September 2009 

Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 3 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 7 

Chapter 1 — Introduction ............................................................................................................. 11 

1.1 Purpose .......................................................................................................................... 11 

1.2 Background ................................................................................................................... 11 

1.3 Overview ....................................................................................................................... 11 

Chapter 2 — Produced Water ....................................................................................................... 13 

2.1 Definition of Produced Water ....................................................................................... 13 

2.2 Previous Produced Water Volume Estimates ............................................................... 13 

2.3 Characteristics of Produced Water ................................................................................ 14 

2.4 Produced Water Management ....................................................................................... 15 

2.4.1 Discharge .............................................................................................................. 15 

2.4.2 Underground Injection for Disposal ..................................................................... 16 

2.4.3 Underground Injection for Increasing Oil Recovery ............................................ 16 

2.4.4 Evaporation ........................................................................................................... 16 

2.4.5 Offsite Commercial Disposal ................................................................................ 17 

2.4.6 Beneficial Reuse ................................................................................................... 17 

Chapter 3 — Approach ................................................................................................................. 19 

3.1 Information Request and Questionnaire ....................................................................... 19 

3.2 Additional Production Information ............................................................................... 21 

Chapter 4 — Analysis and Results ............................................................................................... 23 

4.1 Response to Questionnaire ............................................................................................ 23 

4.2 Incomplete Data ............................................................................................................ 23 

4.3 Inconsistent Data ........................................................................................................... 24 

4.4 Production Summary .................................................................................................... 24 

4.5 Produced Water Management Summary ...................................................................... 29 

Chapter 5 — State-by-State Summary .......................................................................................... 33 

5.1 Alabama ........................................................................................................................ 33 

5.2 Alaska ........................................................................................................................... 33 

5.3 Arizona .......................................................................................................................... 34 

5.4 Arkansas ........................................................................................................................ 34 

5.5 California ...................................................................................................................... 34 

5.6 Colorado ........................................................................................................................ 35 

5.7 Florida ........................................................................................................................... 35 

5.8 Illinois ........................................................................................................................... 35 

5.9 Indiana........................................................................................................................... 36 

5.10 Kansas ........................................................................................................................... 36 

5.11 Kentucky ....................................................................................................................... 37 

5.12 Louisiana ....................................................................................................................... 37 

5.13 Michigan ....................................................................................................................... 37 

5.14 Mississippi .................................................................................................................... 38 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 4 

5.15 Missouri ........................................................................................................................ 38 

5.16 Montana ........................................................................................................................ 38 

5.17 Nebraska ....................................................................................................................... 39 

5.18 Nevada .......................................................................................................................... 39 

5.19 New Mexico .................................................................................................................. 39 

5.20 New York ...................................................................................................................... 40 

5.21 North Dakota ................................................................................................................. 40 

5.22 Ohio............................................................................................................................... 41 

5.23 Oklahoma ...................................................................................................................... 41 

5.24 Pennsylvania ................................................................................................................. 41 

5.25 South Dakota ................................................................................................................. 42 

5.26 Tennessee ...................................................................................................................... 42 

5.27 Texas ............................................................................................................................. 42 

5.28 Utah ............................................................................................................................... 43 

5.29 Virginia ......................................................................................................................... 43 

5.30 West Virginia ................................................................................................................ 44 

5.31 Wyoming....................................................................................................................... 44 

Chapter 6 — Federal and Tribal Summary ................................................................................... 45 

6.1 Federal Onshore Production ......................................................................................... 45 

6.2 Federal Offshore Production ......................................................................................... 45 

6.3 Tribal Lands .................................................................................................................. 45 

Chapter 7 — Findings and Conclusions ....................................................................................... 47

7.1 Findings......................................................................................................................... 47 

7.1.1 Produced Water Volume ....................................................................................... 47 

7.1.2 Produced Water Volume by Hydrocarbon Type .................................................. 47 

7.1.3 Produced Water Management Practices ............................................................... 48 

7.2 Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 48 

References ..................................................................................................................................... 51 

Appendix A — Sample Letter ...................................................................................................... 59 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Total U.S. produced water generated in 2007 by state .................................................. 26 

Figure 2. Ten largest produced water generators and their contributions to gas 

and crude oil production ................................................................................................ 27 

Figure 3. Source in percent of total U.S. surface discharges for produced 

water management in 2007 ........................................................................................... 31 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 5 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Produced Water Volume Information ............................................................................. 20 

Table 2. Produced Water Management Information ..................................................................... 20 

Table 3. U.S. Onshore and Offshore Oil, Gas, and Produced Water Generation for 2007 .......... 25 

Table 4. Water-to-Hydrocarbon Ratio for 2007 from Available Data .......................................... 28 

Table 5. U.S. Produced Water Volume by Management Practice for 2007 ................................. 30 

 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 6 

Page intentionally left blank. 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 7 

Executive Summary 

Produced water is water from underground formations that is brought to the surface during oil or 

gas production. Produced water is the largest volume by-product or waste stream associated with 

oil and gas exploration and production. The cost of managing such a large volume of water is a 

key consideration to oil and gas producers. Previous national produced water volume estimates 

are in the range of 15 to 20 billion barrels (bbl; 1 bbl = 42 U.S. gallons) generated each year in 

the United States. This is equivalent to a volume of 1.7 to 2.3 billion gallons per day. In 

comparison, the Washington D.C. government and surrounding jurisdictions provide about 

300 million gallons per day of drinking water to local residents, businesses, and other users. 

This represents only about 13% of the daily produced water volume. As another example, 

consider a backyard swimming pool that is 20 ft wide by 50 ft long and 5 ft deep. The volume of 

water needed to fill such a pool is about 37,000 gal or about 900 bbl. 

Produced water volume generation and management in the United States are not well 

characterized at a national level. The U.S. Department of Energy asked Argonne National 

Laboratory to compile data on produced water associated with oil and gas production to better 

understand the production volumes and management of this water. 

This report provides a current estimate for the volume of produced water generated from oil and 

gas production in the United States. The volume estimate represents a compilation of data 

obtained from numerous state oil and gas agencies and several federal agencies for 2007, where 

possible. The total volume of produced water estimated for 2007 is about 21 billion bbl. This 

equals an average of 57.4 million bbl/day. Produced water is generated from most of the nearly 

1 million actively producing oil and gas wells in the United States. 

Argonne contacted state oil and gas agencies in the 31 states with active oil and gas production 

to obtain detailed information on produced water volumes and management. Not all states had 

readily available precise produced water volume figures. In a few states, the agencies had very 

complete data records easily obtainable from online sources. Other states had summary-level 

volume data without much detail or had data available only in in-house data repositories. The 

most challenging states were those that had no produced water data at all. In those cases, we 

calculated estimates through extrapolation and correlations using hydrocarbon production and 

produced water volumes from neighboring states. To obtain federal data, Argonne contacted the 

Minerals Management Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

State and federal onshore production contribute the majority of produced water (more than 

20 billion bbl) in the United States. A significant amount of produced water (more than 700 

million bbl or about 3% of the national total) is also generated from federal offshore production 

activities and from production on tribal lands. The five states with greatest produced water 

volumes in 2007 were Texas, California, Wyoming, Oklahoma, and Kansas. The produced water 

volumes from these states represent nearly 75% of total U.S. production (onshore and offshore), 

as shown in Figure 1. Texas, with more than 7.3 billion bbl, contributed 35% of the total volume 

of produced water generated in the United States in 2007. The contributions from the other five 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 8 

states with produced water volumes exceeding 1 billion bbl were California (12%), Wyoming 

(11%), Oklahoma (11%), Kansas (6%), and Louisiana (5%). 

The greatest produced water contributors are not necessarily the greatest producers of oil and 

gas. While Texas was the largest gas producer in the United States (nearly 6,900,000 million 

cubic feet [Mmcf] in 2007), federal offshore production activities provided the largest volume of 

crude of more than 467,000,000 bbl. Although federal offshore production generates nearly 27% 

of U.S. crude oil production, less than 3% of total U.S. produced water is generated from federal 

offshore activities. 

In addition to total volumes produced, it is useful to consider the water-to-oil ratios (WORs) and 

water-to-gas ratios (WGRs) from production activities as this information can be used to 

evaluate the relative production age of resources within the production lifetime. To that end, we 

asked the agencies to provide produced water volumes by hydrocarbon types (i.e., crude oil, 

conventional gas, coal bed methane, unconventional gas, or other), to the extent the data were 

available at that level of detail. Most states were unable to break out produced water volumes for 

all categories, but some states could at least provide estimates of produced water from oil 

production vs. natural gas production. States that segregated produced water by hydrocarbon 

type categorized 6,666,144,270 bbl of produced water. Eighty-seven percent (5,770,327,439 bbl) 

of produced water came from oil production activities. 

We also were able to calculate separate WORs and WGRs for several states that reported 

produced water separately for hydrocarbon type (WORs for 14 states and WGRs for 11 states). A 

national average WOR calculated using the production-weighted ratios from the 14 states was 

7.6 bbl/bbl. When offshore production was added to the onshore production, the total average 

U.S. WOR was 5.3 bbl/bbl. A national average WGR calculated using the production-weighted 

ratios from the 11 states was 260 bbl/Mmcf. When offshore production was added to the onshore 

production, the total average U.S. WGR was 182 bbl/Mmcf. 

Two general water management themes were followed by most U.S. operators in 2007. More 

than 98% of produced water from onshore wells is injected underground. Approximately 59% is 

injected into producing formations to maintain formation pressure and increase the output of 

production wells. Another 40% of produced water from onshore wells is injected into 

nonproducing formations for disposal. More than 91% of offshore produced water, including the 

water from inshore platforms in Cook Inlet, Alaska, is discharged to the ocean. Most of the 

remaining volume is reinjected for enhanced recovery. The remaining 2% of national produced 

water volume was managed through evaporation ponds, offsite commercial disposal, beneficial 

reuse, and other management methods. 

The produced water volumes WORs, and WGRs included in this report are based on the best 

data available. The best data was far from complete, however. Argonne needed to extrapolate 

information from states with detailed produced water data for other nearby states with limited 

produced water information. The national average WOR and WGR values were estimated using 

data from less than half of the oil and gas producing states. Several of the states that have large 

numbers of producing wells, particularly in mature fields with many stripper wells (e.g., Texas, 

Oklahoma) did not have produced water data segregated by production type. If those data had 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 9 

been included with the states already in the average, it is probable that the WOR and WGR 

would be substantially larger. 

 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 10 

Page intentionally left blank. 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 11 

Chapter 1 — Introduction 

1.1 Purpose 

Produced water volume generation and management in the United States are not well 

characterized at a national level. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) asked Argonne National 

Laboratory to compile data on produced water associated with oil and gas production to better 

understand the production volumes and management of this water. The purpose of this report is 

to improve understanding of produced water by providing detailed information on the volume of 

produced water generated in the United States and the ways in which produced water is disposed 

or reused. As the demand for fresh water resources increases, with no concomitant increase in 

surface or ground water supplies, alternate water sources, like produced water, may play an 

important role. 

1.2 Background 

Produced water is water from underground formations that is brought to the surface during oil or 

gas production. Because the water has been in contact with hydrocarbon-bearing formations, it 

contains some of the chemical characteristics of the formations and the hydrocarbons. It may 

include water from the reservoir, water previously injected into the formation, and any chemicals 

added during the production processes. The physical and chemical properties of produced water 

vary considerably depending on the geographic location of the field, the geologic formation, and 

the type of hydrocarbon product being produced. Produced water properties and volume also 

vary throughout the lifetime of a reservoir. 

Produced water is the largest volume by-product or waste stream associated with oil and gas 

exploration and production. Previous national produced water volume estimates are in the range 

of 15 to 20 billion barrels (bbl; 1 bbl = 42 U.S. gallons) generated each year in the United States 

(API 1988, 2000; Veil et al. 2004). However, the details on generation and management of 

produced water are not well understood on a national scale. 

1.3 Overview 

Argonne National Laboratory developed detailed national-level information on the volume of 

produced water generated in the United States and the manner in which produced water is 

managed. This report presents an overview of produced water, summarizes the study, and 

presents results from the study at both the national level and the state level. Chapter 2 presents 

background information on produced water, describing its chemical and physical characteristics, 

where it is produced, and the potential impacts of produced water to the environment and to oil 

and gas operations. A review of relevant literature is also included. Chapter 3 describes the 

methods used to collect information, including outreach efforts to state oil and gas agencies and 

related federal programs. Because of the inconsistency in the level of detail provided by various 

state agencies, the approaches and assumptions used to extrapolate data values are also 

discussed. In Chapter 4, the data are presented, and national trends and observations are 

discussed. Chapter 5 presents detailed results for each state, while Chapter 6 presents results 

from federal sources for oil and gas production (i.e., offshore, onshore, and tribal lands). 

Chapter 7 summarizes the study and presents conclusions. 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 12 

Page intentionally left blank. 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 13 

Chapter 2 — Produced Water 

This chapter provides a brief introduction to produced water and produced water management. 

A more thorough discussion of produced water can be found in A White Paper Describing 

Produced Water from Production of Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Coal Bed Methane 

(Veil et al. 2004). 

2.1 Definition of Produced Water 

Produced water is water found in the same formations as oil and gas. When the oil and gas are 

produced to the surface, the produced water is brought to the surface, too. It is also referred to as 

“brine,” “saltwater,” or “formation water.” Produced water contains some of the chemical 

characteristics of the formation from which it was produced and associated hydrocarbons. 

Produced water properties (both physical and chemical) and volume vary considerably 

depending on the geographic location of the field, the geologic formation, the type of 

hydrocarbon product being produced, and the lifetime of a reservoir. For example, early in the 

life of an oil well, oil production is high and water production is low. As the production age of 

the well increases, the oil production decreases and the water production increases. When the 

cost of managing produced water exceeds the profit from selling oil, production is terminated 

and the well is closed. This is contrary to the typical production cycle of a coal bed methane 

(CBM) well. Initially CBM wells produce large volumes of water, which decline over time. 

Methane production is initially low, increases over time to a peak, and then decreases. 

2.2 Previous Produced Water Volume Estimates 

While one of the purposes of this report is to present a current estimate of produced water 

volumes, it is useful to know previous estimates and the assumptions used in arriving at those 

estimates. Khatib and Verbeek (2003) estimated a global average of 210 million bbl of water 

produced each day, which resulted in an annual estimate for 1999 of 77 billion bbl of produced 

water. It is not clear how those authors derived their estimate (collecting and compiling accurate 

produced water data within a single country is a challenging task, as described in Chapter 3). 

International estimates must be taken as approximations. U.S. onshore estimates of produced 

water from oil and gas activities were estimated at 21 billion bbl in 1985 and 18 billion bbl in 

1995 by the American Petroleum Institute (API 1988, 2000) and 14 billion bbl in 2002 by 

Veil et al. (2004). Significant additional volumes of produced water are generated at U.S. 

offshore wells. 

The volume of water produced from oil and gas wells does not remain constant over time. The 

water-to-hydrocarbon ratio increases over the life of the well. Initially, water represents a small 

percentage of produced fluids. Over time, the percentage of water increases and the percentage 

of hydrocarbon decreases. In the study by Khatib and Verbeek (2003), a world average estimate 

was reported to be 3 bbl of water for each barrel of oil. U.S. wells are typically further in their 

production lifetime than the global average. Veil et al (2004) reported an average of more than 

9.5 bbl of water for each barrel of oil in the United States. 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 14 

CBM wells, in contrast to oil and gas wells, produce a large volume of water early in their life, 

and the water volume declines over time. CBM wells have increased considerably since the 1995 

API study year and were not included in the study by Veil et al. (2004). As a result, the actual 

produced water volume in the United States is most likely higher than the 14 to 18 billion bbl 

estimates previously reported. 

2.3 Characteristics of Produced Water 

The physical and chemical properties of produced water vary considerably depending on the 

geographic location of the field, the geologic formation from where the water was produced, and 

the type of hydrocarbon product being produced. For those sites where waterflooding is 

conducted, the properties and volumes of the produced water may vary dramatically due to the 

injection of additional water into the formation to increase hydrocarbon production. The major 

constituents of concern are salt content (often expressed as salinity, conductivity, or total 

dissolved solids [TDS]), oil and grease (various organic compounds associated with 

hydrocarbons in the formation), inorganic and organic compounds introduced as chemical 

additives to improve drilling and production operations, and naturally occurring radioactive 

material. 

Understanding the constituents of specific produced waters aids regulatory compliance and the 

selection of appropriate management options for the produced water, such as secondary recovery 

and disposal. Oil and grease is the most important constituent in offshore produced water. It is 

also an important one for onshore produced water. Note that the term oil and grease refers not a 

single chemical, but rather to an analytical test that measures the presence of many families of 

organic chemicals. A study of produced water in the western United States found the oil and 

grease content to range from 40 mg/L to 2,000 mg/L (Benko and Drewes 2008). Another 

important constituent of concern in onshore operations is the salt content of produced water. 

According to Cline (1998), most produced waters are more saline than seawater. Benko and 

Drewes (2008) found the TDS concentration of produced water in the western United States to 

vary between 1,000 mg/L and 400,000 mg/L. While high TDS can increase maintenance costs, 

detecting TDS assists in defining the pay zones of a formation, when coupled with resistivity 

measurements (Breit et al. 1998). 

Produced water from oil production activities often contains constituents in addition to those that 

are naturally found within the formation. Additional water is often needed to maintain sufficient 

pressure in a reservoir for oil production. Produced water may be reused for this purpose, but the 

water may also be supplied from additional sources including groundwater and seawater. These 

additional water sources may contain additional solids and microorganisms (Chapelle 2001; 

Dowd et al. 2000). To combat scaling and maintain production efficiency, chemical additives 

such as corrosion and scale inhibitors, emulsion breakers, coagulants, and solvents may be used 

in drilling operations, production operations, and separations processing. The production of a 

well can be improved by utilizing the appropriate scale inhibitor and well-treatment chemicals 

according to the characteristics of the formation (Breit et al. 1998). However, these additives can 

become part of the produced water and can affect its overall toxicity. 

Produced water from gas production has different characteristics than produced water from oil 

production. In addition to formation water, water produced from gas production will contain 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 15 

condensed water, which is water that was in the vapor phase while in the reservoir but then 

condenses into a liquid state in the production separation system. 

Produced water from CBM production differs from produced water from both oil and gas 

production. Oil and grease are less of a concern from CBM water than other produced waters. To 

recover the methane in CBM reservoirs, the hydrostatic pressure that caused the adsorption of 

methane to the coal bed is reduced through the removal of water from the reservoir via CBM 

wells. Characteristics of CBM water that may affect reuse are salinity, sodicity, and to a lesser 

extent iron, manganese, and boron (ALL 2003). 

2.4 Produced Water Management 

While produced water can be reused if certain water quality conditions are met, most produced 

water generated is disposed. For offshore production activities, produced water is usually 

disposed of through direct ocean discharge after treatment. For onshore production activities, 

produced water is managed in a variety of ways. According to API (2000), 92% of the 18 billion 

barrels of produced water generated in 1995 was managed through injection. Three percent of 

the 18 billion bbl of produced water was discharged under National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permits; nearly all of this water was generated from coal bed 

methane operations. Two percent was managed through beneficial reuse. The remaining 3% was 

disposed through other methods including evaporation, percolation pits, and publicly owned 

treatment works (API 2000). These management methods are briefly described in this section. 

2.4.1 Discharge 

For U.S. offshore operations, the majority of produced water is discharged to the ocean and is 

subject to applicable regulatory requirements. Offshore produced water discharges are authorized 

by NPDES general permits issued by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) 

regional offices. All of the permits contain a monthly average limit of 29 mg/L and a 42 mg/L 

daily maximum limit for oil and grease. 

In the U.S., wells in “coastal” areas generally may not discharge produced water, although there 

are exceptions for some wells that are located in Alaska’s Cook Inlet (Veil et al. 2004). Offshore 

activities around the globe typically discharge to the ocean, although countries have different 

discharge standards. 

Discharge activities from onshore production are primarily limited to water produced from CBM 

activities or from other oil and gas wells in the western United States that have produced water 

with low salinity. Currently, the decision to allow CBM water discharges is made by either state 

agencies or U.S. EPA regional offices, depending on the state’s permitting authority (Veil 2002). 

U.S. EPA has initiated a study on CBM to determine if national effluent limitation guidelines are 

needed.1

 

1

 Argonne National Laboratory, “Produced Water Management Technology Descriptions: Fact Sheet – Discharge,” 

Produced Water Management Information System (PWMIS), created for U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 16 

2.4.2 Underground Injection for Disposal 

Twenty-one percent of produced water generated in the United States in 1995 was managed 

through injection wells. Under U.S. EPA rules, produced water injection wells are classified as 

Class II wells and managed by the Underground Injection Control program. Class II wells may 

be classified as II-R (enhanced recovery), II-D (disposal), or II-H (hydrocarbon storage) 

(U.S. EPA 2008a). Class II injection wells are designed and constructed to inject fluids to 

authorized zones in a manner that does not allow migration into underground sources of drinking 

water (USDWs). Injection wells for disposal are often located in formations that enable water to 

enter at pressures below the fracture pressure and are isolated from USDWs and hydrocarbonproducing formations. 

In addition to locating a formation with appropriate characteristics to receive the water, it is also 

important that the produced water is chemically compatible with the receiving formations. This 

may require treatment prior to injection to manage excessive solids, dissolved oil, corrosion, 

chemical reactions, or microorganisms.2

2.4.3 Underground Injection for Increasing Oil Recovery

Most produced water generated onshore is injected to maintain reservoir pressure and 

hydraulically drive oil toward a producing well. This practice is often referred to as enhanced oil 

recovery (EOR), and is also referred to as water flooding or steam flooding, depending upon the 

temperature of the water. In 1995, injection for EOR managed 71% of the produced water 

generated (API 2000). When managed via injection for EOR, produced water becomes a 

resource rather than a waste product.3

2.4.4 Evaporation

While not practiced as widely as injection, evaporation is a simple management strategy for 

produced water. A typical evaporation approach directs produced water into a pond with a large 

surface area. Water then passively evaporates from the surface. The rate of evaporation will 

depend on the size, depth, and location of the pond, as well as the quality of the produced water. 

In semiarid regions, hot, dry air moving from a land surface will result in high evaporation rates 

for smaller ponds. As the concentration of solids and other constituents increase in the remaining 

produced water, the evaporation rate will decrease over time. This management approach can be 

conducted onsite in small evaporation ponds or can be conducted offsite at large commercial 

facilities. One drawback to evaporation ponds is that they are often attractive to waterfowl. To 

 

National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). Available at http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/pwmis/ 

techdesc/discharge/index.html. Accessed March 30, 2009. 2

 Argonne National Laboratory, “Produced Water Management Technology Descriptions: Fact Sheet – Underground 

Injection for Disposal,” PWMIS, created for DOE and NETL. Available at http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/ 

PWMIS/techdesc/injectdisp/index.html. Accessed March 30, 2009. 3

 Argonne National Laboratory, “Produced Water Management Technology Descriptions: Fact Sheet – Underground 

Injection for Increasing Oil Recovery,” PWMIS, created for DOE and NETL. Available at 

http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/PWMIS/techdesc/injecteor/index.html. Accessed March 30, 2009. 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 17 

mitigate the risk of exposure to hydrocarbons and other compounds within the produced water, 

netting is often applied over the ponds.4

2.4.5 Offsite Commercial Disposal

When onsite management is not practical, operators may send their produced water offsite to a 

commercial disposal facility. Typically, produced water is removed from well locations 

periodically and transported via truck to an offsite facility.5 Offsite commercial disposal is often 

chosen by small producers who find this option more feasible than constructing, operating, and 

closing onsite facilities, or by operators who do not have access to suitable formations for 

produced water injection (Puder and Veil 2006). 

2.4.6 Beneficial Reuse 

There are several management strategies in addition to enhanced oil recovery that use produced 

water for beneficial purposes. These primarily include agricultural and industrial uses. 

Beneficial reuse of produced water for agricultural purposes includes reuse for crop irrigation, 

livestock watering, wildlife watering and habitat, aquaculture, and hydroponic vegetable 

cultivation. However, reuse of produced water represents just a small fraction of total 

agricultural withdrawals. In 2000, the total U.S. water withdrawals (both surface water and 

groundwater withdrawals) for irrigation was 1,190 billion barrels and for livestock water and 

aquaculture was 47.5 billion barrels (Hutson et al. 2004). A significant challenge to using 

produced water for agricultural purposes is the salinity of the water. Crops vary in their 

susceptibility to salinity, and when salinity rises above a threshold for a species, the crop yield 

will decrease. Another concern for using produced water is the sodicity, which refers to the 

amount of sodium in the water.6

 Johnston et al. (2008) reported that produced water from coal 

bed natural gas activities in the Powder River Basin increased the sodium ion concentration 

within the soil profile when applied to mixed-hay cropland. Excessive levels of sodium can lead 

to loss of soil structure, reducing the hydraulic conductivity of soils and creating conditions that 

may limit or prevent plant growth. When sodic soils are wet, they become swollen and 

waterlogged. When these soils are dry, the surface becomes crusted and resistant to water 

infiltration or plant emergence. Additional elements in produced water can cause harm to plants 

when present in sufficient quantities. ALL (2003) notes that plant toxicity can be caused by 

elevated concentrations of chloride, sodium, and boron.

Reuses of produced water for industrial purposes include water for hydraulic fracturing at oil and 

gas sites, water for power generation, dust control, and fire control. To initiate production 

 

4

 Argonne National Laboratory, “Produced Water Management Technology Descriptions: Fact Sheet – 

Evaporation,” PWMIS, created for DOE and NETL. Available at http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/PWMIS/ 

techdesc/evap/index.html. Accessed March 30, 2009. 5

 Argonne National Laboratory, “Produced Water Management Technology Descriptions: Fact Sheet – Offsite 

Commercial Disposal,” PWMIS, created for DOE and NETL. Available at http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/ 

PWMIS/techdesc/offsite/index.html. Accessed March 30, 2009. 6

 Argonne National Laboratory, “Produced Water Management Technology Descriptions: Fact Sheet – Agricultural 

Use,” PWMIS, created for DOE and NETL. Available at http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/pwmis/techdesc/ 

aguse/index.html. Accessed March 31, 2009. 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 18 

operations and enhance ongoing production, wells may be hydraulically fractured. Fracturing 

requires hundreds of thousands of barrels of water. In locations where local water sources are 

insufficient or otherwise unavailable, produced water may be used for fracturing. An additional 

water source in these operations is the flowback water from a previous fracturing activity. The 

feasibility of using produced water as cooling water for power generation was considered in a 

research project funded by the U.S. Department of Energy and the Electric Power Research 

Institute (DeFilippo 2004). The economics in the evaluated case did not appear favorable, 

although there is at least one case of produced water being used as boiler feed water at a 

cogeneration plant (Brost 2002). 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 19 

Chapter 3 — Approach 

To better understand the volume of produced water generated and how it is managed in the 

United States, Argonne contacted state oil and gas agencies in the 31 states with active oil and 

gas production to obtain detailed information on produced water volumes and management. As a 

first step, Argonne contacted the state oil and gas directors to introduce the project, briefly 

explain the scope of the work, and ask for a contact who could provide detailed information for 

that state. State agencies were selected due to their long-term direct experience with oil and gas 

activities in the specific state and the data management systems that most states employ for 

tracking production data. An example letter is provided in Appendix A of this report. 

3.1 Information Request and Questionnaire 

Once an appropriate contact person was identified for each state oil and gas agency, two 

questionnaires were sent to the contact. The first questionnaire targeted the produced water study 

outlined in this report and is described below. The second questionnaire was for a similar study 

on flowback water from hydraulic fracturing activities. The results of that study are discussed in 

a separate report. 

The produced water questionnaire was divided into two parts, produced water volume and 

produced water management. The two tables from the questionnaire, along with instructions, are 

shown below. 

Part I – Produced Water Volume 

1. Please provide information on the volume of produced water generated in your 

state. Where available, please enter the actual volume on a yearly basis for 2007 

or the next most recent year into Table 1 or indicate how we can access your 

electronic data management system. Even if you don’t have information on the 

volume generated, but you do have information on the volume reinjected 

(assuming that most produced water from your state is reinjected), that is valuable 

information too, and should be entered in Table 1. To the extent possible, we 

would like to see the produced water volume estimates broken down by the type 

of hydrocarbon produced by the well as shown in Table 1. If you do not have 

quantitative information on the volume of produced water generated, please give 

us your educated “best estimate” of the volume. 

2. If you do not have quantitative information on produced water generation or 

reinjection volumes, please provide information on the annual volume of each 

type of hydrocarbon produced in your state for 2007 or the next most recent year. 

This information should be entered into the last column of Table 1. 

3. Please provide an estimate of the ratio of produced water to each type of 

hydrocarbon (for example, 7 bbl of water per 1 bbl of oil). 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 20 

Table 1. Produced Water Volume Information 

Type of 

Hydrocarbon 

# Wells 

Producing 

That Type of 

Hydrocarbon 

Total Volume 

of Produced 

Water 

(bbl/year) 

Volume of 

Hydrocarbon 

Produced 

(bbl/year or 

Mmcf/year) 

Ratio of Water 

to Hydrocarbon 

(bbl/bbl or 

bbl/Mmcf) 

Crude oil 

Conventional gas 

Coal bed 

methane 

Unconventional 

gas 

Other 

Total 

Part II – Produced Water Management 

4. Please provide information on how produced water is disposed or otherwise 

managed in your state. Where available, please enter the number of wells that 

manage produced water by each of the management practices on a yearly basis for 

2007 or the next most recent year into Table 2. If you do not have quantitative 

information on produced water management practices, please give us your 

educated “best estimate” of the percentage of wells following each management 

practice. 

Table 2. Produced Water Management Information 

Management 

Practice 

# Wells Using 

That Practice 

Total Volume of 

Produced Water 

Managed by That 

Practice (bbl/year) 

Percentage of 

Produced Water 

Managed by That 

Practice 

Injection for 

enhanced 

recovery 

Injection for 

disposal 

Surface 

discharge 

Evaporation 

Offsite 

commercial 

disposal 

Beneficial reuse 

Other 

5. For any produced water entered under the beneficial reuse or other categories, 

please provide, to the extent possible, more details on the actual methods 

employed. 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 21 

6. If another state agency has responsibility for regulating or overseeing some of 

the produced water management practices in your state, please indicate the name 

of the agency and a contact person. 

The information requested through the questionnaire represented Argonne’s “wish list.” We did 

not realistically expect that all or even most states would be able to provide that level of detail or 

complete all of the boxes in the tables. The responses from the states (described in Chapter 5) 

matched those expectations. In Table 2, the intent of “the number of wells using this practice” 

column was to learn how many oil and gas wells direct produced water using the various 

management approaches. This information was not provided consistently. As these terms were 

not defined, many states interpreted the “number of wells using that practice” to mean the 

number of injection wells, discharges, evaporating ponds, disposal sites, and reuse sites 

managing the water. 

3.2 Additional Production Information 

In order to account for produced water generated from wells outside of the scope of state oil and 

gas agencies, efforts to obtain production information at the federal level were also undertaken. 

For offshore production activities, the questionnaire described above was sent to the 

U.S. Department of the Interior’s Minerals Management Service (MMS), Gulf of Mexico 

Regional Office. Oil and gas production information for 2007 was also obtained from the 

Minerals Revenue Management Program of the MMS for federal onshore and tribal production 

activities. The oil and gas production estimates from these federal resources as well as the 

responses from state agencies were compared with available production data from the 

U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) to identify any 

inconsistencies and to assist in the estimation of produced water volume from production 

activities where data were not available. 

Several oil and gas platforms operate in the waters of Cook Inlet, Alaska. Although Cook Inlet is 

considered coastal rather than offshore waters, U.S. EPA’s national discharge standards allow 

discharge to Cook Inlet waters. At the time this report was prepared, Alaska was going through a 

process to gain the authority to administer the NPDES program but had not yet obtained that 

authority. The current active NPDES general permit for Cook Inlet discharges was issued by 

U.S. EPA Region 10. Therefore, Argonne contacted the Region 10 office to obtain information 

on the discharge volumes for the Cook Inlet platforms. 

 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 22 

Page intentionally left blank. 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 23 

Chapter 4 — Analysis and Results 

4.1 Response to Questionnaire 

The produced water questionnaire was sent to 31 state oil and gas agencies. We received 

information on produced water generation or management from 28 states. For those states that 

did not directly provide the requested information, efforts were made to extract available data 

from accessible reports from oil and gas agency websites. Links to these sites are available at the 

Produced Water Management Information System website.7

 The questionnaire was also sent to 

and completed by the MMS to capture offshore production activities and management practices. 

4.2 Incomplete Data 

A major challenge in this study was dealing with the incompleteness of available data, as not all 

states track produced water data. For those states where produced water generation volume was 

unknown, produced water management data was used. When neither produced water 

management information nor production information were available, estimates of produced 

water volume were determined from hydrocarbon production information. Production 

information was obtained from state oil and gas agencies and federal resources as detailed in 

Chapter 5. 

While information on produced water generation and management was obtained for most states, 

the detail of the information varied widely. Additionally, produced water data were unavailable 

for two states: Kentucky and Tennessee. The water-to-oil ratio (WOR) and water-to-gas ratio 

(WGR) for states without available produced water generation volumes were assumed to equal 

the corresponding ratios of adjacent states. For those states where the surrounding states had 

limited produced water information, the ratios were taken from several adjacent or neighboring 

states. This procedure is described in the state summaries in Chapter 5. 

Produced water volumes from oil and gas production activities on tribal lands were not readily 

obtainable. Because obtained production information only provided total hydrocarbon production 

data from tribal lands, the U.S. average produced water-to-hydrocarbon ratio was used to 

estimate produced water volumes from these tribal lands. 

The summary tables in this chapter address the incompleteness of the data by indicating where 

the data were obtained and the assumptions used in extrapolating data from other sources. The 

following categories appear under “Data Source” in the tables: 

1. Provided directly to Argonne by state agency; 

2. Obtained via published report; 

3. Obtained via electronic database; 

 

7

 Argonne National Laboratory, “Produced Water Management Information System,” created for DOE and NETL. 

Available at http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/PWMIS/. Accessed March 31, 2009. 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 24 

4. Obtained from website in form other than a published report or electronic 

database; 

5. Obtained from the EIA; and 

6. Estimated produced water generation volumes from hydrocarbon production 

volumes. 

While the primary method for obtaining information was through questionnaires and direct 

communication with state agencies, multiple sources were often used to compile production 

information for each state. 

4.3 Inconsistent Data 

Hydrocarbon production information can be assumed to be accurate, due to the value of the oil 

and gas and the various reporting requirements for production. State production volumes 

provided to Argonne were compared with production estimates reported by the DOE’s EIA. 

While there is some variation in reported production volumes, this is generally explained in two 

ways. Production volumes reported in state databases may not be the final reported volumes for a 

specific year. An official state report on production has final production volumes, and, when 

available, this source was used for production information. In most instances, final reported 

volumes agreed with production volumes reported by the EIA. When differences did exist, they 

were often due to the type of information reported. Most states reported produced hydrocarbon 

volumes, although some states provided saleable hydrocarbon volumes. Produced hydrocarbon 

volumes were preferentially used to determine the WORs and WGRs. 

While produced water volumes are not required for reporting, many states do keep track of this 

information. The accuracy of the reported volumes depends upon the methods used by the 

producer. For instance, producers in Florida do not measure volumes produced, but estimate 

produced water volumes according to hydrocarbon production. Many states could provide only 

produced water generation estimates from water injection volumes (e.g., Louisiana). The water 

injected into Class II wells, especially injection wells for enhanced recovery, may include 

sources of water other than produced water (e.g., surface water, sea water), which could 

overestimate the total volume of produced water generated. Additionally, those states where 

produced water can be managed in ways other than injection would not capture those 

management strategies, resulting in underreporting total produced water generation. While the 

authors recognize the uncertainty, a method of accounting was difficult to achieve for the 

variability in the data collection methods, as the details of the collection methods are unknown. 

The summary statistics in this chapter have been rounded to the nearest 1,000 unit (e.g., bbl for 

oil and water, million cubic feet [Mmcf] for gas). Chapter 5 provides detailed information on the 

type of information obtained as well as the reported numbers (not rounded) for each state. 

4.4 Production Summary 

In 2007, U.S. onshore and offshore oil and gas production activities generated nearly 21 billion 

barrels of produced water. Table 3 provides production information for each state. State 

production totals include production from federal lands within each state. 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 25 

Table 3. U.S. Onshore and Offshore Oil, Gas, and Produced Water 

Generation for 2007

State Crude Oil 

(bbl/year) 

Total Gas 

(Mmcf) 

Produced Water 

(bbl/year) 

Data 

Sourcea

Alabama 5,028,000 285,000 119,004,000 1 

Alaska 263,595,000 3,498,000 801,336,000 1 

Arizona 43,000 1,000 68,000 1, 2 

Arkansas 6,103,000 272,000 166,011,000 2, 3 

California 244,000,000 312,000 2,552,194,000 2, 3 

Colorado 2,375,000 1,288,000 383,846,000 1,3 

Florida 2,078,000 2,000 50,296,000 1 

Illinois 3,202,000 No data 136,872,000 1, 5 

Indiana 1,727,000 4,000 40,200,000 1, 2 

Kansas 36,612,000 371,000 1,244,329,000 1, 2 

Kentucky 3,572,000 95,000 24,607,000 1, 3, 6 

Louisiana 52,495,000 1,382,000 1,149,643,000 1 

Michigan 5,180,000 168,000 114,580,000 1, 3 

Mississippi 20,027,000 97,000 330,730,000 1 

Missouri 80,000 No data 1,613,000 1 

Montana 34,749,000 95,000 182,266,000 1 

Nebraska 2,335,000 1,000 49,312,000 1 

Nevada 408,000 0 6,785,000 1, 2 

New Mexico 59,138,000 1,526,000 665,685,000 1 

New York 378,000 55,000 649,000 2 

North Dakota 44,543,000 71,000 134,991,000 2, 4 

Ohio 5,422,000 86,000 6,940,000 1, 2 

Oklahoma 60,760,000 1,643,000 2,195,180,000 2, 6 

Pennsylvania 1,537,000 172,000 3,912,000 3 

South Dakota 1,665,000 12,000 4,186,000 1, 2 

Tennessee 350,000 1,000 2,263,000 4, 6 

Texas 342,087,000 6,878,000 7,376,913,000 3, 4 

Utah 19,520,000 385,000 148,579,000 1 

Virginia 19,000 112,000 1,562,000 1, 4 

West Virginia 679,000 225,000 8,337,000 1 

Wyoming 54,052,000 2,253,000 2,355,671,000 1, 4 

State Total 1,273,759,000 21,290,000 20,258,560,000 

Federal Offshore 467,180,000 2,787,000 587,353,000 1 

Tribal Lands 9,513,000 297,000 149,261,000 2, 6 

Federal Total 476,693,000 3,084,000 736,614,000 

U.S. Total 1,750,452,000 24,374,000 20,995,174,000 

a 1 = provided directly to Argonne by state agency; 2 = obtained via published report or 

electronically; 3 = obtained via electronic database; 4 = obtained from website in form 

other than a published report or electronic database; 5 = obtained from EIA; 6 = produced 

water volumes are estimated from production volumes.
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 26 

State and federal onshore production contribute the majority of produced water (more than 

20 billion barrels) in the United States. A significant amount of produced water (more than 

700 million bbl) is also generated from federal offshore production activities and from 

production on tribal lands. The five states with greatest produced water volumes in 2007 were 

Texas, California, Wyoming, Oklahoma, and Kansas. The produced water volumes from these 

states represent nearly 75% of total U.S. production (onshore and offshore) as shown in Figure 1. 

Texas alone contributed 35% of the total volume of produced water generated in the United 

States in 2007. 

The greatest produced water contributors are not necessarily the greatest producers of oil and 

gas. While Texas was the largest gas producer in the United States (nearly 6,900,000 Mmcf in 

2007), federal offshore production activities provided the largest volume of crude oil of more 

than 467,000,000 bbl (see Figure 2). Although federal offshore production generates nearly 27% 

of U.S. crude oil production, less than 3% of total U.S. produced water is generated from federal 

offshore activities. While Alaska and the federal offshore were two of the top three producers of 

oil and gas in 2007, they are ranked 7th and 9th in produced water volume generation. 

California

2,552,194,000

12%

Kansas

1,244,329,000

6%

Oklahoma

2,195,180,000

11%

Texas

7,376,913,000

35%

Wyoming

2,355,671,000

11%

Other

5,270,887,000

25%

Figure 1. Total U.S. produced water generated (barrels) in 2007 by state (five states with 

the greatest produced water generation are shown) 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 27 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Produced Water (bbl/year) Total Gas (Mmcf/year) Crude Oil (bbl/year)

Other

Colorado

Federal Offshore

New Mexico

Alaska

Louisiana

Kansas

Oklahoma

Wyoming

California

Texas

Figure 2. Ten largest produced water generators and their contributions to gas and crude 

oil production 

In addition to total volumes produced, it is useful to consider the WOR and WGR from 

production activities. This information can be used to evaluate the relative production age of 

resources within the production lifetime. Table 4 lists water-to-hydrocarbon ratios from states 

where produced water data could be provided according to the predominant hydrocarbon 

produced at a specific location. 

For WORs, the states values ranged from 2.5 bbl/bbl for South Dakota to 42.7 bbl/bbl for 

Illinois. The offshore ratio was even smaller at 1.04 bbl/bbl. For WGRs, the state values ranged 

from 0.04 bbl/Mmcf in South Dakota to more than 1,200 bbl/Mmcf for Kansas. The offshore 

ratio was 86 bbl/Mmcf. 

A national average WOR and WGR can be estimated by developing a production-weighted 

average of the individual state values. Each state’s WOR is multiplied by the oil production, and 

each WGR is multiplied by the gas production from gas-only wells to give water production 

from oil and gas production. These water volumes are summed, then they are divided by the sum 

of the oil and gas production values to estimate the WOR and WGR. 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 28 

Table 4. Water-to-Hydrocarbon Ratio for 2007 from 

Available Dataa

State Water to Crude 

Oil (bbl/bbl) 

Water to Gas 

(bbl/Mmcf) 

Alabama 7.7 282 

Alaska 2.9 4.4 

California 10.5 7.6 

Florida 24.2 Not available 

Illinois 42.7 Not available 

Kansas 21.8 1208 

Mississippi 13.5 35.9 

Missouri 20.3 Not available 

Montana 4.0 453 

Nebraska 20.9 358 

Nevada 16.6 Not available 

New Mexico 9.0 91.5 

North Dakota 3.0 18.0 

South Dakota 2.5 0.0 

Virginia Not available 17.7 

Onshore Ratiob 7.6 260 

Federal Offshore 1.04 86.0 

Total Ratiob 5.3 182 

a

 States not shown in Table 4 did not distinguish produced water 

volumes by hydrocarbon type; therefore, the WORs and WGRs could 

not be calculated. b

 Onshore and total ratios were determined using the total volumes in 

each category (water, oil, and gas). 

The national average onshore WOR was 7.6 bbl/bbl. When offshore production was added to the 

onshore production, the total average U.S. WOR was 5.3 bbl/bbl. A national average onshore 

WGR was 260 bbl/Mmcf. When offshore production was added to the onshore production, the 

total average U.S. WGR was 182 bbl/Mmcf. 

The WOR from onshore activities determined in this study of 7.57 is within the range of 

previous reports of 7 bbl (Lee et al. 2002) and 9.5 bbl (Veil et al. 2004) of water per bbl of oil. 

The U.S. ratio for 2007 reveals that 88% of the material brought to the surface for oil production 

is water. According to Weideman (1996), water can comprise as much as 98% of the material 

brought to the surface for crude oil wells nearing the end of their productive lives. While 

cessation of operations depends on the point when managing the produced water is no longer 

profitable, the WOR determined in this study suggests that production of available resources is 

mature for most onshore operations in the United States. In the fluids brought to the surface from 

federal offshore oil wells, water comprises 51% on average. 

The authors caution that the national average WOR and WGR values estimated in this study are 

likely to underestimate the true values. The averages are based on only 14 states (WOR) and 

11 states (WGR). Many of the states that have large numbers of producing wells, particularly in 

mature fields with many stripper wells (e.g., Texas, Oklahoma), did not have produced water 

data segregated by production type. If those data had been included with the data from states 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 29 

already in the average, it is probable that the national average WOR and WGR values would be 

substantially larger. 

4.5 Produced Water Management Summary 

Management information was obtained for nearly 17.1 billion bbl (81%) of the 20.9 billion bbl 

of produced water generated in 2007. The vast majority of produced water in the United States, 

95.2% of the reported volume, was managed through injection. More than half of the produced 

water (55.4%, or 8.6 billion bbl) was injected for enhanced recovery in 2007. More than onethird (38.9%, or 6.0 billion bbl) of produced water was injected for disposal. Surface discharges 

managed 4.4% (700,000,000 bbl) of the total reported volume of produced water managed in 

2007. Table 5 provides summary management information about injection and surface 

discharges for each state and the federal offshore area where such information was available. 

Those states that did not provide produced water management information have only reported 

total generation volumes. The remaining produced water volume was managed through 

evaporation ponds, offsite commercial disposal, beneficial reuse, and other management 

methods. Detailed management information is available for each state in Chapter 5. 

Table 5 indicates that most of the produced water managed through injection (both for enhanced 

recovery and disposal) is generated through onshore production activities. While injection 

activities take place in the federal offshore area, the total injection volume is small compared to 

the total volume of produced water generated in the federal offshore area. Table 5 also reveals 

that some states reported greater volumes of produced water managed than generated for 2007 

(e.g., Mississippi, Utah). Injection for enhanced recovery often includes makeup water from 

various sources, which could explain the discrepancies. 

While surface discharge is used to manage some onshore produced water, the vast majority of 

surface discharges occur in the ocean. In 2007, more than 676,000,000 bbl of produced water 

were discharged to water bodies. Figure 3 shows the sources by percent of produced water 

surface discharges in the United States. The federal offshore managed the greatest volume of 

produced water through surface discharge. Including discharges to the Cook Inlet in Alaska, 

nearly 85% of the volume of produced water managed through surface discharge 

(573,000,000 bbl) is directed to oceans. The remaining 15% of produced water that is managed 

through surface discharge is from onshore production activities. 

Alabama also manages a significant amount of produced water from coal bed methane activities 

through surface discharge. As produced water from coal bed methane production is often of a 

higher quality than other than produced water from more conventional production sources, some 

states including Alabama allow surface discharge after treatment. 

Beneficial reuse is currently not a significant nationwide practice for produced water 

management. In 2007, 1,338,000 bbl were reported as managed through beneficial use. Reported 

volumes were limited to Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Utah, although other states including 

New York and Montana reported practices without providing detailed data on the volumes 

managed through beneficial reuse. It is likely that some other states have modest amounts of 

beneficial reuse of produced water, particularly for CBM production when the water is relatively 

fresh prior to treatment. 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 30 

Table 5. U.S. Produced Water Volume by Management Practice for 2007 

State 

Volume of Produced Water (bbl/year) 

Injection for 

Enhanced 

Recovery 

Injection or 

Disposal 

Surface 

Discharge 

Total 

Managed 

Total 

Generated 

Alabama 7,500,000 33,000,000 78,000,000 119,000,000 119,004,000 

Alaska 1,037,909,000 39,914,000 35,480,000 1,113,302,000 801,336,000 

Arizona No data 35,000 No data 35,000 68,000 

Arkansas 45,489,000 120,169,000 No data 166,011,000 166,011,000 

California 1,764,609,000 558,188,000 No data 2,322,797,000 2,552,194,000 

Colorado No data No data No data No data 383,846,000 

Florida 34,762,000 15,534,000 No data 50,296,000 50,296,000 

Illinois 135,264,000 No data No data 135,264,000 136,872,000 

Indiana 34,500,000 5,700,000 No data 40,200,000 40,200,000 

Kansas 444,319,000 800,009,000 No data 1,244,329,000 1,244,329,000 

Kentucky No data No data No data No data 24,607,000 

Louisiana 66,261,000 1,034,092,000 No data 1,149,643,000 1,149,643,000 

Michigan 25,000,000 90,000,000 No data 115,000,000 114,580,000 

Mississippi 389,614,000 281,563,000 No data 671,177,000 330,730,000 

Missouri No data 1,611,000 No data 1,613,000 1,613,000 

Montana 109,217,000 46,807,000 No data 182,266,000 182,266,000 

Nebraska 31,588,000 14,337,000 500,000 49,312,000 49,312,000 

Nevada No data No data No data No data 6,785,000 

New Mexico 449,489,000 348,142,000 No data 797,630,000 665,685,000 

New York No data No data No data No data 649,000 

North Dakota 64,873,000 65,321,000 No data 134,991,000 134,991,000 

Ohio 487,000 6,137,000 No data 6,940,000 6,940,000 

Oklahoma 940,272,000 1,254,132,000 No data 2,195,180,000 2,195,180,000 

Pennsylvania No data No data No data No data 3,912,000

South Dakota 2,122,000 1,853,000 85,000 4,146,000 4,186,000 

Tennessee No data No data No data No data 2,263,000 

Texas 5,011,062,000 2,365,476,000 No data 7,376,913,000 7,376,913,000 

Utah 78,251,000 62,051,000 21,080,000 173,145,000 148,579,000 

Virginia No data No data No data No data 1,562,000 

West Virginia 3,942,000 No data 3,857,000 8,337,000 8,337,000 

Wyoming No data No data No data No data 2,355,671,000 

State Total 10,676,530,000 7,144,071,000 139,002,000 18,057,527,000 20,258,560,000

Federal Offshore 48,673,000 1,298,000 537,381,000 587,353,000 587,353,000 

Tribal Lands No data No data No data No data 149,261,000 

Total 10,725,203,000 7,145,369,000 676,383,000 18,644,880,000 20,995,174,000
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 31 

Alabama

11.53%

Alaska (Cook

Inlet)

5.25%

NE, OK, SD

0.09%

Utah

3.12%

West Virginia

0.57%

Federal Offshore

79.45%

Figure 3. Sources by percent of total U.S. surface discharges for produced water in 2007 

(total discharges amounted to more than 676,000,000 bbl in 2007) 

 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 32 

Page intentionally left blank. 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 33 

Chapter 5 — State-by-State Summary 

5.1 Alabama 

The State Oil and Gas Board of Alabama provided produced water generation and management 

data (Bolin 2008). As of December 2007, Alabama had 6,544 wells producing hydrocarbons, 

with the majority of these wells producing CBM (5,209 wells). The remaining wells produce 

crude oil (848 wells), conventional gas (475 wells), and unconventional gas (12 wells). Alabama 

specified shale gas for unconventional gas. From the 6,544 wells, 119,003,506 bbl of produced 

water were generated in 2007. CBM and crude oil production were responsible for the majority 

of the produced water generation, with each producing 78,087,301 and 38,495,257 bbl, 

respectively. Produced water generation from conventional gas was 2,420,635 bbl, and 

unconventional gas production generated 313 barrels of produced water. 

Hydrocarbon production for 2007 included crude oil (5,028,4285 bbl), CBM (114,981 Mmcf), 

conventional gas (170,049 Mmcf), and unconventional gas (52 Mmcf). Conventional gas wells 

also produced 2,091,226 bbl of condensate. From these production volumes, the following ratios 

were determined: WOR of 7.66 bbl/bbl, WGR of 679 bbl/Mmcf for CBM, WGR of 

14.23 bbl/Mmcf for conventional gas, and WGR of 6.0 bbl/Mmcf for unconventional gas. 

The majority of generated produced water in Alabama is managed through surface discharges for 

CBM, which require NPDES permits. The Alabama Department of Environmental Management 

(ADEM) administers the NPDES permit program. Permitted surface discharge accounts for 

78,000,000 bbl of produced water from CBM production (5,204 wells). Injection for disposal 

manages 33,000,000 bbl of produced water per year for 1,174 wells. A smaller amount of 

produced water is injected for enhanced recovery with 7,500,000 bbl managed for that purpose. 

The remaining produced water (approximately 500,000 bbl) is managed through offsite 

commercial disposal. There is no beneficial reuse of produced water in Alabama. 

5.2 Alaska 

The Alaska Oil and Gas Commission (OGC) supplied both produced water generation 

information and management information (McMains et al. 2008). In 2007, Alaska had 

1,875 wells with the majority of these wells producing crude oil (1,715 wells). The remaining 

wells produced conventional gas (160 wells). Crude oil production volumes were 

263,595,162 bbl in 2007 and generated 765,121,124 bbl of produced water. Conventional gas 

production generated 735,412 bbl of produced water in the same period to produce 

166,261 Mmcf of gas. These volumes result in a WOR of 2.9 bbl/bbl of crude oil and WGR of 

4.4 bbl/Mmcf of conventional gas. Total gas production (including gas coproduced from oil 

wells) was 3,498,322 Mmcf as reported in the Alaska OGC production data archives 

(Alaska OGC 2009). 

Injection for enhanced recovery manages 94.8 percent of produced water in Alaska. Injection for 

enhanced recovery occurs at 842 wells, and these wells manage 1,037,908,618 bbl of water. This 

volume exceeds the total volume of available produced water, due to the addition of seawater 

injected for enhanced recovery. The remaining produced water (39,913,859 bbl) is managed by 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 34 

30 injection wells for disposal. Management information for discharges from production 

activities in the Cook Inlet was obtained from U.S. EPA Region 10. In 2007, 35,479,866 bbl of 

produced water were directly discharged into the Cook Inlet (Shaw 2009). Discharges in the 

Cook Inlet operate under the U.S. EPA NPDES permit program until October 31, 2011, when 

discharge activities associated with the oil and gas industry will be transferred to the Alaska 

NPDES program (Hartig 2009). 

5.3 Arizona 

Annual oil, water, and gas production volumes are available in the December monthly 

production reports on the Arizona Oil and Gas Conservation Commission’s website at 

http://www.azogcc.az.gov/. In 2007, 42,692 bbl of oil, 67,682 bbl of water, and 654.530 Mmcf 

of gas were produced. Most produced water generated in Arizona is managed through injection 

for disposal. Some produced water is trucked to an approved disposal facility in New Mexico. 

There is no injection for enhanced recovery at this time. The Arizona Geological Survey, which 

provides administrative and staff support to the Arizona Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 

provided a spreadsheet of Class II injection wells, which reported that 35,116 bbl of produced 

water were injected for disposal in 2007 (Rauzi 2008). Historic hydrocarbon production volumes 

are available in the report, Annual Oil, Gas, and Helium Production in Arizona 1954-2008 

(Rauzi 2009). 

5.4 Arkansas 

Production information was obtained through the Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission’s 

(Arkansas OGC’s) annual production report (Arkansas OGC 2007). For 2007, total production 

volumes in the state were 6,102,538 bbl of crude oil and 271,846 Mmcf of gas. While the report 

provides production information for South Arkansas and North Arkansas, specific information 

on the type of produced gas (i.e., conventional, unconventional, or CBM) was not provided. 

The Arkansas OGC also provided produced water management information (Pearson 2009). 

While there is significant water produced from bromine production activities, and the Arkansas 

OGC tracks the volumes produced and managed that are associated with bromine production, 

such water is managed through Class V wells and is not included in the management information 

here. There are 106 active Class II injection wells for enhanced oil recovery and 448 Class II 

injection wells that dispose of produced water. Most produced water was managed through 

injection for disposal, with 120,169,316 bbl injected. Injection for enhanced recovery managed 

45,488,886 bbl of produced water. An additional 352,997 bbl of produced water was injected, 

but the type of injection well was not specified. The total injected volume of produced water for 

2007 was 166,011,199 bbl. 

5.5 California 

Produced water and hydrocarbon production information were obtained from the California 

Department of Conservation’s 2007 Preliminary Report of California Oil and Gas Production 

Statistics (CDOC 2008a). Oil production in 2007 was reported to be 244,000,000 bbl. The report 

separates natural gas production according to production associated with oil zones (associated 

production) and production not associated with oil zones (nonassociated production). Associated 

production was estimated to total 219,000 Mmcf, and nonassociated production was estimated at 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 35 

93,200 Mmcf. Rounding to significant figures, the total gas production was 312,000 Mmcf. The 

water produced from all activities was 2,552,194,253 bbl, which accounts for both onshore and 

state and federal offshore production. The total produced water volume oil and associated gas

production was 2,549,823,222 bbl in 2007 (WOR: 10.45 bbl/bbl). The produced water from 

nonassociated gas production was 2,162,592 bbl in 2007 (WGR: 6.93 bbl/Mmcf). 

Produced water management information was not provided, although some information could be 

determined from an online database (CDOC 2008b). The online database captures underground 

injection volumes and reported 2,322,797,059 bbl of water were injected. In 2007, 

558,187,847 bbl were injected for disposal, and 1,764,609,212 bbl were injected for enhanced 

recovery. These volumes may include ocean water or other brine. This does not account for all of 

the produced water produced in California, but it does suggest that much of the water is injected 

for the purposes of enhancing oil and gas production activities. Produced water that is not 

injected for enhanced recovery or as water disposal is treated for beneficial use or is disposed of 

through settling ponds and ocean outfall. 

5.6 Colorado 

The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) publishes production data in an 

online database, which was used to obtain produced water information for 2007 (COGCC 2009). 

For that year, crude oil production was 2,374,921 bbl.Total gas production was 

1,288,109.976 Mmcf, with CBM contributing 478,434.041 Mmcf to the gas total. Produced 

water volumes totaled 383,845,756 bbl. Detailed information on produced water management 

was not available, although it is generally managed through evaporation ponds or injection 

(Kerr 2009). 

5.7 Florida 

The Bureau of Mining and Minerals Regulation provided produced water generation and 

management information for the State of Florida (Taylor 2008). All wells in Florida produce oil, 

with most producing both oil and gas. There are 56 oil producing wells in the state, and 52 of 

those wells produce both oil and gas. Crude oil production was 2,077,773 bbl in 2007, and 

2,010.932 Mmcf of natural gas was produced during the same period. Total produced water 

volume from the 56 wells was 50,295,726 bbl. Four wells that only produce oil generate small 

volumes of water that were not included in the total. Produced water volumes are not directly 

measured, but rather are estimated by oil producers. 

Produced water is managed through underground injection in Florida. Twenty wells injected 

15,533,899 bbl of produced water for disposal. Forty-three wells injected 34,761,872 bbl of 

water for enhanced recovery. 

5.8 Illinois 

The Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS) provided information on average production 

between 2000 and 2006 (Dastgheib 2008). Reported data comes from the ISGS waterflood 

database. Annual oil production from enhanced oil recovery (EOR) averaged 3,201,958 bbl 

during that period. Produced water averaged 136,872,199 bbl annually resulting in a WOR of 

42 7 bbl/bbl. As the database contains only information related to waterflooding, production 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 36 

activities in Illinois that do not use waterflooding would not be included. The actual produced 

water volume in the state is likely to be higher than what is reported here, as EIA reported oil 

production for Illinois was 9,609,000 bbl for 2007 (EIA 2008a). 

Nearly all of the generated produced water from EOR is injected for waterflooding activities to 

improve recovery of crude oil. 135,263,569 bbl of the produced water was managed in this way. 

It is unclear from the available information whether produced water is also managed via injection 

for disposal. Additional produced water may be disposed of by methods other than 

waterflooding, although data on that is unknown. 

5.9 Indiana 

Produced water data were provided by the Division of Oil and Gas of the Indiana Department of 

Natural Resources (IDNR) and estimated from reported injections for 2007 (Nemecek 2008). 

Additional production information was obtained through the December 2007 monthly report 

published by the IDNR (IDNR 2007). Total reported production for 2007 was 1,726,553 bbl of 

crude oil and 3,605.982 Mmcf of gas. While generation information on produced water was not 

available, management information states that 40,200,000 bbl of produced water was managed 

through injection in 2007. The primary management practice for produced water was injection 

for enhanced recovery, which injected 34,500,000 bbl of produced water annually into 1,101 

injection wells. Produced water is also managed through 183 disposal wells, which managed the 

remaining 5,700,000 bbl of produced water. 

5.10 Kansas 

Production data were provided by the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC) and obtained 

from the Kansas Geological Survey’s 2007 report (Durrant 2008). The 2007 drilled wells and 

CBM wells are from the 2007 KCC ACO-1 well completion forms. The produced water volumes 

are subjective and were determined using a weighted average approach from injection well 

permits in Kansas. The injection well permit information was collected from the U3-C annual 

reports of pressure monitoring, fluid injection, and enhanced recovery filed by operators. 

In 2007, 67,631 wells produced hydrocarbons in Kansas. There were 43,384 wells producing 

36,611,778 bbl of crude oil. Conventional gas production occurred at 24,247 wells and totaled 

370,918.167 Mmcf. Additionally, 1,306 wells were drilled in 2007 to begin CBM production. 

Crude oil production generated 796,370,268 bbl of produced water, resulting in a WOR of 

22 bbl/bbl. Conventional gas production generated 447,958,276 bbl of produced water, resulting 

in a WGR of 1,207 bbl/Mmcf. The total volume of produced water generated in Kansas was 

1,244,328,544 bbl. 

Produced water is managed via injection wells in Kansas. Offsite commercial disposal of 

produced water is not a recognized management practice in Kansas. There were 11,016 injection 

wells for enhanced recovery and 4,406 injection wells for disposal in 2007. Disposal is the 

primary purpose for injection, with 800,009,421 bbl of produced water managed in this way. 

Injection for enhanced recovery managed 444,319,123 bbl of produced water. 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 37 

5.11 Kentucky 

The Kentucky Division of Oil and Gas Resources supplied only hydrocarbon production 

information, as it does not have regulatory authority to monitor produced water. There were 

49,344 wells in Kentucky in 2007. Crude oil was produced from 26,481 wells, which generated 

3,572,400 bbl of crude oil (Combs 2008). Gas production occurred at 19,385 wells, which 

produced 95,246.846 Mmcf for gas, according to the Kentucky Geological Survey (undated). 

There were an additional 3,478 wells that include storage, stratification tests, and combination oil 

and gas wells. No information was provided on produced water generation or management. 

Produced water volumes were estimated by extrapolation using available production information 

and water-to-hydrocarbon ratios from neighboring states. The WGR (17.7 bbl/Mmcf) from CBM 

activities in Virginia was multiplied by the gas production in West Virginia (225,000 Mmcf) to 

estimate the volume of water attributable to West Virginia’s gas production (3,982,500). This 

gas-specific water volume was subtracted from the total West Virginia water volume 

(8,337,000 bbl) to estimate the volume of water attributed to West Virginia crude oil production 

(4,354,500 bbl). This oil-specific water volume was divided by the West Virginia crude oil 

production to estimate the WOR in West Virginia (6.4 bbl/bbl). The WGR from Virginia and the 

estimated WOR in West Virginia were used to determine the total estimated produced water 

volume for Kentucky. Based upon the previous assumptions, produced water generated from oil 

production would be 22,920,000 bbl. Produced water generated from gas production in Kentucky 

is estimated to be 1,688,000 bbl. Total produced water generation for 2007 is estimated at 

24,608,000 bbl. 

5.12 Louisiana 

Hydrocarbon production and produced water management information was provided by the 

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (Parker 2008). Louisiana does not track the amount 

of water produced from each of Louisiana’s 80,892 actively producing wells. Of these wells, 

40,957 produce crude oil and 39,935 produce gas. Total oil production in 2007 was 

52,495,100 bbl. Gas production volume was 1,381,585 Mmcf. 

While production volume of produced water is unavailable, Louisiana does track injection 

volumes for 2,914 wells (1,149,643,443 bbl of produced water in 2007). Ninety percent of 

produced water (1,034,092,270 bbl) was injected for disposal. The remaining water was either 

managed by injection for enhanced recovery (66,261,179 bbl of water into 354 wells) or by 

offsite commercial disposal (49,289,994 bbl of water into 31 wells). 

5.13 Michigan 

The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality’s Office of Geological Survey provided 

information on produced water management (Organek 2008). Production volume data was 

obtained from a database on the Gas, Oil, and Minerals website of the Michigan Department of 

Environmental Quality. Total crude oil production was 5,180,043 bbl. Michigan also produced 

441,844 bbl of condensate and 453,749 bbl of natural gas liquids in 2007. Gas production during 

that period was 166,794.419 Mmcf. Produced water generation for all hydrocarbon production 

activities was 114,580,484 bbl. 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 38 

Michigan manages produced water through underground injection. Twenty percent of produced 

water was injected for enhanced recovery, while the majority of produced water (80%) was 

managed through injection for disposal. 

5.14 Mississippi 

The Mississippi Oil and Gas Board provided produced water generation and management 

information (Sims and Tarbutton 2008). Mississippi has three categories of production wells: 

wells that produce only oil, wells that produce only gas, and wells that produce both oil and gas. 

For oil-only wells, 1,379 wells produced 12,111,145 bbl per year of crude oil and 

164,027,705 bbl of produced water. The WOR for these wells was 13.54 bbl/bbl. There are 

1,403 gas-only wells in Mississippi, which produced 40,656 Mmcf of gas and 1,459,563 bbl of 

produced water, with a WGR of 35.9 bbl/Mmcf. The remaining 1,903 wells produce both oil and 

gas, producing 7,915,632 bbl of crude oil, 56,056 Mmcf of gas, and 165,242,314 bbl of water in 

2007. Total oil production was 20,026,777 bbl, and total gas production was 96,712 Mmcf. Total 

produced water generation in Mississippi was 330,739,582 bbl for 2007. 

Total produced water managed in Mississippi exceeds the total produced water generated, which 

suggests that most of the water injected for enhanced recovery consists of makeup water. There 

were 381 wells that injected 389,613,955 bbl of water for enhanced recovery. In addition, 

466 wells injected 281,563,270 bbl of water for disposal. 

5.15 Missouri 

The Division of Geology and Land Survey of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources 

provided produced water generation and management information (Kaden 2008). In 2007, 

Missouri had 308 crude oil production wells. There was no commercial gas production activity 

in Missouri for that year. The 308 wells produced 79,516 bbl of oil and 1,612,592 bbl of water, 

for a WOR of 20.28 bbl/bbl. Injection for disposal is the primary management method for 

produced water. One hundred forty-six injection wells managed 1,611,246 bbl of produced 

water. The remaining 1,346 bbl of water were managed through evaporation. 

5.16 Montana 

The Montana Board of Oil and Gas provided produced water generation and management 

information (Halvorson 2009; Hudak 2008). In 2007, crude oil production volumes were 

34,749,250 bbl from 4,325 wells. Gas production took place at 5,694 wells and yielded 

82,119 Mmcf. Much of the current and historic gas production in Montana occurred in 

formations that would be considered unconventional, as tight sand or siltstone reservoirs, lowvolume gas wells, or “shale gas,” in some cases. As a result, Montana does not break out gas 

sources as conventional or unconventional. CBM production information is collected separately, 

and 902 wells produced 13,062 Mmcf of CBM. Produced water volumes from these 

hydrocarbons were the following: 139,189,532 bbl of water from crude oil production, 

4,196,725 bbl of water from gas production, and 38,880,091 bbl from CBM production. These 

volumes resulted in a WOR of 4.0 bbl/bbl, a WGR of 51.1 bbl/Mmcf of gas, and a WGR of 

2,976 bbl/Mmcf of CBM. When conventional natural gas and CBM are combined, the resulting 

WGR is 453 bbl/Mmcf. 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 39 

The majority of produced water generated is managed through injection wells. There were 

624 active wells for enhanced recovery and 173 wells for disposal. Enhanced recovery managed 

60% (109,217,415 bbl) of the produced water generated in Montana. Twenty-six percent 

(46,807,463 bbl) of produced water generated was managed through injection for disposal. The 

remaining 14% of produced water was managed in other ways including the following: 

evaporation pits, beneficial use including stock water and dust suppression, and direct discharge 

to surface waters. According to Keith et al. (2003), produced water from CBM activities was 

primarily managed through other practices including direct discharge, holding ponds, and land 

application. 

5.17 Nebraska 

The Nebraska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission provided both production and management 

information (Sydow 2008). In 2007, there were 1,384 wells, with 1,187 of those wells producing 

oil. The remaining 197 wells produced gas. Oil production was 2,335,355 bbl and generated 

48,835,874 bbl of produced water (WOR: 20.91bbl/bbl). Conventional gas production volume 

was 1,331.125 Mmcf and generated 476,481 bbl of produced water (WGR: 357.95 bbl/Mmcf). 

Total produced water generation in Nebraska was 49,312,355 bbl. 

For produced water management, data were provided both according to the number of wells that 

produce water and the number of injection wells that receive the produced water. The majority of 

produced water (31,588,486 bbl) was sent from 673 oil wells to be managed by 407 injection 

wells for enhanced recovery. Injection for disposal was conducted at 91 injection wells to 

manage 14,337,458 bbl from 478 oil wells and 197 gas wells. Sixteen oil wells sent 499,960 bbl 

of produced water to surface discharge. Evaporation management took 2,886,451 bbl of 

produced water from 233 oil wells. 

5.18 Nevada 

The Nevada Division of Minerals supplied production data (Price 2009). According to the 2007 

bimonthly reports of the Nevada Oil Patch, total oil production in 2007 was 408,174 bbl. Gas 

production for the same year was 4.474 Mmcf. Produced water volumes were collected for oil 

production, and 6,784,661 bbl were generated in 2007. No information on management of 

produced water was provided, although a well inventory in 2004 revealed that there were 

13 Class II injection wells in Nevada (NDEP 2004). 

5.19 New Mexico 

The Oil Conservation Division of the New Mexico Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources 

Department provided produced water volume information according to hydrocarbon production 

(Fesmire 2009). Crude oil production generated 53,265,771 bbl of oil and 534,273,532 bbl of 

water in 2007 (WOR: 10.0 bbl/bbl). An additional 5,872,258 bbl of oil condensate were 

produced; total oil production for 2007 was 59,138,029 bbl. Conventional gas production totaled 

797,747 Mmcf and generated 80,377,476 bbl of produced water (WGR: 100 bbl/Mmcf). Coal 

bed methane production was 496,825 Mmcf and produced 38,084,472 bbl of water (WGR: 

76.7 bbl/Mmcf). When conventional natural gas and CBM are combined, the resulting WGR is 

92 bbl/Mmcf. 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 40 

While unconventional gas and condensate were produced (231,901 Mmcf and 5,872,258 bbl, 

respectively), the volume of produced water from these activities was unknown. Total gas 

production in 2007 was 1,526,473 Mmcf. Additional produced water was generated from carbon 

dioxide production activities. For 98,856,249 Mmcf of carbon dioxide, 65,585 bbl of produced 

water were generated. The total produced water from the above activities was 652,801,065 bbl, 

although the total water actually produced in the state in 2007 was 665,684,732 bbl. The 

remaining amounts could not be identified by these hydrocarbon categories. 

New Mexico does not specifically track the produced water that gets reinjected. While the option 

is included in the monthly production reports, well operators use different categories for the 

same action. In 2007, 3,167 wells had 449,488,784 bbl of water injected specifically into 

injection wells. An additional 603 wells had 348,141,541 bbl of water injected as salt water 

disposal. 

5.20 New York 

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s Division of Mineral 

Resources provides production information in an annual report and through an online database 

(NYSDEC 2006; NYSDEC undated). The most recent available report is for 2007. According to 

the 2007 data, 13,113 wells were reported to the division. Of the total, 7,387 were natural gas 

wells, 4,874 were oil wells, and the remaining wells were gas storage, dry holes, and solution salt 

wells. The database provided production volumes of 55,001 Mmcf for natural gas and 

377,514 bbl for oil. The state-produced water volume was 649,333 bbl from active wells for 

2007, which included 215,050 bbl that were associated with water injection wells. 

Specific details were not available on the management practices for produced water in New 

York, although injection wells for disposal and enhanced recovery were listed under well type 

codes within the database. All produced water that is hauled from well sites requires a 

department-issued waste transporter permit. The department allows produced water disposal at 

publicly owned treatment works, with approved industrial pretreatment or mini-pretreatment 

programs. The department also allows road spreading of production brine for deicing and dust 

control purposes under its beneficial use determination program. 

5.21 North Dakota 

The Department of Mineral Resources provides oil and gas production information online. In 

2007, there were 3,872 oil producing wells in North Dakota. Of these wells, 2,525 also reported 

gas production. In addition to the 3,872 oil wells, there were 216 gas wells. Fifty-nine of the gas 

wells were permitted as gas condensate wells and produced some oil. Total annual crude oil 

production from those wells was 44,701,934 bbl. The oil producing wells, which generated 

44,543,187 bbl of the total crude oil, generated 134,704,290 bbl of produced water 

(WOR: 3.02 bbl/bbl). Gas production for 2007 was 70,767.153 Mmcf. Much of this production 

volume was coproduced from oil wells. The gas wells produced 15,909 Mmcf in 2007 and 

generated 286,889 bbl of produced water (WGR: 18.03 bbl/Mmcf). The total produced water 

generated in North Dakota from these production activities was 134,991,179 bbl. 

More than 96% of the produced water generated in North Dakota is managed through injection. 

In 2007, there was slightly more produced water managed through injection for disposal than 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 41 

enhanced recovery. Water produced from 2,531 wells totaling 65,321,067 bbl was directed to 

disposal wells, which managed 48.39% of the total volume of produced water for 2007. 

Enhanced recovery managed 64,872,788 bbl (48.06% of the total volume) of produced water 

from 1,096 wells. The remaining 3.55% of the produced water (4,797,324 bbl) in North Dakota 

came from 519 wells and was directed to offsite commercial disposal wells. 

5.22 Ohio 

The Ohio Division of Mineral Resources Management provided produced water information for 

2006, and production data was obtained for the same year through the 2006 report Summary of 

Ohio Oil and Gas Activities (ODNR 2006). The majority of Ohio wells are combination wells, 

producing both oil and gas. In 2006, there were 63,654 active wells in Ohio, which produced 

5,422,194 bbl of crude oil and 86,315.100 Mmcf of natural gas. These wells produced 

6,940,000 bbl of produced water in 2006. Ohio does not subcategorize reported produced water 

volumes by hydrocarbon. 

Most produced water generated in Ohio is managed via injection for disposal. Eighty-eight 

percent, 6,137,005 bbl, of reported produced water in 2007 was injected for disposal. Injection 

for enhanced recovery managed 7% of the produced water generated (487,478 bbl). The 

remaining 315,517 bbl were managed either at annular disposal wells or were reused through 

spreading for dust and ice control with local government authorization. 

5.23 Oklahoma 

The Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) publishes an annual report on oil and gas. 

Production information for 2007 was obtained from the 2008 report, and produced water 

management information was provided directly by the OCC. For the reported year, there were 

82,832 crude oil production wells producing 60,760,000 bbl of crude oil. Gas production 

occurred at 38,364 wells and totaled 1,643,292 Mmcf. 

The majority of produced water in Oklahoma was managed via injection in 2007 (Baker 2009). 

Injection occurred at 2,584 active disposal wells, which managed 1,201,680,455 bbl of produced 

water. Injection also occurred at 202 commercial disposal wells that managed 52,451,784 bbl of 

produced water. In total, injection for disposal wells managed 1,254,132,239 bbl. Oklahoma had 

6,264 enhanced recovery wells in 2007, which managed 940,271,840 bbl of produced water. 

Currently, one ongoing surface discharge operation in the Arkoma Basin discharged 165 bbl in 

2008 (note: 2007 data not available). Oklahoma also has one recycling permit issued for 

produced water. The permit is for a surface reclamation project in which produced water is 

mixed with fresh water. The mixed water is combined with fly ash to be used as fill for closure at 

abandoned strip mines. The amount of water reported as used in this operation for 2007 was 

776,200 bbl. The total produced water managed in Oklahoma for 2007 (including the 

2008 surface discharge volume as an estimate) was 2,195,180,444 bbl. 

5.24 Pennsylvania 

Production information is available via the Wells Information System (WIS) created by the 

Pennsylvania Geological Survey and provided by the Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection’s Bureau of Oil and Gas Management (PDEP 2008a). In 2007, total 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 42 

gas production was 172,367.077 Mmcf, while reported oil production was 1,537,347 bbl. 

Production occurred at 65,129 wells. Estimates of production wells were slightly higher but 

broken into categories by hydrocarbon (PDEP 2008b). Gas production wells totaled 52,700 

wells, and there were 18,200 oil wells in 2007. The total produced water volume from these 

production wells was 3,912,456 bbl. Information on produced water management was not 

provided. 

5.25 South Dakota 

The Department of Natural Resources Minerals and Mining Program (Oil and Gas Section) 

provided information on production and management of produced water related to oil and gas 

activities (McGillivray 2008). In 2007, a total of 224 wells were active in South Dakota, with 

153 producing crude oil and 71 producing conventional gas. Oil production totaled 1,664,889 bbl 

and generated most of the produced water generated in South Dakota, with 4,185,565 bbl 

attributable to oil production (WOR: 2.5 bbl/bbl). Gas production generated only 486 bbl of 

produced water in generating 11,880 Mmcf of conventional gas (WGR: 0.04 bbl/Mmcf). 

Most produced water is managed through injection. Ninety-six percent of produced water 

generated in South Dakota was injected, with 2,121,947 bbl injected for enhanced recovery 

(51%) and 1,853,200 bbl injected for disposal (45%). The remaining four percent of produced 

water was managed either through surface discharge (85,243 bbl) or beneficial reuse as water for 

livestock (85,243 bbl). 

5.26 Tennessee 

Tennessee does not presently keep track of produced water information from oil and gas 

activities. According to Tennessee’s Division of Geology’s website, approximately 350,000 bbl 

per year of oil and 1,000 Mmcf per year of gas are produced in the state (TDEC undated). 

Produced water management information was unavailable. However, according to U.S. EPA 

Region 4, as of August of 2007, there were 13 Class II injection wells in Tennessee 

(U.S. EPA 2008b). 

Produced water volumes were estimated by extrapolation using available production information 

and water-to-hydrocarbon ratios from neighboring states. The water-to-gas ratio (17.7 bbl/Mmcf) 

from CBM activities in Virginia was used to determine the WOR in West Virginia (6.4 bbl/bbl) 

(see discussion for Kentucky, above). These ratios were assumed to be the same for Tennessee, 

with the exception of CBM, as no CBM activities were explicitly stated in the production 

information obtained from the state. Based upon the previous assumptions, produced water 

generated from oil production would be 2,246,000 bbl. Produced water generated from gas 

production in Tennessee is estimated to be 18,000 bbl. Total produced water generation for 2007 

is estimated at 2,263,000 bbl. 

5.27 Texas 

Produced water injection data for 2007 were provided by the Railroad Commission of Texas, and 

hydrocarbon production data was obtained from the commission’s website. In 2007, Texas wells 

produced 342,086,945 bbl of crude oil and 6,878,016 Mmcf of natural gas (RRC 2009). There 

were more than 216,000 active oil and gas wells statewide, which managed produced water via 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 43 

injection into more than 50,000 permitted oil and gas injection and disposal wells (RRC 

undated). While CBM production activities occur in Texas, such activities are not distinguished 

from conventional gas production (Deleon 2009). 

Currently, injection reports for 2007 are still being added to the commission’s database. As of 

April 2, 2009, the total reported liquid injection volume for 2007 was 4,254,037,585 bbl. From 

the current total, 1,364,096,989 bbl (32% of reported total) were disposed into nonproducing 

formations, 757,606,954 bbl were (18% of reported total) disposed into producing formations, 

and 2,132,117,391 bbl (50% of reported total) were injected for enhanced recovery. For the sake 

of comparison to other state totals, we combined the percentage disposed into producing 

formations with the percentage injected for enhanced recovery (68%). The projected volume for 

the state for 2007 is 7,376,912,883 bbl (Deleon 2009). The total volume injected includes salt 

water, brackish water, and fresh water injection into Class II disposal wells. While a small 

amount of produced water was managed through tidal discharge, the vast majority of produced 

water generated in Texas was managed through injection. We assume the projected injected 

volume for 2007 (7,376,912,883 bbl) is comparable to the actual volume of produced water 

generated in Texas. Following the percentage allocation assumption described above, we 

considered 32% of the projected total (2,360,612,122 bbl) as the volume injected for disposal. 

We considered 68% of the projected total (5,016,300,761 bbl) as the volume for enhanced 

recovery. 

5.28 Utah 

The Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining provided estimates according to data available as of 

December 2007 (Kierst 2008). 8,788 wells were operating in the state in 2007, with 3,022 wells 

producing crude oil. It was estimated that 4,401 wells were producing conventional gas, with the 

remaining 1,035 wells producing CBM. Crude oil production in 2007 was 19,519,964 bbl. 

Conventional gas production during the same period was 311,741 Mmcf, and 73,638 Mmcf of 

CBM was produced. While produced water volumes are not available according to hydrocarbon 

type, annual produced water generation for 2007 was 148,579,384 bbl. 

The majority of produced water is managed through injection (Kierst 2009). There were 

1,085 wells used for injection for enhanced recovery; the produced water (estimated to be 

78,251,086 bbl) was comingled with makeup water. Ninety-three wells injected produced water 

for disposal; in 2007, these wells injected 60,157,307 bbl. Commercial disposal wells managed 

an additional 1,893,393 bbl of produced water, assuming no overlap in reporting. Utah also has 

15 surface discharges in the Ashley Valley Field. The produced water generated in this field 

(21,079,950 bbl in 2007) serves local agriculture and eventually reaches the Green River. It is 

likely that much of the volume reported for evaporation ponds (7,773,128 bbl) overlapped the 

reporting by commercial evaporation ponds, which were estimated to manage 11,067,743 bbl. 

Drilling and workover operations managed 476,945 bbl of produced water. Onsite evaporative 

pits on federal lands were estimated to manage 218,239 bbl of produced water. 

5.29 Virginia 

Virginia requires produced water data to be reported for CBM operations only, and the Virginia 

Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy (VA DMME) provided production information 

concerning CBM activities (Kent 2008). In 2007, 4,290 wells were producing 88,146.284 Mmcf 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 44 

of CBM and 1,561,842 bbl of produced water (WGR: 17.7 bbl/Mmcf). Production information 

for oil, conventional gas, and coproduced gas for 2007 was obtained from available county 

production statistics (VA DMME undated). Total gas production in 2007 was 112,000 Mmcf, 

with 79% of that volume attributed to CBM activities. Conventional gas activities produced 

approximately 23,505.106 Mmcf of gas (VA DMME undated). Oil production volume in 2007 

was 19,155 bbl (VA DMME undated). Virginia is beginning to collect data on produced water 

management strategies including injection for disposal and surface discharge of produced pit 

fluids, which should be available electronically in the future. 

5.30 West Virginia 

The West Virginia Office of Oil and Gas provided information on production activities and 

produced water management (Martin 2008). In 2007, there were 49,618 producing wells in West 

Virginia, with the majority of those wells (45,398) producing unconventional gas. The remaining 

wells produced crude oil (3,631) and CBM (589). Unconventional gas production for 2007 was 

201,599 Mmcf, and CBM production was 22,974 Mmcf. During the same period, 679,239 bbl of 

crude oil were produced. Total produced water generation from these activities is not available. 

While generation information is not available, produced water management information can 

provide an estimate for generation within the state. There were 709 injection wells that managed 

3,942,370 bbl of produced water for enhanced recovery. An additional 69 injection wells 

disposed of produced water, although the total volume managed is not available. West Virginia 

managed 3,857,000 bbl of produced water from CBM activities through 100 permitted land 

applications, which allowed produced water of a certain quality to be dispersed on the ground. 

An additional 537,659 bbl of produced water was managed through offsite commercial disposal. 

While the total volume for disposal wells is unknown, the known volume of produced water in 

West Virginia in 2007 was at least 8,337,029 bbl. 

5.31 Wyoming 

The Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission provided historic information on produced 

water management from the Powder River Basin and qualitative information on reuse of 

produced water in the Big Horn Basin (Likwartz 2008). Specific information on production was 

obtained from statistics available on the commission’s website (WOGCC undated). In 2007, 

54,051,671 bbl of crude oil were produced. Total gas production reached 2,253,487.217 Mmcf, 

with 436,306.044 Mmcf of CBM. Production of oil and gas resulted in the generation of 

2,355,671,186 bbl of produced water in 2007.

Information on historic trends that was provided for produced water management in the Powder 

River Basin indicate that since 1987, 4.784 billion bbl have been produced from coal beds. 

Approximately 54% has been discharged to ephemeral and perennial streams, 35% has been 

managed using off-channel pits, 5% has been reused for irrigation projects, 3% has been 

managed through injection, and 3% has been treated and then discharged into streams. Much of 

the produced water from conventional gas activities in the Big Horn Basin was also managed 

through agricultural reuse, although the actual volume is unknown. 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 45 

Chapter 6 — Federal and Tribal Summary 

This section provides detailed information on produced water associated with production 

activities on federal lands (onshore), federal offshore, and tribal lands. Federal onshore mineral 

leasing activities are managed by the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land 

Management and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service. The MMS manages the 

mineral resources (e.g., oil and gas) on the outer continental shelf. The Minerals Revenue 

Management Program (MRM), which is within MMS, is responsible for management of all 

revenues associated with mineral leases on federal onshore, federal offshore, and tribal lands. 

The information in this chapter was obtained from MMS. 

6.1 Federal Onshore Production 

Onshore production activities on federal lands are assumed to be included in the total production 

volumes provided by the state agencies. In 2007, oil and gas production on federal lands were 

104,378,709 bbl and 2,889,060 Mmcf, respectively. These production volumes are included in 

the state summaries in the previous chapter. The volumes represented 8.2% of state oil 

production and 13.5% of state gas production. Produced water volumes from federal onshore 

production activities are part of the more than 20 billion barrels of produced water from state 

production totals and were not separately reported. 

6.2 Federal Offshore Production 

In the produced water generation and management information for federal offshore activities the 

MMS provided (Kazanis et al. 2009), the number of wells provided was actually the number of 

completion counts, as some wells had both oil (3,268) and gas completions (3,580). Oil produced 

from oil completions totaled 385,066,136 bbl and generated 399,820,418 bbl of produced water 

(WOR: 1.04 bbl/bbl). The volume of gas produced from gas completions was 

2,179,348.290 Mmcf, which generated 187,532,428 bbl of produced water (WGR: 

86.0 bbl/Mmcf). Total oil production from both oil and gas completions was 467,179,615 bbl. 

Total gas production in 2007 was 2,786,592.780 Mmcf. Produced water generated from all 

production activities was 587,352,846 bbl. 

While some produced water generated from offshore activities was injected, the vast majority of 

produced water was managed through discharge. In 2007, injection for enhanced recovery 

managed 48,673,102 bbl and injection for disposal managed 1,298,417 bbl of produced water. 

The remaining produced water (537,381,327 bbl) was treated and then discharged. 

6.3 Tribal Lands 

Forty-two tribes are served by MRM, and MRM provides total annual production and revenue 

data for the tribes online. The production data and national average water-to-hydrocarbon ratios 

were used to estimate produced water generation on tribal lands. The following tribes are those 

that are included in the annual production summary: 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 46 

• Alabama-Coushatta 

• Arapahoe 

• Assiniboine Sioux 

• Blackfeet 

• Caddo 

• Cherokee 

• Cheyenne-Arapaho 

• Chickasaw 

• Chilocco Indian School 

• Chippewa-Cree 

• Choctaw 

• Colorado River 

• Cook Inlet Region, Inc. 

• Creek 

• Crow 

• Delaware 

• Ft. Mohave 

• Gila River Indian Community 

• Hopi 

• Jicarilla Apache 

• Morongo Band Mission Indians 

• Navajo 

• Pala Band Mission Indians 

• Pawnee 

• Ponca 

• Pueblo of San Ildefonso 

• Pueblo of Sandia 

• Pueblo of Zia 

• Pyramid Lake Paiute 

• Quechan 

• Sac and Fox 

• Salt River-Pima Maricopa 

• Santa Ana Pueblo 

• Seminole 

• Shoshone 

• Shoshone Bannock 

• Soboba Band Mission Indians 

• Southern Ute 

• Tohono O’Odham 

• Ute 

• Ute Mountain Ute 

• Wichita 

MRM reports that in 2007 oil production was 9,512,652 bbl and gas production was 

297,329 Mmcf. Location-specific production information was not obtained; therefore, the U.S. 

averages for WOR (7.57) and WGR (259.8) were used to estimate the produced water volume 

for tribal lands. Total produced water was estimated to be 145,109,593 bbl. 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 47 

Chapter 7 — Findings and Conclusions 

7.1 Findings 

7.1.1 Produced Water Volume 

This report provides a current estimate for the volume of produced water generated from oil and 

gas production in the United States. The volume estimate represents a compilation of data 

obtained from numerous state oil and gas agencies and several federal agencies for 2007, where 

possible. The total volume of produced water estimated for 2007 is about 21 billion bbl. This 

equals an average of 57.4 million bbl/day. Produced water is generated from most of the nearly 

1 million actively producing oil and gas wells in the United States. 

Not all states had readily available precise produced water volume figures. In a few states, the 

agencies had very complete data records easily obtainable from online sources. Other states had 

summary-level volume data without much detail or had data available only in in-house data 

repositories. The most challenging states were those that had no produced water data at all. In 

those cases, we calculated estimates through extrapolation and correlations using hydrocarbon 

production and produced water volumes from neighboring states. 

Several states dominate the total produced water volume estimates. Texas, with more than 

7.3 billion bbl, represented 35% of the national total. Other states with produced water volumes 

exceeding 1 billion bbl include California (12%), Wyoming (11%), Oklahoma (11%), Kansas 

(6%), and Louisiana (5%). 

The greatest produced water contributors are not necessarily the greatest producers of oil and 

gas. While Texas was the largest gas producer in the United States (nearly 6,900,000 Mmcf in 

2007), federal offshore production activities provided the largest volume of crude, more than 

467,000,000 bbl. Although federal offshore production generated nearly 27% of U.S. crude oil 

production, less than 3% of total U.S. produced water was generated from federal offshore 

activities. 

7.1.2 Produced Water Volume by Hydrocarbon Type 

We asked the agencies to provide produced water volumes by hydrocarbon types (i.e., crude oil, 

conventional gas, coal bed methane, unconventional gas, or other), to the extent the data were 

available at that level of detail. Most states were unable to break out produced water volumes for 

all categories, but some states could at least provide estimates of produced water from oil 

production vs. natural gas production. States that segregated produced water by hydrocarbon 

categorized 6,666,144,270 bbl of produced water. Eighty-seven percent (5,770,327,439 bbl) of 

the produced water came from oil production activities. 

It is useful to consider the WOR and WGR from production activities to evaluate the relative 

production age of resources within the production lifetime. We were able to calculate separate 

WORs and WGRs for several states that reported produced water separately by hydrocarbon type 

(WORs for 14 states and WGRs for 11 states). 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 48 

For WORs, state values ranged from 2.5 bbl/bbl for South Dakota to 43 bbl/bbl for Illinois. The 

offshore ratio was even smaller at 1.04 bbl/bbl. A national average ratio, calculated using the 

production-weighted ratios from the 14 states, was 7.6 bbl/bbl. When offshore production was 

added to the onshore production, the total average U.S. WOR was 5.3 bbl/bbl. 

For WGR ratios, the state values ranged from 0.04 bbl/Mmcf in South Dakota to more than 

1,200 bbl/Mmcf for Kansas. The offshore ratio was 86 bbl/Mmcf. A national average ratio 

calculated using the production-weighted ratios from the 11 states was 260 bbl/Mmcf. When 

offshore production was added to the onshore production, the total average U.S. WGR was 

182 bbl/Mmcf. 

7.1.3 Produced Water Management Practices 

This report describes the current (i.e., 2007) practices used by many oil and gas producers to 

manage produced water. Two general themes are followed by most U.S. operators. More than 

98% of produced water from onshore wells is injected underground. Approximately 59% is 

injected into producing formations to maintain formation pressure and increase the output of 

production wells. Another 40% of produced water from onshore wells is injected into 

nonproducing formations for disposal. 

Four percent of the total reported volume of produced water (onshore and offshore) managed in 

2007 was managed through surface discharges. Alabama is noteworthy among states with 

onshore production because it managed about 65% of its produced water through surface 

discharge. Nearly all of the discharges came from CBM operations in the Black Warrior Basin. 

The remaining produced water volume was managed through evaporation ponds, offsite 

commercial disposal, beneficial reuse, and other management methods. 

More than 91% of offshore produced water, including the water from inshore platforms in Cook 

Inlet, Alaska, was discharged to the ocean. Most of the remaining volume was reinjected for 

enhanced recovery. 

One of the potentially valuable management practices for produced water is beneficial reuse. We 

attempted to obtain information on the volume of produced water reused and how the water was 

reused, but were unsuccessful at finding much information. 

We had hoped to obtain produced water management information separately for each type of 

hydrocarbon production. Most states were either not able to provide that information or reported 

that the same practices were used regardless of the hydrocarbon type. 

7.2 Conclusions 

This report provides the most detailed and current information on the volume of produced water 

generated in the United States. Its 2007 estimate was derived in a more detailed and 

comprehensive manner than earlier national estimates developed for 1985, 1995, and 2002. The 

2007 volume is the highest of those estimates, and should be a more representative estimate than 

the earlier ones because of the approach used to collect and extrapolate the data. 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 49 

Information on management practices has not changed significantly from previous studies. 

However, confirmation of that fact is valuable, too. The majority of produced water is managed 

through injection with 59% of the onshore produced water volume being injected to increase 

production output. 

A final important conclusion of this study is that there is no easy way to obtain national estimates 

of produced water generation. The estimates presented in this report took months of 

investigation, numerous contacts with oil and gas agency staff members, and extensive 

follow-up. Some states had useful produced water information either published in reports or 

readily available through state databases. However, many other states had only minimal 

information about produced water volumes or how the produced water was managed. No federal 

regulatory program requires agencies to track produced water volume. Consequently, when 

regulatory and data management resources are limited, some states do not maintain produced 

water information. 

 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 50 

Page intentionally left blank. 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 51 

References 

ALL (ALL Consulting), 2003, Handbook on Coal Bed Methane Produced Water: Management 

and Beneficial Use Alternatives, prepared by ALL Consulting for the Ground Water Protection 

Research Foundation, U.S. Department of Energy, and U.S. Bureau of Land Management, July 

2003. 

Alaska OGC (Alaska Oil and Gas Commission), 2009, Archived Monthly Production Reports for 

2007. Available at http://www.aogcc.alaska.gov/production/ProdArchives/parchiveindex.shtml. 

Accessed April 30, 2009. 

API (American Petroleum Institute), 1988, “Production Waste Survey,” prepared by Paul G. 

Wakim, June. 

API, 2000, Overview of Exploration and Production Waste Volumes and Waste Management 

Practices in the United States, prepared by ICF Consulting for the American Petroleum Institute, 

Washington, DC, May. 

Arkansas OGC (Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission), 2007, Annual Report of Production: 2007. 

Available at http://www.aogc.state.ar.us/OnlineData/reports/Annual%20Report%20of 

%20Production%201907%20-%202007.pdf. Accessed April 6, 2009. 

Baker, T., 2009, personal communication among T. Baker, and L. Wrotenbery, Oklahoma 

Corporation Commission, Oklahoma City, OK, and J. Veil and C. Clark, Argonne National 

Laboratory, Washington, DC, May 14. 

Benko, K., and J. Drewes, 2008, “Produced Water in the Western United States: Geographical 

Distribution, Occurrence, and Composition,” Environmental Engineering Science 25(2):239–

246. 

Bolin, D., 2008, personal communication between D. Bolin, State Oil and Gas Board of 

Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, and C. Clark, Argonne National Laboratory, Washington, DC, 

Dec. 23. 

Breit, G., T.R. Klett, C.A. Rice, D.A. Ferderer, and Y. Kharaka, 1998, “National Compilation of 

Information about Water Co-produced with Oil and Gas,” presented at the 5th International 

Petroleum Environmental Conference, Albuquerque, NM, Oct. 20–23. 

Brost, D., 2002, “Water Quality Monitoring at the Kern River Field,” presented at the 2002 

Ground Water Protection Council Produced Water Conference, Colorado Springs, CO, 

October 16–17. Available at http://www.gwpc.org/meetings/special/PW%202002/ 

Papers/Dale_Brost_PWC2002.pdf. Accessed May 5, 2009. 

CDOC (California Department of Conservation), 2008a, 2007 Preliminary Report of California 

Oil and Gas Production Statistics, Publication No. PR03, revised April 2008, Division of Oil, 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 52 

Gas, and Geothermal Resources. Available at ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/oil/annual_reports/ 

2007/PR03_2007.pdf. Accessed May 5, 2009. 

CDOC, 2008b, “Online Production and Injection Database,” Division of Oil, Gas, and 

Geothermal Resources. Available at http://opi.consrv.ca.gov/opi/opi.dll. Accessed April 6, 2009. 

Chapelle, F.H., 2001, “Chapter 2: Microorganisms Present in the Ground-Water Environment,” 

Ground-Water Microbiology and Geochemistry, 2nd Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 

New York, NY. 

Cline, J.T., 1998, “Treatment and Discharge of Produced Water for Deep Offshore Disposal,” 

presented at the API Produced Water Management Technical Forum and Exhibition, Lafayette, 

LA, Nov. 17–18. 

COGCC (Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission), 2009, “COGIS – Production Data 

Inquiry.” Available at http://cogcc.state.co.us/. Accessed March 4, 2009. 

Combs, M., 2008, personal communication between M. Combs, Kentucky Department of 

Natural Resource, Division of Oil and Gas Conservation, Frankfort, KY, and C. Clark, Argonne 

National Laboratory, Washington, DC, Dec. 18. 

Dastgheib, S., 2008, personal communication between S. Dastgheib, Illinois State Geological 

Survey, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, and J. Veil, Argonne 

National Laboratory, Washington, DC, Dec. 2. 

DeFilippo, M.N., 2004, Use of Produced Water in Recirculating Cooling Systems at Power 

Generating Facilities, semiannual technical progress report prepared by the Electric Power 

Research Institute for the U.S. Department of Energy. Available at http://www.netl.doe.gov/ 

technologies/coalpower/ewr/water/pp-mgmt/pubs/41906/41906CostBenefitAnalysis.pdf. 

Accessed May 5, 2009. 

Deleon, F., 2009, personal communication among F. Deleon, Railroad Commission of Texas, 

Austin, TX, and J. Veil and C. Clark, Argonne National Laboratory, Washington, DC, April 17. 

Dowd, S.E., D.C. Herman, and R.M. Maier, 2000, “Chapter 6: Aquatic and Extreme 

Environments” in Environmental Microbiology, Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 

Durrant, S., 2008, personal communication between S. Durrant, Kansas Corporation 

Commission, Topeka, KS, and C. Clark, Argonne National Laboratory, Washington, DC, 

Dec. 15. 

EIA (Energy Information Administration), 2008a, “Crude Oil Production.” Available at 

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbbl_a.htm. Accessed March 16, 2009. 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 53 

EIA, 2008b, “Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals and Production.” Available at 

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_prod_sum_a_epg0_fgw_mmcf_a.htm. Accessed March 16, 

2009. 

Fesmire, M., 2009, personal communication between M. Fesmire, New Mexico Energy, 

Minerals, and Natural Resources Department, Oil Conservation Division, Santa Fe, NM, and 

C. Clark, Argonne National Laboratory, Washington, DC, Jan. 19. 

Halvorson, J., 2009, personal communication between J. Halvorson, Montana Board of Oil and 

Gas, Billings, MT, and C. Clark, Argonne National Laboratory, Washington, DC, Jan. 14. 

Hartig, L., 2009, letter from L. Hartig, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, 

Juneau, AK, to G. Stevens and M. Chenault, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, AK, January 8. 

Available at http://www.dec.state.ak.us/water/npdes/pdfs/ReportLeg2009.pdf. Accessed April 

15, 2009. 

Hudak, G., 2008, personal communication between G. Hudak, Montana Board of Oil and Gas, 

Billings, MT, and C. Clark, Argonne National Laboratory, Washington, DC, Dec. 2. 

Hutson, S.S., N.L. Barber, J.F. Kenny, K.S. Linsey, D.S. Lumia, and M.A. Maupin, 2004, 

“Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2000,” U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1268, 

46 pp. 

IDNR (Indiana Department of Natural Resources), 2007, Monthly Report 12/31/2007, Division 

of Oil and Gas. Available at http://www.in.gov/dnr/dnroil/files/mon0712.pdf. Accessed April 6, 

2009. 

 

Kaden, S., 2008, personal communication among S. Kaden and J. Jaquess, Missouri Department 

of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Land Survey, Rolla, MO, and C. Clark, Argonne 

National Laboratory, Washington, DC, Nov. 21. 

Kazanis, E., 2009, personal communication among E. Kazanis, M. Metcalf, D. Maclay, R. 

Bowser, and R. Baud, U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of 

Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Region, New Orleans, LA, and C. Clark, Argonne National 

Laboratory, Washington, DC, Jan. 9. 

Keith, K., J. Bauder, and J. Wheaton, 2003, “Frequently Asked Questions: Coal Bed Methane.” 

Available at http://waterquality.montana.edu/docs/methane/cbmfaq.shtml#what_are_the_ 

current_management_practices. Accessed April 10, 2009. 

Kent, M., 2008, personal communication among M. Kent, D. Asbury, and M. Abbott, Virginia 

Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy, Division of Gas & Oil, Abingdon, VA, and C. 

Clark, Argonne National Laboratory, Washington, DC, Dec. 2. 

Kentucky Geological Survey, undated, “Oil and Gas Production.” Available at 

http://kgsmap.uky.edu/website/OGProdPlot/OGProduction.asp. Accessed May 11, 2009. 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 54 

Kerr, T., 2009, personal communication between T. Kerr, Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation 

Commission, Denver, CO, and C. Clark, Argonne National Laboratory, Washington, DC, 

May 19. 

Khatib, Z., and P. Verbeek, 2003, “Water to Value — Produced Water Management for 

Sustainable Field Development of Mature and Green Fields,” Journal of Petroleum Technology, 

Jan., pp. 26–28. 

Kierst, C., 2008, personal communication between C. Kierst, Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and 

Mining, Salt Lake City, UT, and C. Clark, Argonne National Laboratory, Washington, DC, 

Nov. 25. 

Kierst, C., 2009, personal communication between C. Kierst, Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and 

Mining, Salt Lake City, UT, and C. Clark, Argonne National Laboratory, Washington, DC, 

April 20. 

Johnston, C., G., Vance, and G. Ganjegunte, 2008, “Irrigation with Coalbed Natural Gas 

Co-Produced Water,” Agricultural Water Management 95(11):1243–1252. 

Lee, R., R. Seright, M. Hightower, A. Sattler, M. Cather, B. McPherson, L. Wrotenbery, D. 

Martin, and M. Whitworth, 2002, “Strategies for Produced Water Handling in New Mexico,” 

presented at the 2002 Ground Water Protection Council Produced Water Conference, Colorado 

Springs, CO, Oct. 16–17. Available at http://www.gwpc.org/meetings/special/PW%202002/ 

Papers/Robert_Lee_PWC2002.pdf. Accessed April 15, 2009. 

Likwartz, D., 2008, personal communication between D. Likwartz, Wyoming Oil and Gas 

Conservation Commission, Casper, WY, and J. Veil, Argonne National Laboratory, Washington, 

DC, Nov. 14. 

Martin, J., 2008, personal communication among J. Martin, G. Smith, and J. Peterson, West 

Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Oil and Gas, Charleston, WV, and 

C. Clark, Argonne National Laboratory, Washington, DC, Dec. 23. 

McGillivray, M., 2008, personal communication among M. McGillivray and F. Steece, South 

Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Services, 

Minerals and Mining Program, Oil and Gas Section, Rapid City, SD, and C. Clark, Argonne 

National Laboratory, Washington, DC, Dec. 8. 

McMains, S.E., 2008, personal communication among S.E. McMains, D.S. Roby, and C.P. 

Foerster, Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, Anchorage, AK, and C. Clark, Argonne 

National Laboratory, Washington, DC, Dec. 2. 

NDEP (Nevada Department of Environmental Protection), 2004, Program Description, Bureau 

of Water Pollution Control, Underground Injection Control Program. Available at 

http://ndep.nv.gov/bwpc/docs/nvuicprogdesc04.pdf. Accessed April 7, 2009. 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 55 

Nemecek, M., 2008, personal communication between M. Nemecek, Indiana Department of 

Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas, Indianapolis, IN, and C. Clark, Argonne National 

Laboratory, Washington, DC, Dec. 8. 

NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation), 2006, New York State 

Oil, Gas and Mineral Resources 2006, Division of Mineral Resources. Available at 

http://www.dec.ny.gov/pubs/36033.html. Accessed March 2, 2009. 

NYSDEC, undated, New York State Oil and Gas Searchable Database, Division of Mineral 

Resources. Available at http://www.dec.ny.gov/cfmx/extapps/GasOil/search/production/ 

index.cfm. Accessed March 4, 2009. 

ODNR (Ohio Department of Natural Resources), 2006, Summary of Ohio Oil and Gas Activities 

2006, Division of Mineral Resources Management. Available at http://www.ohiodnr.com/ 

Portals/11/publications/pdf/oilgas06.pdf. Accessed April 7, 2009. 

Organek, L., 2008, personal communication between L. Organek, Michigan Department of 

Environmental Quality, Office of Geological Survey, Lansing, MI, and C. Clark, Argonne 

National Laboratory, Washington, DC, Dec. 23. 

Parker, C., 2008, personal communication between C. Parker, Louisiana Office of Conservation, 

Oilfield Site Restoration, Baton Rouge, LA, and C. Clark, Argonne National Laboratory, 

Washington, DC, Dec. 15. 

PDEP (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection), 2008a, “Reported Oil and Gas 

Production Summary for Pennsylvania, 1985-2005,” Bureau of Oil and Gas Management. 

Available at http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo/oilandgas/prodreports.aspx. Accessed June 26, 

2009. 

PDEP, 2008b, “Annual Production Estimations As Provided To IOGCC,” Bureau of Oil and Gas 

Management. Available at 

http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/OILGAS/Production%20Statistics%20Estimated

.htm. Accessed June 26, 2009. 

Pearson, D., 2009, personal communication between D. Pearson, Arkansas Oil and Gas 

Commission, El Dorado, AR, and J. Veil, Argonne National Laboratory, Washington, DC, 

May 29. 

Price, L., 2009, personal communication among L. Price, R. Land, and L. Wells, Nevada 

Division of Minerals, Nevada Commission on Mineral Resources, Carson City, NV, and C. 

Clark and J. Veil, Argonne National Laboratory, Washington, DC, Jan. 9. 

Puder, M.G., and J.A. Veil, 2006, Offsite Commercial Disposal of Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Production Waste: Availability, Options, and Costs, ANL/EVS/R-06/5, prepared by the 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 56 

Environmental Science Division, Argonne National Laboratory, for the U.S. Department of 

Energy. 

RRC (Railroad Commission of Texas), 2009, “Monthly Oil and Gas Production by Year, January 

2003–March 2009.” Available at http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/data/production/ogismcon.pdf. 

Accessed April 10, 2009. 

RRC, undated, “Saltwater Disposal Wells Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs).” Available at 

http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/about/faqs/saltwaterwells.php. Accessed April 10, 2009. 

Rauzi, S., 2008, personal communication between S. Rauzi, Arizona Geological Survey, Tucson, 

AZ, and J. Veil, Argonne National Laboratory, Washington, DC, Nov. 7. 

Rauzi, S., 2009, Annual Oil, Gas, and Helium Production in Arizona 1954-2008, Arizona 

Geological Survey. Available at http://azogcc.az.gov/OG02AnnualProduction.pdf. Accessed 

April 6, 2009. 

Shaw, H., 2009, personal communication among H. Shaw, U.S. EPA Region 10, Seattle, WA, 

and J. Veil, and C. Clark, Argonne National Laboratory, Washington, DC, April 29. 

Sims, R., 2008, personal communication among R. Sims and R. Tarbutton, Mississippi Oil and 

Gas Board, Jackson, MS, and C. Clark, Argonne National Laboratory, Washington, DC, Dec. 29. 

Sydow, B., 2008, personal communication among B. Sydow, Nebraska Oil and Gas 

Conservation Commission, Sidney, NE, and C. Clark and J. Veil, Argonne National Laboratory, 

Washington, DC, Dec. 5. 

Taylor, D., 2008, personal communication between D. Taylor, Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection, Bureau of Mining & Minerals Regulation, Tallahassee, FL, and 

C. Clark, Argonne National Laboratory, Washington, DC, Dec. 11. 

TDEC (Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation), undated, “Tennessee’s 

Mineral Industry,” Division of Geology. Available at http://tennessee.gov/environment/tdg/ 

mineralind.shtml. Accessed March 6, 2009. 

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2008a, “Oil and Gas Related Injection Wells 

(Class II),” Office of Water, Underground Injection Control Program. Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/uic/wells_class2.html. Accessed May 5, 2009. 

U.S. EPA, 2008b, “Underground Injection Control in the Southeast,” Region 4. Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/region4/water/uic/. Accessed April 10, 2009. 

VA DMME (Virginia Department of Mines Minerals and Energy), undated, “2007 Virginia 

Production Summary by County.” Available at http://www.dmme.virginia.gov/DGO/ 

Production/2007County.htm. Accessed June 12, 2009. 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 57 

Veil, J., 2002, Regulatory Issues Affecting Management of Produced Water from Coal Bed 

Methane Wells, prepared for U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy. Available at 

http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/cbm-prod-water-rev902.pdf. Accessed April 10, 2009. 

Veil, J., M.G. Puder, D. Elcock, and R.J. Redweik, Jr., 2004, A White Paper Describing 

Produced Water from Production of Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Coal Bed Methane. Available 

at http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/ProducedWatersWP0401.pdf. Accessed May 5, 2009. 

Weideman, A., 1996, “Regulation of Produced Water by the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency” in Produced Water 2: Environmental Issues and Mitigation Technologies, International 

Produced Water Symposium, M. Reed and S. Johnsen, eds., Plenum Press, New York. 

WOGCC (Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission), “Download Production.” 

Available at http://wogcc.state.wy.us/. Accessed March 9, 2009. 

 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 58 

Page intentionally left blank. 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 59 

Appendix A — Sample Letter 

November 7, 2008 

[Title]. [First Name] [Last Name] 

State Oil and Gas Agency 

123 State Street 

City, State 12345 

Dear [Title]. [Last Name]: 

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) asked Argonne to compile data on two important water 

streams associated with oil and gas production – produced water and hydraulic fracturing (frac 

flowback) water. No recent national volume estimates of these water streams are available, nor 

do we have satisfactory information on how the water is managed after it is generated. Argonne 

plans to develop detailed national-level information on the volume of produced water generated 

in the United States and the ways in which it is disposed or reused. In a second study, Argonne 

will evaluate frac flowback water use and re-use to determine the sources of water used for 

fracturing and the methods used to manage the flowback water after it is returned to the surface. 

We plan to collect data from various sources, but believe that the State oil and gas programs are 

the best place to begin. Your agency has long-term direct experience with oil and gas activities in 

your state. Further, most states already employ data management systems for tracking production 

data. 

I know that you are very busy with your regular responsibilities, but I hope that you can 

designate a member of your staff to work with us to identify the types of relevant information 

that we can find from your existing files and databases. If necessary, we can send one of our 

project team members to your offices to review and compile data. We would like to begin these 

two projects during November. Please let me know whom we can contact in your agency to 

obtain the necessary data. 

Although I am overseeing the projects, much of the work will be done by my colleague, Dr. 

Corrie Clark. You may contact either me (xxx-xxx-xxxx; xxx@anl.gov) or Dr. Clark (xxx-xxxxxxx; xxx@anl.gov). Thank you in advance. We look forward to working with you. 

Sincerely, 

John A. Veil 

 
Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 60 

Page intentionally left blank. 


Environmental Science

Division (EVS)

Advancing informed environmental

decision making

EVS Home Programs Fact Sheets Publications Internet Applications Who We Are Working with Us

Argonne Home > Environmental Science Division > Publications > Publication #2437

EVS Program Areas

Advanced Tool Development

Atmospheric/Climate Research

Environmental Policy/Planning

Integrated Assessments

National Security

Risk-Based Assessment/Mgmt.

Site Restoration/Stewardship

Find EVS Employee

Contact Us

Staff Directory

 Printer-Friendly

This report provides a current estimate for the volume of produced water generated

from oil and gas production in the United States. The volume estimate represents a

compilation of data obtained from numerous state oil and gas agencies and several

federal agencies for 2007, where possible. The total volume of produced water

estimated for 2007 is about 21 billion bbl. This equals an average of 57.4 million

bbl/day. Produced water is generated from most of the nearly 1 million actively

producing oil and gas wells in the United States. Argonne contacted state oil and gas

agencies in the 31 states with active oil and gas production to obtain detailed

information on produced water volumes and management.

Browse/Download Document (530 KB)

Citation

Clark, C.E., and J.A. Veil, 2009, Produced Water Volumes and Management

Practices in the United States, ANL/EVS/R-09/1, prepared by the Environmental

Science Division, Argonne National Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy,

Office of Fossil Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, September

ANL/EVS/R-09/1

Authors

Clark, Corrie; Veil, John A.

Contact

John Veil

(202)488-2450

jveil@anl.gov

Document Type

 Report

Publication Year

 2009

 

 

U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science | UChicago Argonne LLC

EVS Home | EVS Intranet | Argonne Home | Argonne Intranet

Privacy & Security Notice | Contact Us

Produced Water Volumes and Management Prac... 1 of 1 6/4/2010 3:12 PM

http://www.evs.anl.gov/pub/dsp_detail.cfm?PubID=2437