a move reminiscent of political theater rather than scientific discourse, anti-fracking activists in Ohio have intensified efforts to target injection wells as a first step toward dismantling the state’s oil and gas industry. The Buckeye Environmental Network, alongside allies including Marietta Council President Susan Vessels, has launched what industry defenders characterize as a campaign based on fear rather than facts.
The controversy centers on injection wells—underground facilities used to dispose of wastewater from various industrial processes, including hydraulic fracturing. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, approximately 740,000 such wells operate nationwide, serving municipalities, industrial facilities, and environmental cleanup operations.
Despite the widespread use of injection wells across multiple sectors, opponents in Ohio have specifically targeted those associated with oil and gas operations, claiming they present imminent environmental dangers—particularly to water supplies in communities like Marietta.
Industry advocates counter these assertions by pointing to the wells’ safety record. Of the 740,000 injection wells nationwide, fewer than 200 incidents have been reported over the past 25 years—averaging less than eight per year across the entire country. More significantly for Ohio residents, the state has recorded zero incidents during this period, according to industry data.
When calculated as a percentage, the incident rate for oil and gas injection wells amounts to approximately 0.004 percent annually. For context, the statistical likelihood of a fatal bicycle accident is reportedly eight times higher than the probability of an injection well experiencing any type of incident.
The debate has intensified around a proposed well near Marietta’s water supply, with environmental groups suggesting the proximity poses unacceptable risks. However, defenders of the industry point out that the city’s water treatment facility is already situated beside the Ohio River—a waterway that experiences far more frequent contamination issues from sanitary sewer overflows than have ever been documented from injection wells.
Technical experts note that injection wells are constructed with multiple protective measures. These include placement miles underground in solid rock formations, with additional casing required by regulatory agencies. The depth and geological isolation, combined with engineered safeguards, create multiple barriers between injected materials and groundwater resources.
The conflict illustrates the broader tensions surrounding Ohio’s energy industry. The state has become a significant player in America’s shale revolution, with the Utica and Marcellus formations driving substantial economic activity in eastern Ohio. According to industry data, the sector supports thousands of jobs and contributes billions to the state’s economy.
Environmental advocates, however, maintain that the long-term risks of hydraulic fracturing and associated waste disposal remain insufficiently studied, particularly regarding potential groundwater impacts and induced seismicity. They argue that the regulatory framework has not kept pace with the rapid expansion of oil and gas activities.
The disagreement exemplifies the nationwide struggle to balance energy development with environmental protection. While industry representatives emphasize the technological safeguards and economic benefits of continued oil and gas production, environmental organizations advocate for a transition to renewable energy sources and stricter limits on fossil fuel infrastructure.
As the debate continues, both sides acknowledge that public perception will play a crucial role in determining the future of Ohio’s energy landscape. Whether through municipal ordinances, state legislation, or public pressure, the outcome will likely influence not just injection well permitting but the broader trajectory of fossil fuel development in the Buckeye State.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
6 Comments
Injection wells serve many important industries beyond just oil/gas. Singling them out for activism seems misguided unless there are clear, verifiable safety problems specific to this application.
Agreed. The broader use of injection wells across sectors suggests this is more complex than a simple ‘us vs. them’ narrative between activists and the oil/gas industry.
Injection wells are a critical part of the energy industry and have a strong safety record. The claims about environmental dangers seem exaggerated and not backed by facts from reputable sources.
I agree, the fear-based campaign against injection wells appears to be more political than scientific. Oversight and regulations are important, but outright demonization is not constructive.
While any industrial process has some risk, the data shows injection wells are generally safe when properly regulated and operated. I’d be curious to see specific evidence backing the environmental concerns raised.
Good point. The article mentions the EPA’s oversight of these wells – it would be helpful to understand if there are documented issues that justify the activists’ claims, or if this is more of an ideological crusade.