There have been some recent and concerning updates coming out of New Mexico that need to be addressed, but first, let me give you some background. As I have covered many times, there is always a tremendous amount of controversy surrounding produced water, while simultaneously a tremendous opportunity surrounding produced water.
The controversy usually includes induced seismicity at the top of the list of controversies. Because of the tremendous volume of produced water primarily being disposed of in injection wells, this injection is leading to an increase in earthquake activity. The most common solution is reducing these water volumes in the impacted areas. The question is this: With most of the produced water going to disposal/injection wells, where do you redirect this volume?
Recycling produced water. The most common outlet is the recycling or reuse of produced water as a completion fluid. Although a simple option already being utilized, it cannot offset the tremendous volumes of produced water being generated. Additionally, logistics limit how much water can be accumulated in the right location and quantities to supply completion activity. To add another level of complexity, you can have water supply contracts from landowners and other suppliers requiring the use of brackish or fresh water and eliminating or limiting the possibility of produced water reuse.
A best-case scenario is possibly 30% to 50% of the total volume of produced water can be recycled, leaving a significant volume still needing disposal. You also must consider, however, that over time, completion activity will be reduced, or when oil prices decline, completion activity will reduce, and the opportunity for recycling is also reduced. So, we definitely need a more reliable outlet for produced water.
Two options. The two technologies most available as options are evaporation and desalination/distillation. Evaporation can be the least expensive, if we consider surface and spray evaporation, but then we have the concerns with salt drift and contamination, as produced water is very high in salinity. You can, however, model this drift and control it, something Hydrozonix has developed.
Thermal Evaporation has become another option, but it is far more expensive. That moves us toward desalination. When we talk about desalination, reverse osmosis is probably the most popular technology, but that has limited applications in produced water because of the high salinity. This has resulted in thermal based or distillation technologies being the most successful. The advantage with desalination is you produce a product in fresh or close-to-freshwater that can be monetized. This moves us toward beneficial reuse. In a nutshell, beneficial reuse is taking a waste and turning it into a valuable commodity.
Opportunities for reusing produced water. Texas and New Mexico have areas of drought, where water is becoming a more valuable commodity. Coincidentally, you have produced water being generated in significant volumes in these areas. This makes the opportunity for beneficial reuse of produced water become a reality and also a need. Last year, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham presented at COP28 in Dubai on Dec. 5, 2023, a plan to spend $500 million to divert produced water to other industrial processes and reduce the pressure on the State’s dwindling water supply, this would simultaneously reduce the risk of earthquakes. Sounds like a winner. This was supported by years of work by the New Mexico Produced Water Research Consortium (NMPWRC), led by Mike Hightower.
But when she returned to New Mexico, everything changed. Although Lujon is a popular Democratic governor in a primarily Democratic state, the COP28 plan was scuttled. New Mexico was simultaneously working on a prohibition on discharge and decided that they would extend this prohibition, even to treated produced water, essentially shutting the door on beneficial reuse.
New Mexico hearing. A hearing was held in May on the original proposal, but the change to include treated produced water was a last-minute change made after the public comment period had ended. Thanks to people paying attention, like Mike Hightower, who submitted a Notice of Intent to address the proposed legislation, the hearing thankfully was extended, and there will be an additional hearing in July to discuss the conflicts in the proposed rule with New Mexico’s Produced Water Act, The EPA’s Water Reuse Plan and New Mexico’s own Strategic Water Supply plan that projects a significant water shortage.
If needed, this hearing also has options for another meeting in August. Additionally, Texas, Wyoming and Colorado have made great progress towards discharges of treated produced water. This makes the New Mexico action even more concerning and in conflict with surrounding state trends. New Mexico’s Environmental Department (NMED) seems to be allowing certain specific industrial processes for treated produced water reuse, but this would severely limit opportunities to impact New Mexico’s water shortage and limit beneficial reuse. As I mentioned, other states have overcome this hurdle, but New Mexico seems unconvinced that general discharges can be done safely. Although this is a continued discussion, we need to pay very close attention to the issue, which is getting even more complicated.
Just recently, a complaint was filed against one of the New Mexico Water Quality Commissioners, citing a conflict of interest and requesting her recusal. The complaint alleges Krista McWilliams, an oil and gas executive with LOGOS Resources, should recuse herself, even though her background was always disclosed prior to joining the commission. This topic will likely become even more heated, as we get closer to resolution and as the opposition groups increase their attacks.
Texas has its own plan. The good news is that Texas has formed a Produced Water Consortium that is in its early stages and will likely piggyback all of the research and success of the NMPWRC. So, if New Mexico continues down this path of restriction, Texas can pick up the slack and benefit from all of the prior work that has already been performed. The primary opposition is that the discharge of produced water is unsafe, and we need to know about what’s in the produced water.
Problems with contaminants. This may seem reasonable, but when you compare this to municipal and industrial discharges, we continuously discover new contaminants, and we continue these discharges while we study them. We have long been aware of pharmaceuticals being found in our municipal discharges, yet we continue and have yet to develop standards or even test methods for all of these contaminants. Traditionally, we use general toxicity tests to prove these discharges are safe while we continue to discharge and study.
A good example of this is PFAS (polyfluoroalkyl substances), which we knew about years ago. We know it’s widespread and persistent and has entered our food chain. Yet, we have continued these discharges and are barely getting around to developing a standard. But when it comes to produced water, we say no discharge until you develop tests for everything, which could require years to develop,
In produced water, we know that it consists of mostly naturally occurring minerals, unlike municipal discharges that can include anything and everything from pesticides, legal and illegal drugs, and various other chemical by-products. The risk is heavily in favor of municipal discharges and, as a result, they utilize general toxicity tests, because they cannot keep up with the multitude of potential contaminants. So, personally, I don’t understand the opposition, and considering that the majority of options for produced water beneficial reuse include a reverse osmosis polishing, treated produced water will be cleaner than most water being discharged every day.
I continue to believe beneficial reuse will become a reality. As concerning as the news in New Mexico is, there continues to be opportunities in other states, and progress will continue to happen. As I always say, with challenges come opportunities. WO
MPATTON@HYDROZONIX.COM / MARK PATTON is president of Hydrozonix, an oil and gas-focused water management company. He is a chemical engineer with more than 25 years of experience developing new technologies for wastewaters and process residuals.