Analysis of Regulatory Framework for Produced Water Management and Reuse in Major Oil- and Gas-Producing Regions in the United States
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. PW Management in the East or on of the 98th Meridian
3.1.1. Appalachian Basin
PW Production, Disposal, and Management in Appalachian Basin
PW Reuse Standards and Case Studies in Appalachian Basin
Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material Management and Waste Disposal in Appalachian Basin
Summary
3.1.2. Oklahoma
PW Production, Disposal, and Management in Oklahoma
PW Reuse in Oklahoma
PW Regulations in Oklahoma
Summary
3.1.3. Texas
PW Production, Disposal, and Management in Texas
Regulations on PW Discharge and Reuse in Texas
PW Reuse in Texas
Summary
3.2. PW Management in the West of the 98th Meridian
3.2.1. California
PW Production, Disposal, and Management in California
PW Reuse for Agricultural Irrigation in California
Risk Assessment of PW Reuse in California
Summary
3.2.2. Colorado
PW Production and Disposal in Colorado
PW Regulations in Colorado
PW Management in Colorado
Summary
3.2.3. Wyoming
CBM PW Production in Wyoming
CBM PW Regulations in Wyoming
CBM PW Management and Reuse in Wyoming
Summary
3.2.4. New Mexico
PW Production, Disposal, and Management in New Mexico
Produced Water Regulation in New Mexico
Implementation of Produced Water Act in New Mexico
Summary
4. Conclusions and Perspectives
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Nicot, J.-P.; Scanlon, B.R. Water use for shale-gas production in Texas, US. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 3580–3586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Khan, N.A.; Engle, M.; Dungan, B.; Holguin, F.O.; Xu, P.; Carroll, K.C. Volatile-organic molecular characterization of shale-oil produced water from the Permian Basin. Chemosphere 2016, 148, 126–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jiang, W.; Lin, L.; Xu, X.; Cheng, X.; Zhang, Y.; Hall, R.; Xu, P. A Critical Review of Analytical Methods for Comprehensive Characterization of Produced Water. Water 2021, 13, 183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, L.; Jiang, W.; Xu, X.; Wang, H.; Carroll, K.C.; Xu, P.; Zhang, Y. Toxicological characterization of produced water from the Permian Basin. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 815, 152943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, W.; Xu, X.; Hall, R.; Zhang, Y.; Carroll, K.C.; Ramos, F.; Engle, M.A.; Lin, L.; Wang, H.; Sayer, M. Characterization of produced water and surrounding surface water in the Permian Basin, the United States. J. Hazard. Mater. 2022, 430, 128409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, C.; Zhang, Y.; Alessi, D.S.; Martin, J.W. Nontarget profiling of organic compounds in a temporal series of hydraulic fracturing flowback and produced waters. Environ. Int. 2019, 131, 104944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- U.S. EPA. Class II Oil and Gas Related Injection Wells. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/uic/class-ii-oil-and-gas-related-injection-wells (accessed on 18 June 2021).
- IHS Markit. Produced Water from Onshore US Oil and Gas Activities to Decline to Nearly 20 Billion Barrels Annually; Reach $28 Billion in Value by 2022, IHS Markit Says. Available online: https://news.ihsmarkit.com/prviewer/release_only/slug/2020-04-02-produced-water-from-onshore-us-oil-and-gas-activities-to-decline-to-nearly-20-billion-barrels-annually-reach-28-billion-in-value-by-2022-ihs-markit-says (accessed on 10 February 2021).
- Zhong, C.; Zolfaghari, A.; Hou, D.; Goss, G.G.; Lanoil, B.D.; Gehman, J.; Tsang, D.C.; He, Y.; Alessi, D.S. Comparison of the hydraulic fracturing water cycle in China and North America: A critical review. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 55, 7167–7185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, H.; Li, T.; Liu, B.; Vidic, R.D.; Elimelech, M.; Crittenden, J.C. Potential and implemented membrane-based technologies for the treatment and reuse of flowback and produced water from shale gas and oil plays: A review. Desalination 2019, 455, 34–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- U.S. EPA. Summary of Input on Oil and Gas Extraction Wastewater Management Practices Under the Clean Water Act Final Report. 2020. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/eg/summary-input-oil-and-gas-extraction-wastewater-management-practices-under-clean-water-act-final (accessed on 7 April 2021).
- Jiang, W.; Pokharel, B.; Lin, L.; Cao, H.; Carroll, K.C.; Zhang, Y.; Galdeano, C.; Musale, D.A.; Ghurye, G.L.; Xu, P. Analysis and prediction of produced water quantity and quality in the Permian Basin using machine learning techniques. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 149693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veil, J.U.S. Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices in 2017. Available online: http://www.veilenvironmental.com/publications/pw/pw_report_2017_final.pdf (accessed on 12 August 2021).
- Skoumal, R.J.; Ries, R.; Brudzinski, M.R.; Barbour, A.J.; Currie, B.S. Earthquakes induced by hydraulic fracturing are pervasive in Oklahoma. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 2018, 123, 10,918–910,935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reig, P.; Luo, T.; Proctor, J.N. Global Shale Gas Development: Water Availability & Business Risks; World Resources Institute. 2014. Available online: https://www.wri.org/research/global-shale-gas-development-water-availability-business-risks#:~:text=This%20report%20reveals%20that%20lack,extremely%20high%20seasonal%20variability%3B%20and (accessed on 12 July 2021).
- Scanlon, B.R.; Reedy, R.C.; Xu, P.; Engle, M.; Nicot, J.P.; Yang, Q.; Ikonnikova, S. Can we Beneficially Reuse Produced Water from Oil and Gas Extraction in the U.S.? Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 717, 137085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- U.S. EPA. Final Report: Summary of Input on Oil and Gas Extraction Wastewater Management Practices under the Clean Water Act; U.S. EPA. 2020. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/documents/oil-gas-final-report-2020.pdf (accessed on 21 July 2021).
- Strong, J.; Cunningham, J.; Dunkel, M. Oklahoma Water for 2060: Produced Water Reuse and Recycling; Okla. City. 2017. Available online: https://www.owrb.ok.gov/2060/PWWG/pwwgfinalreport.pdf (accessed on 21 July 2021).
- Shaffer, D.L.; Arias Chavez, L.H.; Ben-Sasson, M.; Romero-Vargas Castrilloón, S.; Yip, N.Y.; Elimelech, M. Desalination and reuse of high-salinity shale gas produced water: Drivers, technologies, and future directions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 9569–9583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Scanlon, B.R.; Ikonnikova, S.; Yang, Q.; Reedy, R.C. Will water issues constrain oil and gas production in the United States? Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54, 3510–3519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jiménez, S.; Micó, M.; Arnaldos, M.; Medina, F.; Contreras, S. State of the art of produced water treatment. Chemosphere 2018, 192, 186–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Patterson, L.A.; Konschnik, K.E.; Wiseman, H.; Fargione, J.; Maloney, K.O.; Kiesecker, J.; Nicot, J.-P.; Baruch-Mordo, S.; Entrekin, S.; Trainor, A. Unconventional oil and gas spills: Risks, mitigation priorities, and state reporting requirements. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 2563–2573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alessi, D.S.; Zolfaghari, A.; Kletke, S.; Gehman, J.; Allen, D.M.; Goss, G.G. Comparative analysis of hydraulic fracturing wastewater practices in unconventional shale development: Water sourcing, treatment and disposal practices. Can. Water Resour. J./Rev. Can. Des Ressour. Hydr. 2017, 42, 105–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DiGiulio, D.C.; Jackson, R.B. Impact to Underground Sources of Drinking Water and Domestic Wells from Production Well Stimulation and Completion Practices in the Pavillion, Wyoming, Field. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 4524–4536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodriguez, J.; Heo, J.; Kim, K.H. The Impact of Hydraulic Fracturing on Groundwater Quality in the Permian Basin, West Texas, USA. Water 2020, 12, 796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- He, Y.; Sun, C.; Zhang, Y.; Folkerts, E.J.; Martin, J.W.; Goss, G.G. Developmental toxicity of the organic fraction from hydraulic fracturing flowback and produced waters to early life stages of zebrafish (Danio rerio). Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52, 3820–3830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, Y.; Folkerts, E.J.; Zhang, Y.; Martin, J.W.; Alessi, D.S.; Goss, G.G. Effects on biotransformation, oxidative stress, and endocrine disruption in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) exposed to hydraulic fracturing flowback and produced water. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 940–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Blewett, T.A.; Weinrauch, A.M.; Delompré, P.L.; Goss, G.G. The effect of hydraulic flowback and produced water on gill morphology, oxidative stress and antioxidant response in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 46582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Kassotis, C.D.; Iwanowicz, L.R.; Akob, D.M.; Cozzarelli, I.M.; Mumford, A.C.; Orem, W.H.; Nagel, S.C. Endocrine disrupting activities of surface water associated with a West Virginia oil and gas industry wastewater disposal site. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 557, 901–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- US. EPA. Guidelines for Water Reuse; U.S. EPA; 2012. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-08/documents/2012-guidelines-water-reuse.pdf (accessed on 21 July 2021).
- Danforth, C.; Chiu, W.A.; Rusyn, I.; Schultz, K.; Bolden, A.; Kwiatkowski, C.; Craft, E. An integrative method for identification and prioritization of constituents of concern in produced water from onshore oil and gas extraction. Environ. Int. 2020, 134, 105280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- China National Energy Administration. National Energy Administration Circular on the Issuance of Shale Gas Development Plan (2016–2020); China National Energy Administration. Available online: https://policy.asiapacificenergy.org/node/30502016 (accessed on 21 July 2021). (In Chinese)
- GWPC. Produced Water Report: Regulations, Current Practices, and Research Needs. Available online: https://www.gwpc.org/sites/gwpc/uploads/documents/Research/Produced_Water_Full_Report___Digital_Use.pdf (accessed on 7 April 2020).
- U.S. EIA. Lower 48 States Shale Plays. Available online: https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/usshalegas/ (accessed on 1 July 2022).
- U.S. EPA. Study of Oil and Gas Extraction Wastewater Management under the Clean Water Act. 2019 EPA-821-R19-001. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-05/documents/oil-and-gas-study_draft_05-2019.pdf (accessed on 7 April 2020).
- Sentinel, N.A. Clearwater Facility Idled for Evaluation. Available online: https://www.newsandsentinel.com/news/local-news/2019/09/clearwater-facility-idled-for-evaluation/ (accessed on 20 June 2021).
- PADEP. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. PA DEP Oil & Gas Reporting Website—Production/Waste Reports. Available online: https://www.dep.pa.gov/DataandTools/Reports/Oil%20and%20Gas%20Reports/pages/default.aspx (accessed on 5 April 2020).
- U.S. EPA. Detailed Study of the Centralized Waste Treatment Point Source Category for Facilities Managing Oil and Gas Extraction Wastes. EPA-821-R-18-004. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-05/documents/cwt-study_may-2018.pdf (accessed on 3 October 2020).
- West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection Office of Oil and Gas. General Water Pollution Control Permit Permit Number: GP-WV-1-07. Available online: http://dep.wv.gov/oil-and-gas/Documents/Fact%20Sheet%20GP-WV-1-07.pdf (accessed on 10 April 2020).
- GWPC. State of West Virginia Class II UIC Program Peer Review. Available online: http://www.gwpc.org/sites/default/files/West%20Virginia%20Class%20II%20Peer%20Review%20Report%20Final.pdf (accessed on 10 April 2020).
- FWAP. State of Ohio and FreshWater Accountability Project. In the Court of Appeals of Franklin County, Ohio. Available online: https://fwap.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Complt-FINAL-FINAL-complet.pdf (accessed on 7 April 2020).
- Ertel, D.J.; McManus, K.; Bogdan, J. Method and System for Treating Wastewater. US10202286B2, 2019. Available online: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10202286B2/en (accessed on 21 July 2021).
- Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management. Produced Water: From a Waste to a Resource. 2020. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/fecm/articles/produced-water-waste-resource (accessed on 21 July 2021).
- Jacobs, N.; Marcellus Shale Operators Ahead of the Game on Produced Water Management. EnergyInDepth Appalachian Basin. Available online: https://www.energyindepth.org/marcellus-shale-operators-ahead-of-the-game-on-wastewater-management/ (accessed on 7 April 2020).
- Nobel, J. America’s Radioactive Secret. Available online: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/oil-gas-fracking-radioactive-investigation-937389/ (accessed on 10 April 2021).
- Allard, D.J. TENORM—PA Study & Regulatory Framework. Available online: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1727/ML17278A725.pdf (accessed on 10 April 2020).
- Tomastik, T.E.; Daniel, J. Challenges Facing Class II Disposal Well Operations in the Appalachian Basin. Available online: http://www.gwpc.org/sites/default/files/event-sessions/Class%20II-VI%20-%20Tom%20Tomastik.pdf (accessed on 10 April 2020).
- U.S. EIA. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production in Texas and Oklahoma’s Anadarko Region Is Growing. 2017. Available online: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=32672#:~:text=According%20to%20EIA’s%20DPR%2C%20oil,over%20the%20next%2016%20months (accessed on 10 June 2020).
- USGS. Induced Earthquakes. Available online: https://www.usgs.gov/natural-hazards/earthquake-hazards/induced-earthquakes?qt-science_support_page_related_con=4#qt-science_support_page_related_con (accessed on 18 June 2020).
- Keranen, K.M.; Weingarten, M.; Abers, G.A.; Bekins, B.A.; Ge, S. Sharp increase in central Oklahoma seismicity since 2008 induced by massive wastewater injection. Science 2014, 345, 448–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Langenbruch, C.; Zoback, M.D. How will induced seismicity in Oklahoma respond to decreased saltwater injection rates? Sci. Adv. 2016, 2, e1601542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- U.S. EIA. Petroleum & Other Liquids: Crude Oil Production. Available online: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbblpd_a.htm (accessed on 10 August 2021).
- Lyons, B.; Tintera, J.; Wright, K. Sustainable ProducedWater Policy, Regulatory Framework, and Management in the Texas Oil and Natural Gas Industry: 2019 and Beyond. Available online: https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track/?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A2c7b5154-f581-47dc-9c19-314d82c8de05&pageNum=1 (accessed on 5 April 2020).
- RRC. Railroad Commission of Texas. Injection and Disposal Wells. Available online: https://www.rrc.state.tx.us/about-us/resource-center/faqs/oil-gas-faqs/faq-injection-and-disposal-wells/ (accessed on 30 October 2020).
- Vaucher, D. Water Market for Upstream Oil and Gas Operations in the United States Worth an Estimated $33.6 Billion in 2018. Enerrgy & Natural Resources Research & Annalysis. Available online: https://ihsmarkit.com/research-analysis/water-market-for-upstream-oil-gas-operations-in-us.html (accessed on 10 April 2020).
- RRC. Railroad Commission of Texas. Recycling. Environmental Permit Types & Information. Available online: https://www.rrc.state.tx.us/oil-gas/applications-and-permits/environmental-permit-types-information/recycling/ (accessed on 10 April 2020).
- TOSS. Office of the Secretary of State. Texas Administrative Code. Available online: https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.ViewTAC?tac_view=5&ti=16&pt=1&ch=4&sch=B (accessed on 10 February 2021).
- U.S. EPA. NPDES General Permit to Discharge to Waters of the United States. Available online: https://www3.epa.gov/region1/npdes/hydrogp/HydroGPFactSheet.pdf (accessed on 18 June 2021).
- U.S. EPA. NPDES Permit No. TX0134061 Fact Sheet. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-01/documents/tx0134061_fact_sheet.pdf (accessed on 3 October 2020).
- Lewis, K.; Moore, J.; Weathersby, B. Agricultural Reuse of Treated Produced Water. Available online: https://www.owrb.ok.gov/2060/PWWG/Resources/Lewis_Katie.pdf (accessed on 10 April 2020).
- Guillen, R.; Hinojosa, J. Texas HB No. 2545. 2019. Available online: https://legiscan.com/TX/bill/HB2545/2019 (accessed on 10 April 2020).
- Scofield, R.; Beckerman, B. Final Report: Task 1, Identification of Chemicals of Interest Related to the Reuse of Produced Water for Agricultural Irrigation of Edible Crops. Prepared by GSI Environmental for the California Central Valley Region Regional Water Quality Control Board. March 2020. Available online: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/oil_fields/food_safety/data/task1_report_final.pdf (accessed on 7 April 2020).
- Sedlacko, E.M.; Jahn, C.E.; Heuberger, A.L.; Sindt, N.M.; Miller, H.M.; Borch, T.; Blaine, A.C.; Cath, T.Y.; Higgins, C.P. Potential for Beneficial Reuse of Oil and Gas–Derived Produced Water in Agriculture: Physiological and Morphological Responses in Spring Wheat (Triticum aestivum). Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2019, 38, 1756–1769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sedlacko, E.M.; Chaparro, J.M.; Heuberger, A.L.; Cath, T.Y.; Higgins, C.P. Effect of produced water treatment technologies on irrigation-induced metal and salt accumulation in wheat (Triticum aestivum) and sunflower (Helianthus annuus). Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 740, 140003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, H.; Dias, K.; Hare, H.; Borton, M.A.; Blotevogel, J.; Danforth, C.; Wrighton, K.C.; Ippolito, J.A.; Borch, T. Reusing oil and gas produced water for agricultural irrigation: Effects on soil health and the soil microbiome. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 722, 137888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- New Mexico Environment Department. Summary of Initial Public Input on Produced Water. Available online: https://www.env.nm.gov/new-mexico-produced-water/public-participation-2/ (accessed on 10 April 2021).
- New Mexico Legislature. Fluid Oil & Gas Waste Act. Available online: https://nmlegis.gov/Legislation/Legislation?Chamber=H&LegType=B&LegNo=546&year=19 (accessed on 10 June 2021).
- CCST. California Council on Science & Technology, An Independent Scientific Assessment of Well Stimulation in California, Volume II: Potential Environmental Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing and Acid Stimulations in the Oil and Gas Industry. Available online: https://ccst.us/reports/an-independent-scientific-assessment-of-well-stimulation-in-california-volume-2/ (accessed on 7 April 2020).
- CalGEM. California Department of Conservation: Geologic Energy Management Division. Available online: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/calgem (accessed on 7 April 2020).
- CDC. California Announces New Oil and Gas Initiatives. Actions Reflect Expanded Mission and Vision for Regulators. News Release #2019-05. Available online: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/index/Pages/News/California-Establishes-Moratorium-on-High-Pressure-Extraction.aspx (accessed on 7 April 2020).
- California Senate. California Senate Bill No. 1281, Pavley, Oil and Gas Production: Water Use: Reporting, (2013–2014). Available online: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB1281 (accessed on 7 April 2020).
- Shonkoff, S.B. Oil and Gas Wastewater Reuse in California: Considerations and Risks. Available online: https://www.healthandenvironment.org/docs/SethShonkoffSlides2018-5-31.pdf (accessed on 7 April 2020).
- CRWQCB. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region, Order R5-2017-0036. Waste Discharge Requirements General Order for Oil Field Discharges to Land General Order Number Three. Available online: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/general_orders/r5-2017-0036.pdf (accessed on 7 April 2020).
- CVRWQCB. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Food Safety—Oil Field Wastewater Reuse Expert Panel. Final Version. Available online: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/oil_fields/food_safety/information/offsep_charter.pdf (accessed on 7 April 2020).
- Gross, L. California Regulators Banned Fracking Wastewater for Irrigation, but Allow Wastewater from Oil Drilling. Scientists Say There’s Little Difference. Available online: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/24042022/california-produced-water/ (accessed on 15 May 2022).
- California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region. California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region Order No. R5-2019-0024. Available online: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/kern/r5-2019-0024.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2022).
- RWQCB. Waste Discharge Fequirements for Plains Exploration and Production, Arroyo Grande Produced Water Reclamation Facility. Available online: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2008/2008_0004_wdr_arroyo_grande_wrf.pdf (accessed on 10 April 2020).
- Robles, H. Irrigation Water Quality Evaluation Report. 2016. Available online: https://www.cawelowd.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/final-irrigation-water-quality-eval-report-07-april-2016.pdf (accessed on 7 April 2020).
- Navarro, L.; Jones, M.; NMulhearn, S. Development of Risk-Based Comparison Levels for Chemicals in Agricultural Irrigation Water. Sponnsored by California Resources Corporation. Available online: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/oil_fields/food_safety/data/studies/erm_riskassrpt.pdf (accessed on 7 April 2020).
- Jordan, P.; Brandt, A.; Ferrar, K.; Feinstein, L.; Phillips, S. A case study of the potential risks associated with hydraulic fracturing in existing oil fields in the san Joaquin basin. Indep. Sci. Assess. Well Stimul. Calif. 2015, 3, 267. [Google Scholar]
- Shonkoff, S.; Jordan, P.; Brandt, A.; Ferrar, K.; Maddalena, R.; Greenfield, B. A Case Study of the Petroleum Geological Potential and Potential Public Health Risks Associated with Hydraulic Fracturing and Oil and Gas Development in the Los Angeles Basin. Indep. Sci. Assess. Well Stimul. Calif. 2015. Available online: https://ccst.us/wp-content/uploads/160708-sb4-vol-III-4.pdf (accessed on 7 April 2020).
- Stringfellow, W.T.; Camarillo, M.K.; Domen, J.K.; Shonkoff, S.B. Comparison of chemical-use between hydraulic fracturing, acidizing, and routine oil and gas development. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0175344. [Google Scholar]
- DiGiulio, D.C.; Shonkoff, S.B.; Jackson, R.B. The need to protect fresh and brackish groundwater resources during unconventional oil and gas development. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 2018, 3, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shonkoff, S.B. Hazard Assessment of Chemical Additives Used in Oil Fields that Reuse Produced Water for Agricultural Irrigation, Livestock Watering, and Groundwater Recharge in the San Joaquin Valley of California: Preliminary Results; Technical Report; PSE Healthy Energy, Inc.: Oakland, CA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Scofield, R.; Beckerman, B. Assessment of Produced Water for Agricultural Irrigation of Edible Crops Progress Report. February 2020—Public Meeting of the Food Safety Expert Panel. Available online: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/oil_fields/food_safety/#docsreports%3E (accessed on 30 October 2020).
- Kharaka, Y.; Gans, K.; Thordsen, J.; Blondes, M.; Engle, M. Geochemical data for produced waters from conventional and unconventional oil and gas wells: Results from Colorado, USA. In E3S Web of Conferences; EDP Sciences: Les Ulis, France, 2019; Volume 98, p. 03002. [Google Scholar]
- McIntyre, W.C.; Mays, D.C. Roles of the water court and the state engineer for water administration in Colorado. Water Policy 2017, 19, 837–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- COGCC. Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC), 2019 Annual Report. 2019. Available online: https://spl.cde.state.co.us/artemis/nrserials/nr1011internet/nr10112019internet.pdf (accessed on 30 October 2020).
- Shores, A.; Laituri, M. The state of produced water generation and risk for groundwater contamination in Weld County, Colorado. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 30390–30400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Li, H.; Son, J.-H.; Carlson, K.H. Concurrence of aqueous and gas phase contamination of groundwater in the Wattenberg oil and gas field of northern Colorado. Water Res. 2016, 88, 458–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sherwood, O.A.; Rogers, J.D.; Lackey, G.; Burke, T.L.; Osborn, S.G.; Ryan, J.N. Groundwater methane in relation to oil and gas development and shallow coal seams in the Denver-Julesburg Basin of Colorado. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 8391–8396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Produced Water Treatment and Beneficial Use Information Center. Produced Water Beneficial Use Case Studies. 2011. Available online: http://aqwatec.mines.edu/produced_water/assessbu/case/ (accessed on 1 July 2022).
- Dolan, F.C.; Cath, T.Y.; Hogue, T.S. Assessing the feasibility of using produced water for irrigation in Colorado. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 640, 619–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pica, N.E.; Carlson, K.; Steiner, J.J.; Waskom, R. Produced water reuse for irrigation of non-food biofuel crops: Effects on switchgrass and rapeseed germination, physiology and biomass yield. Ind. Crops Prod. 2017, 100, 65–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Coupal, R.; Lieske, S.N.; Miller, S.N.; Reddy, K. Water Production from Coalbed Methane Development in Wyoming: A Summary of Quantity, Quality, and Management. Available online: https://www.uwyo.edu/haub/_files/_docs/ruckelshaus/pubs/2005-cbm-water-final-report.pdf (accessed on 10 April 2020).
- Jacquet, J.; Witt, K.; Rifkin, W.; Haggerty, J.H. A complex adaptive system or just a tangled mess? In Governing Shale Gas: Development, Citizen Participation and Decision Making in the US, Canada, Australia and Europe, 1st ed.; Routledge: Oxford, UK, 2018; p. 14. [Google Scholar]
- Walsh, K.B. Split estate and Wyoming’s orphaned well crisis: The case of coalbed methane reclamation in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming. Case Stud. Environ. 2017, 1, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walsh, K.B.; Haggerty, J.H. Social license to operate during Wyoming’s coalbed methane boom: Implications of private participation. Energy Policy 2020, 138, 111217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MacKinnon, A.; Fox, K. Demanding beneficial use: Opportunities and obligations for Wyoming regulators in coalbed methane. Wyo. Law Rev. 2006, 6, 369. [Google Scholar]
- Valorz, N.J. Need for Codification of Wyoming’s Coal Bed Methane Produced Groundwater Laws. Wyo. Law Rev. 2010, 10, 115. [Google Scholar]
- Jackson, R.E.; Reddy, K. Geochemistry of coalbed natural gas (CBNG) produced water in Powder River Basin, Wyoming: Salinity and sodicity. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2007, 184, 49–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vance, G.F.; Ganjegunte, G.K. Utilization of coalbed natural gas water: Issues, implications, and management. Coalbed Methane Energy Environ. 2010, chapter 14. 303–336. [Google Scholar]
- Robertson, J. Redefining CSG “waste” water: New opportunities for managed aquifer recharge. Environ. Plan. Law J. 2018, 35, 188–211. [Google Scholar]
- Johnston, C.; Vance, G.; Ganjegunte, G. Soil property changes following irrigation with coalbed natural gas water: Role of water treatments, soil amendments and land suitability. Land Degrad. Dev. 2013, 24, 350–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ganjegunte, G.K.; King, L.A.; Vance, G.F. Cumulative soil chemistry changes from land application of saline–sodic waters. J. Environ. Qual. 2008, 37, S-128-S-138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brinck, E.; Frost, C. Evaluation of amendments used to prevent sodification of irrigated fields. Appl. Geochem. 2009, 24, 2113–2122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amezketa, E.; Aragüés, R.; Gazol, R. Efficiency of sulfuric acid, mined gypsum, and two gypsum by-products in soil crusting prevention and sodic soil reclamation. Agron. J. 2005, 97, 983–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- King, L.; Vance, G.; Ganjegunte, G. Use of coalbed natural gas (CBNG) waters: Soil and plant responses. In Proceedings of the 22nd National American Society of Mining and Reclamation Symposium Annual Meetings, Breckenridge, CO, USA, 19–23 June 2005; Barnhisel, R., Ed.; Raising Reclamation to New Heights: Lexington, KY, USA, 2005; pp. 607–622. [Google Scholar]
- Phelps, S.; Bauder, J.W. The Role of Plants in the Bioremediation of Coalbed Methane Product Water; Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University: Bozeman, MT, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Healy, R.W.; Bartos, T.T.; Rice, C.A.; McKinley, M.P.; Smith, B.D. Groundwater chemistry near an impoundment for produced water, Powder River Basin, Wyoming, USA. J. Hydrol. 2011, 403, 37–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- U.S. EIA. Petroleum & Other Liquids. Available online: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrfpnm1&f=a (accessed on 20 October 2021).
- Scanlon, B.R.; Reedy, R.C.; Male, F.; Walsh, M. Water issues related to transitioning from conventional to unconventional oil production in the Permian Basin. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 10903–10912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Riganti, C.U.S. Drought Monitor New Mexico. Available online: https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/CurrentMap/StateDroughtMonitor.aspx?NM (accessed on 16 June 2021).
- USGS. How Much Water Does the Typical Hydraulically Fractured Well Require? Available online: https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-much-water-does-typical-hydraulically-fractured-well-require?qt-news_science_products=0#qt-news_science_products (accessed on 10 February 2021).
- Bruce, M.; Thomson, J.M.C. Analysis of the Relationship Between Water, Oil & Gas in New Mexico: Investigation of Past and Future Trends; New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute: Las Cruces, NM, USA, 2021; Available online: https://www.worldcat.org/title/analysis-of-the-relationship-between-water-oil-gas-in-new-mexico-investigation-of-past-and-future-trends/oclc/1249753650 (accessed on 10 February 2021).
- NMOCD. OCD Data and Statistics. Available online: http://www.emnrd.state.nm.us/OCD/statistics.html (accessed on 10 June 2021).
- New Mexico Environment Department. Public Involvement Plan (PIP) for the Implementation of House Bill 546, the Produced Water Act. Available online: https://www.env.nm.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2019/10/Produced-Water-PIP-20191015-FINAL.pdf (accessed on 10 June 2021).
- Geza, M.; Ma, G.; Kim, H.; Cath, T.Y.; Xu, P. iDST: An integrated decision support tool for treatment and beneficial use of non-traditional water supplies—Part I. Methodology. J. Water Process Eng. 2018, 25, 236–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, G.; Geza, M.; Cath, T.Y.; Drewes, J.E.; Xu, P. iDST: An integrated decision support tool for treatment and beneficial use of non-traditional water supplies—Part II. Marcellus and Barnett Shale case studies. J. Water Process Eng. 2018, 25, 258–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, L.; Xu, P.; Wang, H. Photocatalytic membrane reactors for produced water treatment and reuse: Fundamentals, affecting factors, rational design, and evaluation metrics. J. Hazard. Mater. 2022, 424, 127493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sedlak, D.; Mauter, M.; Macknick, J.; Stokes-Draut, J.; Fiske, P.; Agarwal, D.; Borch, T.; Breckenridge, R.; Cath, T.; Chellam, S.; et al. National Alliance for Water Innovation (NAWI) Master Technology Roadmap; National Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL): Golden, CO, USA, 2021. [CrossRef]
- Chen, L.; Xu, P.; Kota, K.; Kuravi, S.; Wang, H. Solar distillation of highly saline produced water using low-cost and high-performance carbon black and airlaid paper-based evaporator (CAPER). Chemosphere 2021, 269, 129372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lin, L.; Jiang, W.; Chen, L.; Xu, P.; Wang, H. Treatment of Produced Water with Photocatalysis: Recent Advances, Affecting Factors and Future Research Prospects. Catalysts 2020, 10, 924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, L.; Wang, H.; Xu, P.; Zhang, Y. Biomineralization of hypersaline produced water using microbially induced calcite precipitation. Water Res. 2020, 190, 116753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hu, L.; Yu, J.; Luo, H.; Wang, H.; Xu, P.; Zhang, Y. Simultaneous recovery of ammonium, potassium and magnesium from produced water by struvite precipitation. Chem. Eng. J. 2020, 382, 123001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harry, D.; Horton, D.; Durham, D.; Constable, D.J.C.; Gaffney, S.; Moore, J.; Todd, B.; Martinez, I. Grand Challenges and Opportunities for Greener Chemical Alternatives in Hydraulic Fracturing: A Perspective from the ACS Green Chemistry Institute Oilfield Chemistry Roundtable. Energy Fuels 2020, 34, 7837–7846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
State | Underground Injection Control Wells (Class II) | Reuse Inside of the O&G Fields | Commercial Facility | Discharge to Surface Water via NPDES |
---|---|---|---|---|
Pennsylvania | U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) | Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) | EPA | PADEP |
Ohio | Ohio Department of Nature Resources (ODNR) | ODNR | ODNR | Ohio EPA Division of Surface Water (DSW) |
West Virginia | West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) | WVDEP | WVDEP | WVDEP |
Texas | Railroad Commission of Texas (TRRC) | TRRC | TRRC | Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) |
Oklahoma | Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) | OCC | OCC | Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) |
Wyoming | Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC) | WOGCC | WOGCC | Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) |
Colorado | Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) | COGCC | COGCC | Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) |
New Mexico | New Mexico Oil Conservation Division (OCD) | OCD | OCD | U.S. EPA |
California | California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) | California Waterboards (State water board and nine regional water boards) | California Waterboards | California Waterboards |
Region | PW Production (2017) | PW Disposal (Deep Well Injection) | PW Reuse Inside O&G Field | PW Reuse for EOR | PW Reuse/ Dispose Outside O&G Field | Examples of PW Reuse Outside O&G Field |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Appalachian Basin | 105 MMbbls (16.8 × 106 m3) | PA: 1.1%, WV: 56%, OH: 89%. | PA: 96%, WV: 29%, OH: 9.1%. | PA: n/a, WV: 14%, OH: 1.3%. | PA: 1.6%, WV: n/a, OH: n/a. | n/a |
Oklahoma | 2844 MMbbls (455 × 106 m3) | 41.7% | n/a | 44.9% | 13.4% | n/a |
Texas | 9895 MMbbls (1583 × 106 m3) | 36.2% | n/a | 46.1% | 17.6% | n/a |
California | 3100 MMbbls (496 × 106 m3) | 22.4% | 5.1% | 59.3% | 11.1% | Irrigation |
Colorado | 310 MMbbls (49.6 × 106 m3) | 47.1% | 8.9% | 32.5% | 11.5% | Dust control; aquifer recharge and recovery; pits and surface water discharge. |
Wyoming | 1700 MMbbls (272 × 106 m3) | 14% | n/a | 46% | 37% | Surface water discharge; groundwater injection; dust control and road application; irrigation; land application; impoundment. |
New Mexico | 1240 MMbbls (196.9 × 106 m3, 2019) | 51% | 10% | 40% | n/a | n/a |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Jiang, W.; Lin, L.; Xu, X.; Wang, H.; Xu, P. Analysis of Regulatory Framework for Produced Water Management and Reuse in Major Oil- and Gas-Producing Regions in the United States. Water 2022, 14, 2162. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14142162
Jiang W, Lin L, Xu X, Wang H, Xu P. Analysis of Regulatory Framework for Produced Water Management and Reuse in Major Oil- and Gas-Producing Regions in the United States. Water. 2022; 14(14):2162. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14142162
Chicago/Turabian StyleJiang, Wenbin, Lu Lin, Xuesong Xu, Huiyao Wang, and Pei Xu. 2022. "Analysis of Regulatory Framework for Produced Water Management and Reuse in Major Oil- and Gas-Producing Regions in the United States" Water 14, no. 14: 2162. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14142162