Recycled oilfield water could aid drought-stricken West Texas

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

---

This story is published in partnership with Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, independent news organization that covers climate, energy and the environment. Sign up for the ICN newsletter here.

IMPERIAL — There is water in all the wrong places in this corner of West Texas.

The Pecos River runs dry through this small town mired in severe drought. But Lake Boehmer, a pool of toxic water flowing from underground, lies just a few miles south. To the north, a well blew out on a ranch late last year and spewed salty water sky high.

Early settlers built canals to divert water from the Pecos River here and named the town for the Imperial Valley of California. But today Imperial is surrounded by oilfields and farmland that has gone fallow. Oil and gas companies are injecting vast quantities of wastewater, also known as produced water, into the subsurface of the Permian Basin. These injection wells have been linked to surface deformation, blowouts and earthquakes.

Eric Selinger’s family used to farm shrimp on their property along the Pecos River outside Imperial. But the aquaculture ponds have long laid empty. He sees a potential solution in produced water and is seeking business partners to treat it for irrigation on his land. Selinger hopes that repurposing produced water can reduce the volume injected underground, and in turn, the risk of blowouts and earthquakes.

“I’ve got the vision and I’ve got the piece of land,” he said on a warm October afternoon.

Selinger isn’t the only one betting that produced water can be used outside the oilfield. The Railroad Commission of Texas, which regulates oil and gas waste, has two pilot projects to test the concept. The Texas Produced Water Consortium, based at Texas Tech University, is running its own set of treatment pilots. The Texas Legislature is expected to review the issue next year.

“I believe produced water in the next five years will be a viable supply alternative in some areas that need it,” said state Sen. Charles Perry of Lubbock during a hearing of the Committee on Water, Agriculture and Rural Affairs on Sept. 3. “If … for nothing else [in] the agricultural community.”

But scientific study of using treated produced water is still in the early stages. Produced water can contain hundreds of constituents that are costly to test for and treat. Many of the constituents do not have toxicity standards approved by federal or state regulators. The cost of treating produced water remains prohibitive. Those challenges will have to be addressed to responsibly use produced water outside the oilfields.

“I just need everybody to be able to assure the public that we know what it is that we’re filtering out and we know what it is that we’re releasing,” said state Sen. Nathan Johnson during the committee hearing. “Given the volume of activity in Texas, any little mistake is going to be a thousand times what it would be somewhere else.”

Meeting a thirst for water

Texas is currently the top oil-producing state in the country. Copious produced water comes to the surface during the drilling process. In the Delaware Basin of the Permian Basin, nearly five barrels of water are produced for every one barrel of oil. This wastewater can contain both fluids injected below the surface for fracking and water that was dislodged from underground formations. Produced water in the Permian Basin is so saline it can leave the land barren for years when spilled. The wastewater can also contain radium 226 and 228 and volatile organic compounds including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene.

Texas does not require companies to report their volumes of produced water. But recent analysis found that unconventional, or fracked, wells in the Permian Basin produce 12 million barrels of water a day. That is equivalent to 504 million gallons, or enough water to fill more than 700 Olympic swimming pools. The total could increase to 15 million barrels per day by 2042.

Currently, produced water is either disposed of in injection wells or reused within the oil and gas industry to frack other wells. But injection has been linked to earthquakes in the Permian Basin, leading the Railroad Commission to limit deep injection wells. With disposal capacity strained, the industry is eager to find alternatives.

“The fact of the matter is that industry needs more disposal options,” Railroad Commissioner Christi Craddick testified during the recent Senate committee hearing.

The Texas Legislature created the Texas Produced Water Consortium in 2021 to address these issues. In 2023 the Legislature appropriated $5 million to the consortium and charged it with establishing pilot projects on water treatment technologies and water quality. The consortium completed its second report to the Legislature this fall.

Texas is facing a drier future with a growing population that will need more water. The Texas Water Development Board projects that, if water supplies are not expanded, the state could face severe water shortages during an extreme drought. In response, the Legislature created a new $1 billion fund in 2023 to develop water resources. Produced water is one of the water sources being considered for the fund.

Environmental groups including the Sierra Club Lone Star Chapter have concerns about using produced water outside the oilfields. And research shows there are still unknowns that further complicate efforts to treat produced water. A 2020 journal article found that of 1,198 chemicals identified in produced water, there were toxicity values for only 167. In other words, there is no toxicity data to complete a risk assessment for 86% of the chemicals in produced water.

In written comments to the Texas Senate, Sierra Club legislative and conservation director Cyrus Reed expressed concern about discharging treated produced water because “many of the constituents found in produced water are not well understood and water quality standards for many of these constituents have not been established.”

Reed said that progress is being made but there are still “regulatory gaps” in the standards to treat and use produced water. He said that “the devil’s in the details” when it comes to permitted treated produced water for use in agriculture.

“Given that we’re still going through these pilot projects at the consortium and at the Railroad Commission, taking our time is a good thing,” Reed said.

Pilot projects treat produced water

At a laboratory outside Midland, Texas Pacific Water Resources (TPWR) tests water treatment technology and studies treated produced water’s effects on plants.

The Railroad Commission opened applications for pilot projects earlier this year to study larger-scale use of produced water in agriculture. TPWR runs one of two active Railroad Commission pilot projects.

TPWR research and development manager Adrianne Lopez shows visitors the six-step treatment process that includes reverse osmosis and a patented desalination method. The raw produced water that TPWR receives is on average 130,000 parts per million total dissolved solids. That’s several times saltier than sea water. The intensive treatment process brings down the total dissolved solids to the hundreds.

“The biggest challenge is produced water is so variable,” Lopez said at the lab in October.

Produced water varies based on the underground formation it comes from and the fluids injected underground. For that reason Lopez seeks out the “rawest” source water, to see if the treatment process works for different inputs.

TPWR has also applied to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality for a permit to discharge treated produced water into a tributary of the Pecos River. The application is still under review.

TPWR has worked with scientists at New Mexico State University to test the treated produced water for over 400 different contaminants. This testing goes beyond what the TCEQ currently regulates. The team has also used Whole Effluent Toxicity testing and non-target analysis to identify unknown constituents.

“We did this because we wanted to have a lot of data to share with the regulatory agencies to prove that this is a safe process, that we’re capable of treating (the water) down to a standard that is not harmful,” Lopez said.

For the pilot project, TPWR used treated produced water to grow alfalfa and native plants in a greenhouse and outdoors. Both the outdoor alfalfa and the greenhouse plants will be tested at NMSU for any bioaccumulation of constituents. Lopez explains that even if a contaminant is not detectable in laboratory tests it could accumulate inside a plant or animal.

Lopez plans to publish the findings in peer-reviewed papers with NMSU and Texas Tech researchers. The results will also be submitted to the Railroad Commission. TPWR has made a point to share their experience widely and solicit feedback.

“Typically, oil and gas is not very open about things like this,” Lopez said. “However, we know that this project is going to affect people within the industry and people outside of the industry.”

The only other active Railroad Commission pilot project is with Deep Blue Operating. The company did not reply to a request for comment. According to records obtained from the Railroad Commission, Deep Blue is authorized to use treated produced water to irrigate four 5,000 square foot plots in Midland County. Cotton, bermuda grass, alfalfa and winter wheat will be grown on the plots using a sprinkler irrigation system. A maximum volume of 27,300 gallons of treated produced water may be applied each day across the four plots.

The Railroad Commission is expecting data from the pilot projects in 2025, according to spokesperson Patty Ramon.

“The results will be part of our ongoing work to analyze drafting forward-thinking safety regulations that operators could follow,” Ramon said.

Ramon said members of the public can submit public information requests to obtain the results of the pilot studies.

Treated produced water won’t be cheap 

Texas Tech environmental engineering professor Shane Walker was recently named director of the Texas Produced Water Consortium. The group brings together academia, industry and nonprofits to analyze the feasibility of treating produced water to clean and safe standards.

“From an engineering perspective, it’s definitely possible,” Walker said. “The question is, what are the economic costs associated with that treatment?”

Irrigation currently uses the most water in the Permian Basin, accounting for about three-quarters of consumption. The cost to pump groundwater for irrigation is only cents per barrel. That would put treated produced water, which must go through an energy-intensive desalination process, at a cost disadvantage. Another obstacle is that the West Texas counties expected to have irrigation water shortages largely do not overlap with oil-producing counties that have excess produced water.

For now farmers are unlikely to buy treated produced water when they have much cheaper groundwater available. But Walker notes that if underground disposal capacity is maxed out, new configurations could emerge.

“Theoretically, the industry could have an arrangement to donate the water, or give the water for agricultural use,” he said.

Desalination requires significant energy use, a main driver of the cost of treating produced water. The consortium report notes that produced water management is already a $4 billion business in the Permian Basin.

The consortium has five pilot projects with oil and gas companies in the Permian Basin. These companies send samples of raw and treated produced water to a certified laboratory for constituent analysis and whole effluent toxicity testing. The consortium is processing and analyzing the testing data for a future white paper.

Walker said the results so far show the companies are producing “excellent water quality.”

The pilot data is anonymized to protect the intellectual property of companies developing treatment technologies. Walker said participating companies have been protective of their proprietary processes, but are gradually sharing more information.

“The scaling of these technologies, up to the scale of the problem of produced water, is probably still years out,” he said.

The recent report mentions several other sectors that could use treated produced water. The authors suggest exploring alternative crops including guayule, a source of latex rubber, that could be irrigated with treated produced water. Texas Tech will conduct produced water studies on guayule latex at its greenhouse and garden complex. The authors also point to rangeland restoration as a possible use for the water.

Industrial uses for the water are being considered, including at carbon capture plants. The report notes interest in recovering critical minerals from produced water.

The consortium is also researching these constituents in produced water. Walker said that the consortium purchased instruments to conduct high-resolution liquid and gas chromatography mass spectrometry. He compared these instruments to a telescope that can look into the “dark spots in the universe.”

Walker said between mass spectrometry and WET testing they can gain a more complete understanding of what’s in produced water.

“We’re talking about significant potential volumes of water,” he said. “We’re talking about the opportunity to help in a substantial way, especially for West Texas.”

“The industry is finally ready”

Eric Selinger first envisioned using treated produced water on his land in 2014. But regulators didn’t yet have a framework to permit projects. A decade later, the problems with injection wells have mounted and companies are racing to find alternatives.

“Now I see the industry is finally ready to do something like this,” Selinger said.

His family bought the 120-acre property in Imperial, which had already operated as a shrimp farm, in the early 1990s. The saline groundwater in Pecos County has attracted aquaculture to the area. But after losing a harvest, Selinger decided that shrimp farming wasn’t for him. He would like to grow vegetables and make fresh food available in the area.

Irrigation canals line the land. But there hasn’t been enough water in the Pecos River for irrigation in years. Selinger sees treated produced water as the logical next step.

His proposal — which he calls the Imperial Oasis Project — envisions using the property and the existing ponds, canals and greenhouse as a laboratory for produced water beneficial use. He proposes recycling produced water on-site and using it for agriculture or re-sale. Selinger thinks eventually the water could be treated for discharge into the Pecos River, but for now agricultural use is a more feasible first step.

Selinger worries that the next well blowout could be on his property. At his home in Midland he has felt the earthquakes rocking the Permian. Selinger wants to be part of the solution for produced water.

“This is the largest bottleneck I’ve ever seen for the industry personally,” Selinger said. “You can’t continue to sweep it under the rug.”

Texas regulators and oil and gas companies agree that produced water can’t be injected underground forever. Now the race is on to find somewhere else to use it safely and affordably, if that is possible.

Disclosure: Texas Tech University has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.