Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Texas Warns Wastewater Injection Threatens Key Permian Oil Reserves
oilprice.com ^ | 08/11/2025 | Charles Kennedy

Posted on 08/12/2025 8:43:08 AM PDT by DFG

The Texas General Land Office (GLO) has formally objected to a plan by Pilot Water Solutions LLC to drill three new saltwater disposal wells in the Permian Basin, warning the project could contaminate state-owned crude reserves in North America’s top oil field, according to the Dallas Morning News.

Founded in 1836, the GLO manages 13 million acres of state land and generates billions of dollars for Texas public schools through oil and gas leasing. It argues the proposed disposal sites in Loving County near the New Mexico border pose “significant risk” to mineral interests under its control.

Bloomberg reports that ConocoPhillips, one of the Permian’s largest producers, has joined the opposition, noting that in the area near the proposed wells it is producing less than 40% of expected oil volumes while generating nearly twice the forecast water output.

For every barrel of oil pumped in the Permian, as many as five barrels of wastewater are produced, presenting a growing operational and environmental challenge. Reuters notes that disposal capacity is under mounting strain, with costs climbing and injection-related earthquakes drawing regulatory scrutiny.

The Railroad Commission of Texas will hold a hearing later this month to assess the Pilot Water Solutions proposal. State officials are weighing contamination risks alongside concerns about induced seismicity linked to high-volume wastewater injection.

Environmental groups and local ranchers have long warned about the hazards of underground wastewater disposal, but record Permian output has made the problem more acute. The GLO’s opposition is the first real indication we are seeing that water management is no longer just a peripheral environmental issue, but is now a direct threat to oil production economics in the nation’s most prolific basin.

(Excerpt) Read more at oilprice.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy
KEYWORDS: energy; injection; oil; water

1 posted on 08/12/2025 8:43:08 AM PDT by DFG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DFG

some entrepreneur will figure out how to clean the water to make it useful for agriculture or allow it to be pumped into streams, etc...


2 posted on 08/12/2025 9:00:41 AM PDT by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PGR88

agree. There is already a big desalination plant in El Paso —which is not far from where they want to inject the water.

For that matter El Paso could probably use the extra water.

As it is the oil companies are buying rights to fresh water in New Mexico so it can be piped eastward to Texas.


3 posted on 08/12/2025 9:04:14 AM PDT by ckilmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PGR88

The best solution is typically to put it back from whence it came. This can “water out” wells, which is the concern here.

Putting it back two shallow increases weight on the rock, which is why the micro earthquakes happen. They do, indeed, occur, with some frequency here. No real tectonic earthquakes like California, but disturbing until you know what it is. Had one recently that confused me as it sounded like a deer had run full bore into the side of my house.

As for cleaning up, the primary issue is salt. But there is also NORM and a host of nasty organics (benzene, for example). It can, and is, done. But so far, it’s not economical. Probably some sort of large scale passive evaporation and vapor recovery method that uses the Sun will be the solution.


4 posted on 08/12/2025 9:06:25 AM PDT by MeanWestTexan (Sometimes There Is No Lesser Of Two Evils)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DFG

One player who might be affected is Texas Pacific Land trust corporation. Here’s a corporate video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9CHhOgZ5cg

The stock symbol is TPL.


5 posted on 08/12/2025 9:35:09 AM PDT by ChessExpert (Infidels of the world unite against the evil that is Islam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DFG

If there is oil money....and generates billions of dollars for Texas public schools through oil and gas leasing////

Why are Texans paying property tax for the schools?


6 posted on 08/12/2025 9:41:28 AM PDT by ptsal (Vote R.E.D. >>>Remove Every Democrat ***h)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

You cannot track with dirty water


7 posted on 08/12/2025 10:02:18 AM PDT by South Dakota (Vance / Trump...2028 )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: South Dakota

You cannot track with dirty water
/////
I’m not sure what you mean. Can you restate that please?


8 posted on 08/12/2025 10:04:58 AM PDT by ckilmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: South Dakota

I asked grok.ai if there were any examples of frack water being cleaned up to potable or near potable standards. The answer was yes but its expensive. Here’s the detailed answer.

/////////

Examples of Frack Water Treatment for Potable or Near-Potable Uses
While most produced water is reused for fracking or disposed of via deep-well injection (93% in the U.S.), some projects have explored treatment for potable or near-potable standards, particularly in water-scarce regions. Below are notable examples:

Pinedale Anticline, Wyoming:

Description: In the Pinedale Anticline field, Anticline Disposal has been recycling produced and flowback water since 2006. While primarily for reuse in fracking, a second phase of treatment was designed to process surplus water to supplement freshwater supplies for drilling, cementing, and other field needs. This process achieves near-potable quality for some applications.
Process: The facility uses anaerobic and aerobic biologic treatment, clarification, filtration, membrane bioreactors, reverse osmosis, and ion exchange to remove salts (from >8,000 mg/L to <100 mg/L), boron (from 15–30 mg/L to <0.75 mg/L, meeting drinking water standards), and organic compounds to below detection limits. Over 1 million barrels of surplus water were discharged to a local river, meeting strict discharge standards.
Outcome: While not explicitly used for drinking, the water meets quality standards suitable for environmental discharge and could theoretically be used for potable purposes with additional treatment. The project saved over 186,000 truck trips by piping treated water, reducing environmental impact.
Critical Note: The focus was on environmental discharge and field reuse, not direct potable use. Scaling this to municipal drinking water would require further regulatory approval and public acceptance.

Permian Basin, Texas:

Description: The Texas Produced Water Consortium, established in 2021, explores recycling produced water for non-fracking uses, including potential potable applications. Pilot projects in the Permian Basin, a water-scarce region, aim to treat produced water to reduce reliance on depleted aquifers.
Process: Technologies like reverse osmosis and distillation are tested, but costs ($2.55/barrel) remain a barrier. Some projects mix produced water with other wastewater (e.g., from power plants) to precipitate contaminants like barium sulfate, reducing treatment costs.
Outcome: While potable use is a goal, most treated water is used for agriculture or industrial purposes due to cost and regulatory constraints. For example, in Wyoming, less salty produced water is used for irrigation and livestock, but only after meeting strict quality standards. No specific Permian project has yet delivered potable water to municipal systems, but research continues.
Critical Note: Economic viability is a major hurdle. The consortium notes that treatment costs must drop to $1/barrel to compete with disposal. Public perception and regulatory gaps around NORMs and proprietary chemicals also limit potable use.

MIT and Saudi Arabia Research (Electrodialysis):

Description: A 2014 study by MIT and King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals explored electrodialysis to treat high-salinity produced water (3–6 times saltier than seawater) for reuse, with potential for potable quality.
Process: Electrodialysis, a membrane-based technology, was found economically viable for reducing salinity to levels suitable for fracking reuse. With additional filtration to remove oil, grease, and chemicals, it could theoretically achieve potable standards. The system’s flexibility allows control over output salinity.
Outcome: The study focused on fracking reuse, not direct potable use, but demonstrated that electrodialysis could produce water clean enough for further treatment to drinking standards. Lab-based tests were needed to assess membrane durability against oil and gas residues.
Critical Note: This remains a research effort, not a commercial application. Scaling electrodialysis for potable use would require significant investment and testing for long-term reliability.

West Virginia University (Marcellus Shale):

Description: The Marcellus Shale Energy and Environment Laboratory (MSEEL) at West Virginia University has studied produced water treatment, focusing on characterizing its composition and reducing environmental impacts. While most treated water is reused for fracking (30% in some operations), researchers are exploring broader applications.
Process: Membrane treatment (e.g., reverse osmosis) and distillation are used to remove salts and NORMs. The study found TDS levels of 100–150 g/L and radium levels up to 20,000 pCi/L, requiring intensive treatment for potable use. Mixing produced water with power plant wastewater reduces treatment costs by precipitating contaminants.
Outcome: Treated water is primarily reused in fracking, but the research suggests potential for non-potable uses like irrigation, with potable use as a long-term goal. No direct potable applications have been implemented.
Critical Note: High radium levels and variable water chemistry make potable treatment challenging. The focus remains on cost reduction and non-potable reuse.

Critical Analysis

Feasibility: Technologies like reverse osmosis, ion exchange, and electrodialysis can achieve potable standards, as demonstrated in Pinedale, where water met river discharge criteria (<100 mg/L TDS, <0.75 mg/L boron). However, no project explicitly delivers frack water to municipal drinking systems due to:

Cost: Treating to potable standards is 2–3 times more expensive than disposal, and municipalities can often access cheaper groundwater or surface water.
Public Perception: Concerns about residual chemicals and NORMs deter public acceptance, even if treated water meets EPA standards.
Regulatory Gaps: The EPA prohibits most surface discharges of produced water, and drinking water standards are stringent. States like Pennsylvania have banned treatment at municipal wastewater plants due to inadequate processing.

Scalability: The sheer volume of produced water (15 million barrels/day in the Permian alone) makes large-scale potable treatment impractical without significant subsidies or technological breakthroughs.
Environmental Trade-offs: Treatment generates concentrated brine or sludge, which requires safe disposal to avoid environmental harm. Deep-well injection, while cheaper, is linked to seismic activity, creating a trade-off.

Conclusion
While no large-scale, operational examples exist of frack water being treated for direct potable use in municipal systems, projects like Pinedale Anticline and research in the Permian Basin and Marcellus Shale show it’s technically possible to reach near-potable or potable standards. The Pinedale project comes closest, producing water clean enough for river discharge, which could theoretically be further treated for drinking. However, economic, regulatory, and social barriers mean most efforts focus on non-potable reuse (e.g., fracking, irrigation). Advances in cost-effective technologies (e.g., electrodialysis) and regulatory frameworks could make potable use more viable in water-scarce regions like Texas, but widespread adoption is unlikely without significant incentives.


9 posted on 08/12/2025 10:12:19 AM PDT by ckilmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DFG

I once worked at a gasoline refinery. They had some injection wells just off site and were injecting the most toxic, vile stuff you could imagine. They tried to tell me it was safe.


10 posted on 08/12/2025 10:13:25 AM PDT by odawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DFG

This is from Wikipedia, so maybe a grain of salt. We’ve got them here in KS. Had a 3.2 magnitude temblor about 20 miles from where I live a couple of years ago. An oil company wanted to lease some pasture land I have for an injection well, I said no thanks.

Injection-induced earthquakes

Cumulative number of earthquakes in the central U.S. The red cluster at the center of the map shows an area near Oklahoma which experienced the largest increase in activity since 2009.
See also: Induced seismicity § Waste disposal wells
A July 2013 study by US Geological Survey scientist William Ellsworth links earthquakes to wastewater injection sites. In the four years from 2010-2013 the number of earthquakes of magnitude 3.0 or greater in the central and eastern United States increased dramatically. After decades of a steady earthquake rate (average of 21 events/year), activity increased starting in 2001 and peaked at 188 earthquakes in 2011, including a record-breaking 5.7-magnitude earthquake near Prague, Oklahoma which was the strongest earthquake ever recorded in Oklahoma. USGS scientists have found that at some locations the increase in seismicity coincides with the injection of wastewater in deep disposal wells. Injection-induced earthquakes are thought to be caused by pressure changes due to excess fluid injected deep below the surface and are being dubbed “man-made” earthquakes.[24] On September 3, 2016, a 5.8-magnitude earthquake occurred near Pawnee, Oklahoma, followed by nine aftershocks between magnitudes 2.6 and 3.6 within three and one-half hours. The earthquake broke the previous record set five years earlier. Tremors were felt as far away as Memphis, Tennessee, and Gilbert, Arizona. Mary Fallin, the Oklahoma governor, declared a local emergency and shutdown orders for local disposal wells were ordered by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission.[25][26] Results of ongoing multi-year research on induced earthquakes by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) published in 2015 suggested that most of the significant earthquakes in Oklahoma, such as the 1952 magnitude 5.5 El Reno earthquake may have been induced by deep injection of waste water by the oil industry.[27]


11 posted on 08/12/2025 10:35:48 AM PDT by kawhill ("The second one it was like we was both back in the older times and I was a horseback")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DFG

Wolfcamp formation


12 posted on 08/12/2025 11:37:02 AM PDT by CPT Clay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PGR88

You can hardly imagine just how nasty it is. Much of it is saturated or over saturated brine.


13 posted on 08/12/2025 1:14:28 PM PDT by Sequoyah101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sequoyah101

Deep water injections of Florida Keys sewage are pumped between impermeable layers of clay.

Mini-earthquakes would be expected and shouldn’t be of concern.


14 posted on 08/12/2025 9:57:30 PM PDT by Does so ("Things will now change in Minneapolis ANDhe AT HOME"....Dem☭¢rat... ∅ one ™ ¿ ¡ ☞ ½¼)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Does so

“Mini-earthquakes would be expected and shouldn’t be of concern.”

Tell that to the people of some towns in Oklahoma with cracked houses A magnitude 3 to 5 is not minor or mini for people where there are no earthquakes.

Pump away.


15 posted on 08/12/2025 10:06:58 PM PDT by Sequoyah101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Sequoyah101

I’m reminded of “cracked houses” in Broward County, Florida, where a major developer used earthen fill including old automobile tires.

Nearby dynamite blasting uncovered the deceit!


16 posted on 08/14/2025 2:19:40 AM PDT by Does so ("Things will now change in Minneapolis AND AT HOME"....Dem☭¢rat... ∅ one ™ ¿ ¡ ☞ ½¼)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: PGR88

“some entrepreneur will figure out how to clean the water to make it useful for agriculture or allow it to be pumped into streams, etc...”

MIT already did, problem is the flowback and produced water is loaded with not only salts but NORMs (uranium,thorium) and carcinogenic aromatic hydrocarbons. There will always either be more concentrated brine or semisolid sludge that contains the molecules that are not pure H2O you can in theory use plasma to break aromatics into pure carbon and hydrogen but the salts and the radioactivity remains. It must be disposed of somehow. High grade toxic waste landfill space is EXPENSIVE. There is a reason the water is injected into deep formations it is the most economical way to dispose of toxic waste which is exactly what produced water is a toxic stew of nasty things none of which can be allowed into the biosphere.

As of note my third master’s degree is in hydro geology and it was done on induced seismic in the Permian basin we injected water 1/4 mile from existing faults and could trigger seismic activity on command the UIC used that data to push back the minimum set back distance first to 1/2 mile then 1 then 2 miles from existing faults. I drill SWD on the regular all the way down to the Lower Ordovician Ellenburger formation just above the pre C basement Granite. Those are 4 string wells and Gucci expensive vs a shallow Santa Rosa well. The Santa Rosa is pressuring out and leaking into the surrounding oil bearing strata as this group is trying to prevent.


17 posted on 08/14/2025 2:06:05 PM PDT by GenXPolymath
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GenXPolymath

Thanks - very interesting.

Is it the practice then in the Permian that the waste water is pumped into the same fracked wells after production, or do they have to drill new, waste-water wells around the oil/gas wells?


18 posted on 08/14/2025 4:31:45 PM PDT by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson