On the surface, solving the produced water problem seems straightforward and simple. But the layers run deep, and it turns into a much more complex problem than you can imagine or than it needs to be. Recent legislation in Texas seems to be turning the corner. In simple terms, produced water is generated at a rate of four-to-six times the amount of oil. That produced water, mostly formation water, is injected back into the ground from where it came, and some of it is recycled as a completion fluid.
About 30% of the total volume of produced water is recycled. If we could possibly use nothing but recycled water for well completions, we would only get to around 50% of the total volume. Getting to 50% or 100% recycling of completion fluid isn’t practical with landowner restrictions, take-or-pay water supply contracts, and just the logistics of supplying produced water in volumes over ten times the rate it is produced.
Seismicity rears its ugly head. So, this seems simple enough, but then we encountered the specter of “induced seismicity”—earthquakes caused by injecting produced water in disposal wells, first in Ohio and then Oklahoma, and now Texas and New Mexico. And although Ohio and Oklahoma successfully managed this issue, Texas and New Mexico are still grappling with it. Essentially, Texas and New Mexico are using a similar strategy to reduce injection volumes in seismically active areas. However, the difference is that Texas and New Mexico are seeing well drilling and completions at a scale never seen in Oklahoma. Even though we see the rate of earthquakes reducing, according to Berger Geosciences, June is producing an uptick in activity.
What about recycling? Now, add blowouts to this problem. As we inject into disposal formations and the pressures increase, we are seeing old, improperly closed wells turning into produced water geysers. This all leads to a logical conclusion: we need an alternative to disposal wells—not that we will ever eliminate them—but we need alternatives to reduce the volume of produced water going into disposal. Many have focused on recycling as a solution, and even though it does help reduce some volumes, it is an inconsistent and unreliable option. Well completions are typically driven by oil price, and we have seen dramatic drops in well completions over the years, leaving no outlet for the recycled water. Recycling plays a role, but it’s not the permanent solution that we need.
Beneficial reuse to the rescue? Can we treat produced water to the point that it can be reused for agricultural or other industrial purposes? The simple answer is “yes.” In 2023, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham went to the UN Climate Change Conference in Dubai to announce her Strategic Water Supply Plan that included $500 million for produced water reuse. It appeared we were on our way, thanks to the good work being done by the New Mexico Produced Water Research Consortium (NMPWRC) and then Director Mike Hightower. But the anti-oil lobby in New Mexico is strong. The pushback, when Gov. Grisham arrived back home, was significant. Since then, this proposal has been reduced to $250 million in 2024 and then $75 million in 2025, with still no progress on this issue.
Texas to the rescue. Texas formed its own produced water research consortium and picked up the mantle that the NMPWRC so diligently carried. Now, we see a flurry of new legislation being passed that appears to pave the way to beneficial reuse in Texas. We have a signed bill by Governor Abbott (SB 1145) which takes effect on Sept. 1, 2025, with Standards for Produced Water Land Use. We also have SB 2122, with new fee structures and definitions for produced water. And, we will soon have liability protection for beneficial reuse of produced water in HB49. We can expect there will be opposition, but this is the progress we didn’t see in New Mexico on the legislative front. The NMPWRC did all the heavy lifting on the science and technology front, but obviously there is a friendlier political structure in Texas.
Did we win? We have new disposal well permitting guidelines that took effect June 1, limiting injection pressure and injection volumes, based on reservoir pressures. We did not get resolution on SB1763, which would have brought clarity to who owns minerals in produced water. Then, there is the famous Texas Supreme Court case, Cactus Water Service vs COG Operating, which will clarify produced water ownership.
Increased regulation will drive up disposal costs, creating a greater incentive for beneficial reuse, but ownership issues may create hesitance in investments into beneficial reuse. With beneficial reuse, we also have brine disposal, which will likely go back to disposal wells but at a significantly reduced volume. This concentrated brine will also be rich in minerals for extraction, which can offset some of the treatment to get to beneficial reuse. But again, we need to resolve the ownership issue of these minerals before we see active investment.
Where do we go from here? June has been an exciting month, with many changes adding new layers to the produced water world. Expect opposition from the anti-oil lobby, meaning the beneficial reuse fight in Texas isn’t over. There is opposition, but there has also been great progress. The opposition will continue to say that there is too much risk and overstate the toxicity of produced water. The reality is municipal water has significantly more toxins, and yet we found a way to allow it to get discharged into the ocean and our food chain and used to replenish groundwater used for our drinking water.
It is so much easier to make the case for produced water for reuse and far less risk than exists in municipal water. Hopefully, facts and science can lead the way. We also have to consider a bridge technology; how do we reduce the reliance on disposal wells, especially in seismically challenged areas, until a beneficial reuse option materializes? The most readily available option is going to be evaporation. It can be deployed and relocated easily where the capacity is needed. The challenge is managing the salt drift, and there are many strategies for that as well. Evaporation should be an arrow in the produced water management quiver.
Until next column, keep up the good fight. WO