Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Engineered Microbes Pull Critical Minerals from Mining Waste

News Feed
Wednesday, October 1, 2025

October 1, 20255 min readMeet the Microbes That Munch Mountains of Mining WasteBiomining uses engineered microbes to harvest critical mineralsBy Vanessa Bates Ramirez edited by Sarah Lewin FrasierEscondida Mine, located in Chile’s Atacama Desert. The copper-bearing waste is poured into the impoundment area as a liquid (green region at image center) and dries to the lighter tan and gray color. Science History Images/Alamy Stock PhotoAt the northern edge of Chile’s Atacama Desert sits a pile of rocks that’s so big that you can see it from space—and it’s teeming with invisible activity. Billions of microbes are hard at work dissolving compounds in this giant mound of crushed ore from Escondida, the biggest copper mine on the planet.“Microbes are the world’s oldest miners,” says Liz Dennett, founder and CEO of the start-up Endolith Mining, based near Denver, Colo. “They’ve had billions of years to become incredibly good at eating rocks.”Scientists at Endolith and elsewhere are engineering microbes to get even better at this process, called biomining—to work faster, extract more copper and even pull out other kinds of minerals. Endolith tests different microbes to see which are most fit for the job and then exposes them to harsh conditions to further strengthen them. “Think of it like a superhero training camp,” Dennett says. In May the company’s engineered microbes demonstrated copper extraction superior to microbes found in nature; its first field deployments are scheduled for later this year.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Biomining, if it can be scaled up, could make it possible to decrease reliance on global supply chains, which are becoming ever more fragile. “If we can make biomining work, we can break the monopoly that states like China have on critical metals,” says Buz Barstow, a biological and environmental engineer at Cornell University. Barstow is leading a project called the Microbe-Mineral Atlas that catalogs microorganisms, their genes and how they interact with minerals. The project’s goal is to build genetically engineered microorganisms that can effectively mine critical metals.As many countries transition to renewable energy, they will require fewer fossil fuels but more minerals such as lithium, cobalt, copper, nickel and zinc. These are not only needed for wind turbines, solar panels and batteries; they’re also crucial for the laptops and cell phones we use every day. Copper demand, in particular, is set to skyrocket. Forecasts show we’ll need more copper in the next 30 years than has been mined throughout all of history. Much of the low-hanging fruit—that is, high-grade ore—has been picked, and mines have to work a lot harder than before to get the same quantity.Trucks hauling earth from Escondida.Cavan Images/Alamy Stock PhotoConventional mining techniques are resource-intensive, expensive and harmful to the environment. After using explosives and heavy machinery to extract ore from the earth, mining companies must isolate and purify the minerals in question. Often, that means breaking chemical bonds that keep minerals bound to sulfur in sulfide ores. This is most commonly done using heat through a process called smelting or acid through a process called leaching. Smelting requires extremely high temperatures, reached by burning fossil fuels or using a lot of electricity. On top of the carbon dioxide emissions this generates, burning sulfur produces toxic sulfur dioxide gas. Acid leaching, meanwhile, carries the risk of acid mine drainage, where fluids contaminate rivers or groundwater and harm the surrounding ecosystem. The sulfuric acid used for this process can cause harm before it even reaches mines. “Production of sulfuric acid is very nasty,” Dennett says. “There’s a lot of secondary and tertiary effects on the environment.”Microbes can do the same work as heat and acid, but their cost and environmental impact are much lower. “Microbes use at least six different mechanisms for biomining,” Barstow says. The most common is an oxidation-reduction reaction, or redox reaction, in which microbes break the chemical bonds in a sulfide ore by “eating” their sulfur and iron. This releases the minerals in the ore, breaking them down until they can dissolve in water. The mineral-rich solution is collected in a pond after it is drained from the rock and is then exposed to solvents and electricity that attract the minerals like a magnet while leaving water, acid and impurities behind.The microbes still need a small amount of sulfuric acid to kick-start the process of breaking down the ore. Piles of rock such as the one at Chile’s Escondida mine—called heap leaches—are sprayed with an acid-water mixture that only needs to be added once because microbes make more acid naturally as they break the ore’s chemical bonds. “Replacing [most] sulfuric acid is a big economic benefit, as it can often be the largest operating expense for a mine,” says Sasha Milshteyn, founder of Transition Biomining, a company that analyzes the DNA of microbes found in ores to develop custom additives for increased copper recovery.Though the process avoids toxic gas emissions, uses less energy and water than conventional methods and minimizes hazardous chemicals, it has its limitations. It’s slower than traditional mining: while smelting can take hours to days, and acid leaching takes days to weeks, microbes do their work over several months. They’re sensitive to pH, temperature, and moisture levels and can be killed off or slowed down by changes in any of these. And they still produce acidic solutions that need to be contained and treated. As Barstow puts it, “Biomining won’t be an environmental panacea; it will just be quite a bit better than what we do now.”The real promise of biomining is that it can squeeze more out of rocks than conventional methods do. “Modern mining technologies ‘skim the cream’ of economically valuable metals from a deposit and leave everything else behind in [waste rock called] tailings,” Barstow says.That waste is worth far more than it usually gets credit for. A study recently published in Science found that recovering the minerals in waste from existing U.S. mines could meet nearly all of the country’s critical mineral needs; recovering just 1 percent would substantially reduce import reliance for many elements. “If large mines just added additional recovery circuits to their process, this could bring needed minerals into production relatively quickly,” says the study’s lead author Elizabeth Holley, a mining engineer at the Colorado School of Mines.Copper mine waste can hold bits of tellurium, cobalt or zinc; coal ash can contain lithium, manganese and rare earth elements. The quantities are too small for conventional mines to bother with, but they’re not too small for microbes. Besides being used in heap leaches or pumped straight into the ground, microbes can be applied directly to waste streams, where they can pull out tiny amounts of minerals that can add up to be significant.Microbes may be the world’s oldest miners, but biomining as a technology is still new, Milshteyn notes, and doesn’t yet leverage the full complexity of microbial ecosystems. “The heaps that perform best in the field have thriving ecosystems of diverse microbes working together,” he says. “I think the next generation of biomining has to contend with that complexity.”It’s Time to Stand Up for ScienceIf you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Biomining uses engineered microbes to harvest critical minerals

October 1, 2025

5 min read

Meet the Microbes That Munch Mountains of Mining Waste

Biomining uses engineered microbes to harvest critical minerals

By Vanessa Bates Ramirez edited by Sarah Lewin Frasier

Aerial view of copper mine, with green waste in the middle

Escondida Mine, located in Chile’s Atacama Desert. The copper-bearing waste is poured into the impoundment area as a liquid (green region at image center) and dries to the lighter tan and gray color.

Science History Images/Alamy Stock Photo

At the northern edge of Chile’s Atacama Desert sits a pile of rocks that’s so big that you can see it from space—and it’s teeming with invisible activity. Billions of microbes are hard at work dissolving compounds in this giant mound of crushed ore from Escondida, the biggest copper mine on the planet.

“Microbes are the world’s oldest miners,” says Liz Dennett, founder and CEO of the start-up Endolith Mining, based near Denver, Colo. “They’ve had billions of years to become incredibly good at eating rocks.”

Scientists at Endolith and elsewhere are engineering microbes to get even better at this process, called biomining—to work faster, extract more copper and even pull out other kinds of minerals. Endolith tests different microbes to see which are most fit for the job and then exposes them to harsh conditions to further strengthen them. “Think of it like a superhero training camp,” Dennett says. In May the company’s engineered microbes demonstrated copper extraction superior to microbes found in nature; its first field deployments are scheduled for later this year.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Biomining, if it can be scaled up, could make it possible to decrease reliance on global supply chains, which are becoming ever more fragile. “If we can make biomining work, we can break the monopoly that states like China have on critical metals,” says Buz Barstow, a biological and environmental engineer at Cornell University. Barstow is leading a project called the Microbe-Mineral Atlas that catalogs microorganisms, their genes and how they interact with minerals. The project’s goal is to build genetically engineered microorganisms that can effectively mine critical metals.

As many countries transition to renewable energy, they will require fewer fossil fuels but more minerals such as lithium, cobalt, copper, nickel and zinc. These are not only needed for wind turbines, solar panels and batteries; they’re also crucial for the laptops and cell phones we use every day. Copper demand, in particular, is set to skyrocket. Forecasts show we’ll need more copper in the next 30 years than has been mined throughout all of history. Much of the low-hanging fruit—that is, high-grade ore—has been picked, and mines have to work a lot harder than before to get the same quantity.

Haul trucks haul earth from the base of Escondida Norte, an open pit copper mine in northern Chile. Part of the Minera Escondida complex, it takes the massive trucks nearly an hour round trip to haul material from the pit.

Trucks hauling earth from Escondida.

Cavan Images/Alamy Stock Photo

Conventional mining techniques are resource-intensive, expensive and harmful to the environment. After using explosives and heavy machinery to extract ore from the earth, mining companies must isolate and purify the minerals in question. Often, that means breaking chemical bonds that keep minerals bound to sulfur in sulfide ores. This is most commonly done using heat through a process called smelting or acid through a process called leaching. Smelting requires extremely high temperatures, reached by burning fossil fuels or using a lot of electricity. On top of the carbon dioxide emissions this generates, burning sulfur produces toxic sulfur dioxide gas. Acid leaching, meanwhile, carries the risk of acid mine drainage, where fluids contaminate rivers or groundwater and harm the surrounding ecosystem. The sulfuric acid used for this process can cause harm before it even reaches mines. “Production of sulfuric acid is very nasty,” Dennett says. “There’s a lot of secondary and tertiary effects on the environment.”

Microbes can do the same work as heat and acid, but their cost and environmental impact are much lower. “Microbes use at least six different mechanisms for biomining,” Barstow says. The most common is an oxidation-reduction reaction, or redox reaction, in which microbes break the chemical bonds in a sulfide ore by “eating” their sulfur and iron. This releases the minerals in the ore, breaking them down until they can dissolve in water. The mineral-rich solution is collected in a pond after it is drained from the rock and is then exposed to solvents and electricity that attract the minerals like a magnet while leaving water, acid and impurities behind.

The microbes still need a small amount of sulfuric acid to kick-start the process of breaking down the ore. Piles of rock such as the one at Chile’s Escondida mine—called heap leaches—are sprayed with an acid-water mixture that only needs to be added once because microbes make more acid naturally as they break the ore’s chemical bonds. “Replacing [most] sulfuric acid is a big economic benefit, as it can often be the largest operating expense for a mine,” says Sasha Milshteyn, founder of Transition Biomining, a company that analyzes the DNA of microbes found in ores to develop custom additives for increased copper recovery.

Though the process avoids toxic gas emissions, uses less energy and water than conventional methods and minimizes hazardous chemicals, it has its limitations. It’s slower than traditional mining: while smelting can take hours to days, and acid leaching takes days to weeks, microbes do their work over several months. They’re sensitive to pH, temperature, and moisture levels and can be killed off or slowed down by changes in any of these. And they still produce acidic solutions that need to be contained and treated. As Barstow puts it, “Biomining won’t be an environmental panacea; it will just be quite a bit better than what we do now.”

The real promise of biomining is that it can squeeze more out of rocks than conventional methods do. “Modern mining technologies ‘skim the cream’ of economically valuable metals from a deposit and leave everything else behind in [waste rock called] tailings,” Barstow says.

That waste is worth far more than it usually gets credit for. A study recently published in Science found that recovering the minerals in waste from existing U.S. mines could meet nearly all of the country’s critical mineral needs; recovering just 1 percent would substantially reduce import reliance for many elements. “If large mines just added additional recovery circuits to their process, this could bring needed minerals into production relatively quickly,” says the study’s lead author Elizabeth Holley, a mining engineer at the Colorado School of Mines.

Copper mine waste can hold bits of tellurium, cobalt or zinc; coal ash can contain lithium, manganese and rare earth elements. The quantities are too small for conventional mines to bother with, but they’re not too small for microbes. Besides being used in heap leaches or pumped straight into the ground, microbes can be applied directly to waste streams, where they can pull out tiny amounts of minerals that can add up to be significant.

Microbes may be the world’s oldest miners, but biomining as a technology is still new, Milshteyn notes, and doesn’t yet leverage the full complexity of microbial ecosystems. “The heaps that perform best in the field have thriving ecosystems of diverse microbes working together,” he says. “I think the next generation of biomining has to contend with that complexity.”

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Biomethane not viable for widespread use in UK home heating, report finds

Gas derived from farm waste can meet only 18% of current gas demand by 2050, despite claims of fossil fuel lobbyists, study findsGas derived from farm waste will never be an alternative to the widespread adoption of heat pumps, research shows, despite the claims of fossil fuel lobbyists.Biomethane, which comes mainly from “digesting” manure, sewage and other organic waste, has been touted as a low-carbon substitute for fossil fuel gas, for use in home heating. Proponents say it would be less disruptive than ripping out the UK’s current gas infrastructure and installing heat pumps. Continue reading...

Gas derived from farm waste will never be an alternative to the widespread adoption of heat pumps, research shows, despite the claims of fossil fuel lobbyists.Biomethane, which comes mainly from “digesting” manure, sewage and other organic waste, has been touted as a low-carbon substitute for fossil fuel gas, for use in home heating. Proponents say it would be less disruptive than ripping out the UK’s current gas infrastructure and installing heat pumps.But research seen by the Guardian shows that while there may be a role for biomethane in some industries and on farms, it will not make a viable alternative for the vast majority of homes.A study by the analyst company Regen, commissioned by the MCS Foundation charity, found that biomethane could account for only up to 18% of the UK’s current gas demand by 2050. That is because the available sources: manure, farm waste and sewage, cannot be scaled up to the extent needed without distorting the UK’s economy, or using unsustainable sources.Faced with the limitations of biomethane, ministers would do better to rule out its widespread use in home heating and concentrate on heat pumps, MCS concluded.Garry Felgate, the chief executive of the MCS Foundation, said: “Biomethane has an important role to play in decarbonisation – but not in homes. If we are to meet our climate targets and ensure that every household has access to secure, affordable energy, there is simply no viable way that we can continue to heat homes using the gas grid, whether that is using fossil gas, hydrogen, or biomethane.”Gas companies have a strong vested interest in the future of biomethane because its widespread use would allow them to keep the current gas infrastructure of pipelines, distribution technology and home boilers in operation. If the UK shifts most homes to heat pumps, those networks will become redundant.The same arguments are made by gas companies, and by some trade unions, in favour of hydrogen, which has also been touted as a low-carbon alternative to heat pumps, but which numerous studies have shown will not be economically viable at the scale required.At the Labour party conference this week, delegates were bombarded by lobbyists claiming that biomethane could take the place of 6m gas boilers and delay the phase-out of gas boilers.Felgate said ministers must require the decommissioning of the gas grid by 2050, and set a clear deadline for phasing out boilers.“Failure to plan for the decommissioning of the gas grid will result in it becoming a stranded asset,” he said. “Consumers and industry need certainty: biomethane will not replace fossil fuel gas in homes, electric heating such as heat pumps is the only viable way to decarbonise homes.”Tamsyn Lonsdale-Smith, the energy analyst at Regen who wrote the report, said there were uses for biomethane in industry, but that it was not suitable for widespread consumer use. “Biomethane can be a green gas with minimal environmental and land use impacts – but only if produced from the right sources, in the right way and at an appropriate scale,” she said. “The government is right to be focusing on scaling up biomethane production, but as sustainable supplies are likely to be limited, it is critical that its use is prioritised for only the highest value uses where carbon reductions are greatest.”A government spokesperson said: “Biomethane can play an important role in reducing our reliance on imported gas, increasing our country’s energy security and helping to deliver net zero. We are looking at how we can further support the sector and plan to publish a consultation on biomethane early next year.”

New Mexico Governor Puts Finger on Scale in Oilfield Wastewater Vote

Gov. Lujan Grisham appears to push commission to overturn its recent ruling barring the use of produced water outside the oilfield. The post New Mexico Governor Puts Finger on Scale in Oilfield Wastewater Vote appeared first on .

This story was produced in partnership with SourceNM. The administration of New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham appears to have pressured members of the state Water Quality Control Commission to consider a petition reversing a rule the commission passed unanimously in May that banned fossil fuel wastewater from being used outside oilfield work and testing. The commission’s August meeting marked the first time in years that all four department secretaries on the panel had shown up at the same time, raising eyebrows. Those secretaries then led the push to support a new petition that would overturn a rule whose development entailed more than a year of hearings and scientific debate.   In a statement to SourceNM, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham said she “encouraged relevant cabinet secretaries to bring their expertise” to the proceedings. In an interview with Capital & Main and New Mexico PBS, James Kenney, the Environment Department secretary and a Water Quality Control Commissioner, said, “The governor did not explicitly ask us to all show up.” And recent reporting by the Santa Fe New Mexican reveals emails between the Governor’s Office, Kenney and other commissioners where they discussed pushing rules allowing wider use of oilfield wastewater “over the finish line.”  When reached by phone at a bluegrass festival in Winfield, Kansas, on Wednesday, Water Quality Control Commission Chair Bruce Thomson said he was unaware of the email exchanges with commissioners.  Thompson said he had not received any emails from the Governor’s Office and offered no comment when asked if he had concerns about the commission’s process.  Many who supported the original rule are livid with the apparent meddling, explicit or not. “They’re putting politics over scientifically based policy, and that’s illegal,” said Mariel Nanasi, executive director of the environmental group New Energy Economy. State statute requires commissioners to recuse themselves if their impartiality or fairness “may be reasonably questioned.” In a statement, Jodi McGinnis Porter, a spokesperson for Lujan Grisham’s office, said, “The administration’s position on water reuse has been public for months. Directing secretaries to attend required meetings rather than send staff does not violate any laws” “This is the oddest, most political rule making I’ve seen in 25 years,” said Tannis Fox, senior attorney at the Western Environmental Law Center. For nearly three decades she has worked on water issues while working in or alongside state government, including a five-year stint in the late 1990s as the legal counsel for the Water Quality Control Commission.  At the center of the debate lies oilfield wastewater — also known as produced water — which is toxic and possibly laced with chemicals that operators consider “trade secrets” and do not have to publicly identify. Projects like the New Mexico Produced Water Research Consortium have worked for years to perfect industrial-scale wastewater purification.  The Water, Access, Treatment and Reuse Alliance, which represents oil companies, wastewater treatment firms and other, unnamed parties, petitioned the committee to rewrite its ruling. It claimed the science of wastewater treatment had dramatically improved in the past year and the May ruling should therefore be rewritten. Environmental groups, which vigorously supported the original rule, say the rule should stand for its built-in five-year lifespan.  At the August meeting, the four secretaries — from the Office of the State Engineer, the Environment Department, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health — were joined by the director of the Game and Fish Department and the chair of the Soil and Water Conservation Commission. A representative from New Mexico Tech, another from the State Parks Division and four members at large rounded out the meeting. Led by Kenney, all but three voted to reverse course and proceed with the Water, Access, Treatment and Reuse Alliance petition to pursue using treated wastewater outside the oilfields. No future hearings on the matter are currently scheduled.  Kenney said, “It’s not uncommon for the cabinet to band together around a governor priority.” Water Quality Control Commission members James Kenney and Randolph Bayliss at a commission meeting on August 12 in Santa Fe. Photo: Danielle Prokop/Source NM. That priority is the governor’s 50-Year Water Action Plan, he said. Among many initiatives, it calls for the state to develop a legal path for broader use of oilfield wastewater by 2026. The Water Quality Control Commission’s May vote likely eliminated that possibility. “I just wish the administration would come out … and be upfront and transparent about what’s going on,” Fox said. Two things are likely going on. One: Lujan Grisham wants a new source of water for industrial uses in a state suffering through a historic drought. And two: The oil and gas industry has a growing problem with tightly regulated, toxic wastewater it can’t easily dispose of.  For years, Lujan Grisham and the industry have wanted to see one problem solve the other, with the wastewater cleaned and approved for use outside oilfield applications, currently the only legal use in New Mexico. That was a goal of the governor’s Strategic Water Supply, part of the 50-Year Water Action Plan. The supply creates a new water source for new businesses as the state’s freshwater supplies dwindle from climate change. The Strategic Water Supply bill originally included oilfield wastewater, but the state Legislature stripped out that language, leaving brackish aquifers deep underground as the sole source for new water. The Legislature balked in large part because oilfield wastewater is highly toxic, hard to clean and difficult to test. Debating the idea before the Water Quality Control Commission switched the forum from the legislative to the bureaucratic realm, where the number of people involved is smaller and  nearly all of them have been appointed by the governor. Kenney has been on the commission since 2019 but until recently sent a representative to the commission meetings in his stead. At his first meeting in July, he supported the petition to remake the wastewater rule, though five of his own Environment Department scientists had previously testified that treated oilfield wastewater could not be safely used elsewhere. When he attended the August meeting, his second, Kenney led the commission to a divided vote to proceed with the petition.  Kenney said that water treatment science had changed so much even before the commission’s May vote that the petition deserved to be considered. The May rule, he said, was guided by “2022 or earlier science” and the process didn’t allow for subsequent research to be admitted as evidence. Hearings do have cutoff dates after which new information generally can’t be introduced, to give commissioners a fixed set of information to ponder. “We couldn’t introduce new testimony,” he said. Fox disagreed. “Scientific materials were NOT limited to 2022 materials, and peer reviewed articles and other materials from 2023 and 2024 came into evidence,” she said in an email. “It was possible to introduce into evidence science up through May 2024,” she said in a subsequent phone call. Deliberations ran for a year beyond that. Fox acknowledged the technology to turn toxic brine into demonstrably safe water is “inching along.” Even so, “There hasn’t been some sort of earth-shattering [scientific] article that says, ‘Hey! We got this one! We got a silver bullet here!’”  Jennifer Bradfute, president of the Water, Access, Treatment and Reuse Alliance, disagrees. She said her group has a collection of recent scientific papers showing successful treatment of oilfield wastewater. During the August hearing, she held up as evidence a list of scientific papers she said she found on Google Scholar.  Fox later dismissed the list, saying, “Some are relevant, some are not relevant, but none are showing that discharge at scale is safe. It’s just a bunch of articles on produced water.” Pei Xu, a professor in the department of civil engineering at New Mexico State University and a lead researcher at the Produced Water Research Consortium, is at the bleeding edge of several scientific studies currently testing the safety of different water treatment and testing procedures for oilfield wastewater. In a detailed interview, she described current, unfinished studies quantifying any effects of treated water on small animals and plants. She also shared a half-dozen recent papers indicating successful treatment of oilfield wastewater. Xu said she is confident that wastewater can be treated to safe levels today. However, she said, “If everybody looks for the peer-reviewed publications, I think we still need some time, especially related to all these ongoing studies.” Peer review, the gold standard of scientific research, allows other scientists in the field to critique the work done. It’s a process that can take months after the research has finished.  In the end, Xu said that it’s not her decision to use treated water outside a testing laboratory — that rests with the state. “I will work on science, and then how they will utilize the data, it’ll be up to the regulators,” she said.  Kenney listens during public comment at the August Water Quality Control Commission meeting. The majority of commenters voiced opposition to efforts to expand the use of oil and gas wastewater. Photo: Danielle Prokop/Source NM. During the August hearing, commissioners asked Kenney if Environment Department scientists could validate the results of any new studies for the commission. Environment Department scientists had previously testified that research into wastewater purification technology had not advanced to a point that it was safe to use in large scale applications beyond the oilfield. “I suspect most of the commissioners do not feel they are technically qualified to determine whether the results that are presented by these … new papers and studies, if they are in fact truthful,” said Thomson, chair of the committee.  In fact, state law says, “The water quality control commission shall receive staff support from the department of environment.” At the commission meeting, however, Zachary Ogaz, general counsel for the Environment Department, said the department had “no obligation” to make its scientists available. And Kenney hedged, saying that department turnover means scientists would “need to get up to speed” in order to testify before the commission.  “While I think it’s important to have a regulator validate the science, I think it is the obligation of the parties to present testimony that can be verified and validated,” he said. On Sept. 4, Mariel Nanasi of New Energy Economy filed a motion requesting that the Water Quality Control Commission require the Water, Access, Treatment and Reuse Alliance to “disclose the scientific basis” relied on to develop its petition. On Sept. 19, Bradfute’s group responded, asking the commission to deny that motion, calling it an “extra-regulatory” requirement that should be addressed in a hearing. Even so, the response included a statement from a scientist working at a Texas-based wastewater treatment company outlining the last three years of water treatment science, concluding, “The use of treated produced water can occur in a manner that is protective of human health and the environment, provided treatment is robust, monitoring comprehensive, and regulatory safeguards enforced.” It went on to list 16 new and older papers on wastewater science. *   *   * Oilfield wastewater is a growing, expensive headache for oil and gas producers across the country, particularly in the Permian Basin — the nation’s most productive oilfield — which straddles Texas and New Mexico. Around five barrels of wastewater are produced for every barrel of oil in the Permian Basin, and the total has increased every year as the basin’s production has grown.  The water is highly saline and loaded with naturally occurring minerals as well as chemicals added in the drilling process. All of that eventually comes back up the well, mixed with the oil and gas. Sometimes the water is contaminated with naturally occurring radioactive minerals, too.  Neither the federal government nor New Mexico requires drillers to publicly list drilling chemicals considered “trade secrets,” so it’s not perfectly known what goes down and up a well. Colorado does require operators to disclose all chemicals used in fracking, but a recent study alleges that companies there don’t always do so. Chevron, one of the companies named in the study, is represented on the board of the Water, Access, Treatment and Reuse Alliance. (Since the report came out, Chevron has complied with the Colorado law.) The overarching issue is what to do with the produced water. A small percentage is lightly cleaned and reused to drill new wells — a process that uses millions of gallons per well. For years, companies have also injected the water back into the ground, but that triggers earthquakes and some spectacular leaks. New Mexico tallies how much wastewater is produced and how much is injected, but it doesn’t track how much is shipped to Texas for disposal. The problems continue there.  Wastewater ponds in the Permian Basin in southern New Mexico. Photo: Jerry Redfern. Aerial support provided by LightHawk. Recently, ConocoPhillips said it is producing less oil and more water than expected in a Texas field just south of the New Mexico state line because of wastewater contamination from nearby disposal wells. In a motion filed with the Texas Railroad Commission (the state’s main oil and gas regulatory body), ConocoPhillips opposed Pilot Water Solutions’ plan to drill an additional wastewater well in the area. The motion read, “Pilot is banking on increased regional need for disposal capacity resulting from wells producing waste in other Texas counties and New Mexico.” Last year, the New Mexico Oil Conservation Division cancelled 75 proposed wastewater wells along the same stretch of border due to increasingly frequent earthquakes. ConocoPhillips also has a board member at the Water, Access, Treatment and Reuse Alliance.  Bradfute, the alliance president, helped write New Mexico’s law on oil and gas wastewater that clarified who had oversight of the water and barred its use outside the oilfield. The law also created the New Mexico Produced Water Research Consortium to study how to clean and test produced water so it can eventually be used more broadly. Despite years of testing, however, the constantly shifting nature of what is in wastewater raises questions about the treated water’s safety, which is what led the Water Quality Control Commission to nix its broader use in May. Bradfute formed the Water, Access, Treatment and Reuse Alliance in September 2024, three weeks after final arguments were made in the commission’s original hearings. She said that timing is coincidental — the original impetus was to promote treating brackish and produced water in response to Gov. Lujan Grisham’s 50-Year Water Action Plan. Bradfute said there are about 25 members of the alliance, but she wouldn’t name them. “Some of my members have been pretty severely attacked by different interest groups as a result of the rulemaking,” she said. “There’s been false Instagram and TikTok videos that certain groups are putting out there definitely attacking individuals by name,” she continued. Stephen Aldridge, the mayor of tiny Jal, New Mexico, is an Alliance board member with a history of wrangling over water in his corner of the state. Joining was a quick decision for him. “If there’s a conversation on water in New Mexico, we want a seat at the table,” he said. Since becoming mayor eight years ago, Aldridge has tussled with a series of oil and water companies that wanted to tap the town’s aquifers for water to drill oil wells in the surrounding Permian Basin.  “Yeah, they don’t like me very much,” he said. “But hell, I’ve got two friends I’m not looking for anymore.” Besides, he said, “I’m damn sure an advocate for this community. That’s my job.” The work has secured the town water for the foreseeable future, but only just. Aldridge says that there isn’t any excess to promote new business growth. That’s why he has his eye on produced water. Truckloads of the stuff rumble through his town every day. “I’m not without my concerns, but I’m also inquisitive enough to want to see some pilot [projects] up and running, and I would think that others would be too,” he said. In particular he worries about the toxic remains from the water treatment process. Aldridge knows there would be a lot of it: Where would it go? He’s waited years, watching the water cleaning science improve. He thinks it will be safe, eventually. Meanwhile, “Let’s don’t hurt ourselves in the process of tripping over a dollar to pick up a dime,” he said. Key WATR Alliance Players The Water, Access, Treatment and Reuse Alliance includes several political and industry heavy-hitters:  John D’Antonio, a produced water consultant; former state engineer (the state’s top water bureaucrat) appointed by Lujan Grisham; also New Mexico Environment Department secretary under Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson Deanna Archuleta, a member of the Vogel Group lobbying and consulting firm; former Washington, D.C.-based lobbyist for Exxon-Mobil; and controversial appointee to head the state Game Commission by Lujan Grisham Jason Sandel, a friend and political donor to Lujan Grisham and the head of a Farmington-based oilfield services conglomerate Tiffany Polak, policy adviser for Occidental Petroleum; a former deputy director of the state’s Oil Conservation Division Kathy Ytuarte, the former director of administrative services at the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association A review of Lujan Grisham’s published calendars shows that alliance board members and representatives of companies publicly associated with the alliance have collectively visited the governor’s office 20 times since she took office in 2019. Copyright 2025 Capital & Main.

Strange “Halos” on the Ocean Floor off Los Angeles Reveal a Toxic Secret

Once believed to contain the pesticide DDT, new analysis shows some barrels actually held caustic alkaline waste. In 2020, striking photographs revealed rusted barrels scattered across the seafloor near Los Angeles, capturing widespread attention. At first, the corroded containers were suspected to hold residues of the pesticide DDT, especially since some were surrounded by pale, [...]

A discarded barrel on the seafloor off the coast of Los Angeles. The image was taken during a survey in July 2021 by remotely operated vehicle SuBastian. Credit: Schmidt Ocean InstituteOnce believed to contain the pesticide DDT, new analysis shows some barrels actually held caustic alkaline waste. In 2020, striking photographs revealed rusted barrels scattered across the seafloor near Los Angeles, capturing widespread attention. At first, the corroded containers were suspected to hold residues of the pesticide DDT, especially since some were surrounded by pale, halo-like rings in the sediment. Yet the actual contents of the barrels, as well as the cause of the strange halos, remained uncertain. Research led by UC San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography has since clarified that the halo-producing barrels contained caustic alkaline waste, which seeped out and altered the surrounding environment. While the study could not determine the precise compounds inside, it noted that DDT production produced both alkaline and acidic byproducts. In addition, other major industries in the area, including oil refining, were known to release large amounts of alkaline waste. “One of the main waste streams from DDT production was acid, and they didn’t put that into barrels,” said Johanna Gutleben, a Scripps postdoctoral scholar and the study’s first author. “It makes you wonder: What was worse than DDT acid waste to deserve being put into barrels?” Researchers use Remotely Operated Vehicle SuBastian to collect sediment push cores next to barrels discarded on the seafloor. Credit: Schmidt Ocean InstituteToxic transformations of the seafloor The research showed that leaking alkaline waste reshaped parts of the seafloor into harsh habitats resembling natural hydrothermal vents — environments that host specialized microbes capable of surviving where most organisms cannot. According to the study’s authors, the scale and intensity of these impacts on marine ecosystems depend on both the number of barrels resting on the seafloor and the particular chemicals they released. Even with these uncertainties, Paul Jensen, a Scripps emeritus marine microbiologist and the study’s senior author, explained that he had assumed such alkaline material would quickly dilute in seawater. Instead, it has remained intact for more than fifty years, leading him to conclude that this waste “can now join the ranks of DDT as a persistent pollutant with long-term environmental impacts.” Released on September 9, 2025, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Nexus and backed by NOAA along with the University of Southern California’s Sea Grant program, the study adds to Scripps’ longstanding efforts to investigate the toxic legacy of once-permitted dumping in Southern California’s offshore waters. The results also offer a visual method to distinguish barrels that once carried this alkaline waste. “DDT was not the only thing that was dumped in this part of the ocean and we have only a very fragmented idea of what else was dumped there,” said Gutleben. “We only find what we are looking for and up to this point we have mostly been looking for DDT. Nobody was thinking about alkaline waste before this and we may have to start looking for other things as well.” VIDEO Video footage from ROV SuBastian’s exploration around the DDT Barrel Site 1 in the Southern California Borderland off the coast of Los Angeles. Credit: Schmidt Ocean Institute Ocean dumping legacy in California From the 1930s through the early 1970s, 14 deep-water dumping grounds off the coast of Southern California were used to dispose of “refinery wastes, filter cakes and oil drilling wastes, chemical wastes, refuse and garbage, military explosives and radioactive wastes,” according to the EPA. Seafloor surveys led by Scripps in 2021 and 2023 documented thousands of discarded objects, including hundreds of military munitions. The total number of barrels lying on the ocean floor is still unknown. Sediments in this region are heavily contaminated with DDT, a pesticide banned in 1972 and now recognized as dangerous to both humans and wildlife. Sparse records from the period suggest that most DDT waste was discharged directly into the sea. Gutleben said she and her co-authors didn’t initially set out to solve the halo mystery. In 2021, aboard the Schmidt Ocean Institute’s Research Vessel Falkor, she and other researchers collected sediment samples to better understand the contamination near Catalina. Using the remotely operated vehicle (ROV) SuBastian, the team collected sediment samples at precise distances from five barrels, three of which had white halos. The barrels featuring white halos presented an unexpected challenge: Inside the white halos the sea floor suddenly became like concrete, preventing the researchers from collecting samples with their coring devices. Using the ROV’s robotic arm, the researchers collected a piece of the hardened sediment from one of the halo barrels. Paul Jensen and Johanna Gutleben of UC San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography unload and sort sediment cores after the samples were brought to the surface from known dumping sites by Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) SuBastian during a July 2021 expedition aboard Research Vessel Falkor. Credit: Schmidt Ocean InstituteTesting for DDT and microbes The team analyzed the sediment samples and the hardened piece of halo barrel crust for DDT concentrations, mineral content and microbial DNA. The sediment samples showed that DDT contamination did not increase closer to the barrels, deepening the mystery of what they contained. During the analysis, Gutleben struggled to extract microbial DNA from the samples taken through the halos. After some unsuccessful troubleshooting in the lab, Gutleben tested one of these samples’ pH. She was shocked to find that the sample’s pH was extremely high — around 12. All the samples from near the barrels with halos turned out to be similarly alkaline. (An alkaline mixture is also known as a base, meaning it has a pH higher than 7 — as opposed to an acid which has a pH less than 7). This explained the limited amount of microbial DNA she and her colleagues had been able to extract from the halo samples. The samples turned out to have low bacterial diversity compared to other surrounding sediments and the bacteria came from families adapted to alkaline environments, like deep-sea hydrothermal vents and alkaline hot springs. Analysis of the hard crust showed that it was mostly made of a mineral called brucite. When the alkaline waste leaked from the barrels, it reacted with magnesium in the seawater to create brucite, which cemented the sediment into a concrete-like crust. The brucite is also slowly dissolving, which maintains the high pH in the sediment around the barrels, and creates a place only few extremophilic microbes can survive. Where this high pH meets the surrounding seawater, it forms calcium carbonate that deposits as a white dust, creating the halos. Photo of DDT Dumpsite Sediment core processing team. From left to right: Kira Mizell (USGS), Johanna Gutleben, Paul Jensen, Devin Vlach, Michelle Guraieb, Lisa Levin. Credit: Brady Lawrence for Schmidt Ocean InstituteLasting ecological consequences “This adds to our understanding of the consequences of the dumping of these barrels,” said Jensen. “It’s shocking that 50-plus years later you’re still seeing these effects. We can’t quantify the environmental impact without knowing how many of these barrels with white halos are out there, but it’s clearly having a localized impact on microbes.” Prior research led by Lisa Levin, study co-author and emeritus biological oceanographer at Scripps, showed that small animal biodiversity around the barrels with halos was also reduced. Jensen said that roughly a third of the barrels that have been visually observed had halos, but it’s unclear if this ratio holds true for the entire area and it remains unknown just how many barrels are sitting on the seafloor. The researchers suggest using white halos as indicators of alkaline waste could help rapidly assess the extent of alkaline waste contamination near Catalina. Next, Gutleben and Jensen said they are experimenting with DDT contaminated sediments collected from the dump site to search for microbes capable of breaking down DDT. The slow microbial breakdown the researchers are now studying may be the only feasible hope for eliminating the DDT dumped decades ago. Jensen said that trying to physically remove the contaminated sediments would, in addition to being a huge logistical challenge, likely do more harm than good. “The highest concentrations of DDT are buried around 4 or 5 centimeters below the surface — so it’s kind of contained,” said Jensen. “If you tried to suction that up you would create a huge sediment plume and stir that contamination into the water column.” Reference: “Extremophile hotspots linked to containerized industrial waste dumping in a deep-sea basin” by Johanna Gutleben, Sheila Podell, Kira Mizell, Douglas Sweeney, Carlos Neira, Lisa A Levin and Paul R Jensen, 9 September 2025, PNAS Nexus.DOI: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf260 This research was funded by the National Oceanographic and Atmosheric Administration award nos. NA23NMF4690462 and NA22OAR4690679 to P.R.J. and L.A.L. and the University of Southern California Sea Grant award SCON-00003146 to L.A.L. Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.

More than 100 landfills in England may be leaching ‘highly hazardous’ waste

Inadequate record keeping means councils do not know whether former waste sites contain toxic substancesMore than 100 old landfills in England that may be contaminated with toxic substances have flooded since 2000, potentially posing a serious safety risk, it can be revealed.Some of these former dumps containing possibly hazardous materials sit directly next to public parks and housing estates with hundreds of households, the analysis by the Greenpeace-funded journalism website Unearthed , in partnership with the Guardian, found. Continue reading...

More than 100 old landfills in England that may be contaminated with toxic substances have flooded since 2000, potentially posing a serious safety risk, it can be revealed.Some of these former dumps containing possibly hazardous materials sit directly next to public parks and housing estates with hundreds of households, the analysis by the Greenpeace-funded journalism website Unearthed , in partnership with the Guardian, found.Although councils are supposed to keep track of the dangers of these sites, funding has long since disappeared and some local authorities had no idea they were responsible, the investigation found.David Megson, an environmental chemist from Manchester Metropolitan University, said most former landfill sites were “likely to be quite safe and contain relatively inert waste, but some could be quite sinister”.“Historic reporting of what went into these sites wasn’t great, so in many cases, you’ve got little idea what is in there until you dig into it,” he said.The investigation took data on the 20,000 former landfill sites in England to identify the most high-risk – those used to dump “special” or industrial waste, for example, which were used after 1945 and before the mid-1990s, when laws about keeping records on the contents of landfill sites came into place.This was then compared with Environment Agency flooding data, with help from Dr Paul Brindley, a mapping expert at the University of Sheffield, to find landfills where more than 50% of their surface area was flooded.Any dumps that only contained household waste, those known to be safe or where controls were already in place were removed from the data, leaving only those that may contain dangerous substances, including pharmaceuticals, “forever chemicals”, heavy metals or “liquid sludge” – which could be anything from sewage to cyanide waste.A total of 105 sites were identified, which were disproportionately situated in poorer areas and in the north of England.Prof Kate Spencer, a historic landfill expert from Queen Mary University of London, who helped with the investigation, said that in hundreds of years of dumping waste humans had “never really considered the consequences”.“We now know far more about the potentially harmful effects of the waste materials and pollutants we’ve dumped, particularly chemicals like Pfas and PCBs, and how the impacts of climate change, such as flooding, could reopen pathways for those pollutants to enter the environment.”The investigation also found that 2,600 former dump sites with potentially hazardous contents were within 50 metres of watercourses.Charles Watson, the chair and founder of campaign group River Action said: “Everywhere you look, polluters can find easily accessible loopholes in the enforcement regime to break the law and degrade the environment. However, the failure to provide adequate funding to regulate something as basic as landfill sites that could be leaching highly hazardous waste is all the more shocking.“If our regulators can’t sort out how to protect us from pollutants that in theory have already been ‘safely’ disposed of, then we have little hope of ever seeing a holistic approach to combating the wider sources of water pollution.”Until 2017, councils could apply for contaminated land capital grants, which were administered by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to remediate contaminated land. Since then, there has been an “erosion of funding”, said Dr Grant Richardson, an environmental consultant and expert on landfill and contaminated land.“If there’s no obvious risk of harm or pollution emanating from these sites, nothing will be done to investigate or remediate them unless sites come to be developed. That means there are likely hundreds or potentially thousands of sites that have not been properly investigated that could be leaching contaminants at harmful levels into the environment,” he said.The lack of funding in areas such as this could have “devastating consequences”, the Local Government Association warned, pointing to a wider funding gap for councils of up to £8bn by 2028-29. A spokesperson said local authorities “desperately need a significant and sustained increase” in budgets to keep up with demands placed on them.The Green peer Natalie Bennett, whose party supports a law requiring better records of sites so they are not a public danger, said: “The lack of adequate regulations on contaminated land poses a threat to human life and welfare, especially given climate breakdown, rising sea levels, increased rainfall and flooding.“Greens urge Labour to add this law to the statute books and provide the necessary funds for local authorities to meet the requirements of such a new law.”The Environment Agency said it would “continue to support” local authorities with their responsibility for dealing with former landfills. “In circumstances where the Environment Agency leads on remediation, we work tirelessly with partners to reduce unacceptable risks to human health and the environment,” it added.

Analysis-Textile Giant Bangladesh Pushed to Recycle More Waste

By Md. Tahmid ZamiNARAYANGANJ, Bangladesh (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - Bangladesh's limited capacity to deal with the enormous waste generated by...

NARAYANGANJ, Bangladesh (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - Bangladesh's limited capacity to deal with the enormous waste generated by its textile sector may prove unsustainable as the global fashion industry faces pressure to reduce its environmental footprint.Bangladesh, the world's second-largest apparel producer, only recycles a small percentage of its textile waste, with the rest shipped abroad or left to pollute the landscape.As more countries introduce rules requiring greater recycled content in clothes, analysts and business owners say Bangladesh must expand recycling to meet demand from a global textile recycling market projected to be worth $9.4 billion by 2027.The European Union this month published its first road map towards meeting the standards under its Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation, which includes provisions for reducing the environmental harm caused by the textile industry.This will require Bangladesh and other fashion suppliers to boost recycling while improving working conditions in what is largely an informal sector, said Patrick Schröder, a senior research fellow at the British think tank Chatham House."As the call for recycling grows and fast fashion goes out of fashion in the coming years, millions of jobs will be impacted, and Bangladesh needs to think ahead to step up its capacity to keep up with the changes," he said.Bangladesh's fashion industry is estimated to produce up to 577,000 metric tons of textile waste from the factories each year.Most of it is shipped abroad, and the rest is left to clog bodies of water, pollute the soil, enter landfills or be incinerated, which produces toxic gases, according to a report by Switch to Circular Economy Value Chains, a project supported by the EU and the Finnish government.What is processed has evolved into a vast, informal business in Bangladesh. Thousands of informal workshops sort and bundle the waste, known as jhut, and what remains in Bangladesh is down-cycled to make low-value products like mattresses, pillows and cushions.When clothing scraps are swept up from factory floors, politicians and other influential people control who gets it and at what price, said Asadun Noor, project coordinator at the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation in Dhaka."This is a very opaque process, offering limited visibility of the waste value chain to clothing brands and suppliers," he said.The scraps go to hundreds of mostly unregistered workshops near the capital Dhaka, where they are cleaned and sorted into batches based on quality, colour and other considerations.Tens of thousands of workers, 70% of them women, sort the remnants for 10 to 12 hours a day, a study by the U.N.'s children agency UNICEF said last year.Workers said they toil for low wages without key safety measures, like drinking water, paid sick leave or protection from harassment.One of them is Sabura Begum, 30, who works with 250 other women at a workshop in the city of Narayanganj, near Dhaka."I earn a wage of about $80 a month and it does not make it easy to run my family," she said.A small share of the waste sorted in workshops like Begum's is sent to about two dozen recycling factories in Bangladesh.A large portion is exported to other countries such as India or Finland for recycling into new fibre where this is a larger base of recycling facilities as well as advanced technology like chemical recycling that produces strong, fresh fibres.Some of the fibres made from exported scraps are then sent back to Bangladesh to be made into clothes.More local recycling could save Bangladesh about $700 million a year in imports, the Switch to Circular Economy Value Chains report estimated.Other major textile hubs are ramping up recycling capacity. For example, India recycles or reuses about 4.7 million tons, or about 60%, of its textile waste, according to a report by Fashion for Good, a coalition of businesses and non-profits.Some Bangladeshi companies are aiming to compete and provide proper labour standards.In 2017, Entrepreneur Abdur Razzaque set up Recycle Raw, which has now become one of the largest waste-processing businesses in Bangladesh."We offer decent wages and respect basic labour standards - ensuring things like drinking water, air circulation and security for our largely female workforce - so we attract and retain them much better than others," Razzaque said.A few local recycling factories are also investing in adding more production lines, but large-scale investment in technology like chemical recycling, with support from fashion brands and development-finance organisations is needed, said Abdullah Rafi, CEO of recycler Broadway Regenerated Fiber, based in the city of Ashulia, near Dhaka.However, investors expect a regular supply of waste feed stock and that means the current opaque system of handling waste would have to go, he said."What we now need is more finance and collaboration among brands, suppliers, waste handlers and recyclers to scale up our capacity," said Rafi.(Reporting by Md. Tahmid Zami; Editing by Jack Graham and Jon Hemming. The Thomson Reuters Foundation is the charitable arm of Thomson Reuters. Visit https://www.context.news/)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.