A recent report from DeSmog in partnership with Rolling Stone paints a sweeping picture of a national environmental disaster, claiming the oil and natural gas industry is sitting on a “trillion gallons” of toxic wastewater buried underground. The story leans heavily on decades-old government quotes, scattered enforcement actions, and a handful of local incidents to claim that injection wells were always known to be unsafe.

But a closer look at the claims shows that Desmog relies on selective history and dramatic framing rather than how produced water is actually managed today. It’s a playbook EID has discussed multiple times in the last decade plus in debunks of previous hit pieces from Rolling Stone and author, Justin Nobel.  Let’s take a look:

Claim: Regulators in the 1970s knew injection wells were unsafe and only meant to be temporary.

FACT: The concerns raised in the early 1970s are precisely what the modern regulatory system was built to address.

A central theme in the article is that federal officials in the early 1970s described underground injection as a “temporary” solution, implying today’s system is built on a flawed foundation.

But these statements come from a  period before the federal Underground Injection Control (UIC) program was created. At the time, regulators were still developing a national framework to address wastewater disposal across multiple industries.

The UIC program, established under the Safe Drinking Water Act, was designed specifically to address those early concerns. Today, Class II wells used for oil and natural gas wastewater must meet strict requirements for:

• Well design, casing, and cementing
• Mechanical integrity testing
• Pressure limits
• Continuous monitoring and reporting
• Geologic analysis to ensure separation from drinking water sources

That regulatory framework is reflected in states like Ohio, where Class II injection wells are governed by rules that exceed federal requirements, including frequent unannounced inspections and continuous integrity monitoring. Even with those stringent standards, Ohio remains the top oil producer east of the Mississippi River, demonstrating that strong oversight and responsible energy development go hand in hand.

Claim: There is little scientific basis for saying injection wells are safe.

FACT: We have decades of scientific research and experience that demonstrate the safety of injection wells.

DeSmog relies on early symposium quotes suggesting scientists did not fully understand how fluids would behave underground, using statements made in 1971 like that “we really do no know what happens to waste down there” to cast doubt on the practice today.

Conveniently, those comments were made before decades of geological research, operational experience, technological improvements, and regulatory oversight. Since the UIC program was implemented in 1974, hundreds of thousands of injection wells have operated across the United States under strict state and federal rules.

For example, in Texas, regulators have imposed new pressure limits, additional monitoring, and operational restrictions in parts of the Permian Basin in response to changing subsurface conditions.

Produced water management is not theoretical. It is a routine, highly regulated industrial activity with a long operational track record. Furthermore, in major producing regions like the Permian Basin, more than 99 percent of produced water has been managed without spills over the past decade.

The article’s reliance on half-century-old uncertainty ignores the fact that the entire regulatory structure for injection wells was built in response to those early questions.

Claim: Industry pressure weakened injection well regulations.

FACT: Injection wells are heavily regulated at both the federal and state levels.

DeSmong suggests that industry lawsuits in the 1980s undermined federal injection well rules under the guise of them being “too complex and too costly,” creating a weaker system that persists today.

What it omits is that injection wells are still regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, with both federal standards and state enforcement authority. In many cases, states have more detailed knowledge of local geology and operating conditions, which is why the UIC program allows state-level primacy.

To date, more than 30 states have been granted primacy, allowing regulators with direct knowledge of local geology to tailor rules, monitoring, and enforcement to site-specific conditions. In Oklahoma, for example, regulators implemented targeted injection limits and seismic response protocols that helped reduce earthquake activity significantly after earlier spikes.

In fact, the incidents DeSmog cites actually demonstrate that regulators are actively overseeing these systems including several examples where state agencies intervened directly when conditions warranted it.

For instance, the report notes that the Ohio Department of Natural Resources suspended operations at six injection wells it determined posed an “imminent danger to the health and safety of the public.” It also points to new protective rules implemented by Texas regulators after blowout concerns in parts of the Permian Basin. In both cases, regulators identified risks and took action – either by shutting down wells or tightening operating conditions.

Those are not signs of a system without oversight. They are examples of a regulatory framework that is actively monitored and adjusted in response to changing geologic or operational conditions.

In several cases highlighted by DeSmog itself:

• Wells were shut down.
• Operations were suspended.
• New pressure or siting rules were introduced.

That’s not evidence of a regulatory vacuum. It’s evidence of an oversight system that responds to changing conditions and takes enforcement action when necessary.

Claim: Recent incidents prove a nationwide pollution crisis.

FACT: Injection well incidents are rare.

The report strings together lawsuits, local enforcement actions, and a few high-profile incidents to argue that injection wells are causing widespread harm.

But scale matters. The United States operates hundreds of thousands of injection wells across multiple industries, managing billions of barrels of fluids each year. Against that backdrop, the handful of cases cited represent localized issues, not systemic national failure.

Even activist analyses of produced water management show that:

• The vast majority of incidents are small and contained.
• Most spills are mitigated before causing significant impacts.
• Overall spill rates have declined over time.

At the same time, the industry is rapidly increasing produced water recycling and reuse. In the Permian Basin alone, about 11 million of the 14 million barrels of produced water generated daily are reused, reducing freshwater demand and the need for disposal.

Beyond reuse in drilling operations, treated produced water is being used or evaluated for purposes across several industries. For example, California has used produced water for agricultural irrigation  for years, operators in Texas have used it for dust control and firefighting, and facilities in New Mexico supply treated water for industrial and infrastructure uses.

Claim: Injection wells are the industry’s only option for getting rid of waste.

FACT: The oil and natural gas industry continues to innovate its produced water management.

Another underlying narrative is that injection is a cheap, corner-cutting practice the industry relies on because it has nowhere else to put its wastewater. At one point, the report argues that the business model of the U.S. oil and gas industry “depends on operators being able to get rid of waste cheaply,” suggesting disposal wells exist primarily as a low-cost workaround rather than part of a regulated management system.

That’s far from accurate. The claim ignores the growing shift toward recycling and reuse. In many regions, operators are now using more produced water than freshwater for new well completions, reflecting how water management practices have evolved under modern regulatory frameworks. Expanded pipeline networks are also reducing truck transport, lowering spill risks and improving efficiency.

In Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale, for example, operators now recycle and reuse the vast majority of produced water, dramatically reducing the need for disposal and freshwater withdrawals compared to earlier years.

Injection remains an important tool, but it is part of a broader system that includes treatment, recycling, and reuse – not the one-dimensional “bury it and forget it” model described in the report.

Bottom Line: DeSmog’s report relies on old quotes, selective incidents, and off-base comparisons to suggest the country is facing a massive underground wastewater disaster. But it leaves out the most important context: modern injection wells operate under strict federal and state rules to ensure produced water is managed safely.

The focus should be on the real progress being made today, including stronger oversight, improved recycling technologies, and responsible domestic energy development.