## September 2012



# Oil & Gas Water Use in Texas: Update to the 2011 Mining Water Use Report

Prepared for 

### Texas Oil & Gas Association, Austin, Texas

Bureau of Economic Geology

Scott W. Tinker, Director

Jackson School of Geosciences The University of Texas at Austin Austin, Texas 78713-8924

# Oil & Gas Water Use in Texas: Update to the 2011 Mining Water Use Report

Jean-Philippe Nicot, P.E., P. G., Robert C. Reedy, P.G., Ruth A. Costley, an d Yun Huang, P.E.

Bureau of Economic Geology

Scott W. Tinker, Director

Jackson School of Geosciences The University of Texas at Austin Austin, Texas 78713-8924i 

## Executive Summary

In Spring 2012, we undertook an update of the hy draulic fracturing sec tions of the TWDBsponsored report titled “Current and Projected Water Use in th e Texas Mining and Oil and Gas Industry” that we published in June 2011 (N icot et al., 2011). Th e 2011 report provided estimated county-level water use in the oil and gas industry in 2008 and projections to 2060. This 2012 update was prompted by two main events: (1) a major shift of the oil and gas industry from gas to oil production, displacing production cent ers across the state and impacting county-level amounts; (2) rapid development of technological advances, resulting in more common reuse and in the ability to use more br ackish water. The timely update wa s enabled by a faster than anticipated development, transla ting into abundant sta tistical data sets from which to derive projections, and by an increased willingness of the industry to pa rticipate in providing detailed information about water use in its operations. This document follows the same methodology as the 2011 report but differs from it in two ways. Ou r current update clearly distinguishes between water use and water consumption. The 2011 repor t does not include reuse from neighboring hydraulic fracturing jobs, recycling from other i ndustry operations or other treatment plants, and use of brackish water. Our update also presents three scenarios: high, low, and most likely water use and consumption with a focus on water cons umption. This update has been reviewed by the TWDB and should supersede oil and gas i ndustry projections from the 2011 report.

Figure ES1. Spatial distribution of hydraulic fracturing water use in 2008 (~36,000 AF) and 2011 (~81,500 AF).

Overall we find that, if the total water use fo r hydraulic fracturing has increased from 36,000 AF in 2008 to ~81,500 AF in 2011 (Figure ES1), the amount of recycling/re use and the use of brackish water have also increased (~17,000 AF in 2011, or 21%). Hydraulic fracturing has expanded to the southern and western, drier part s of the state and, by neces sity, the industry has had to adapt to those new conditions. Collected information tends to suggest that the industry hasii been decreasing its fresh-water consumption desp ite the increase in water use. Total water use information is relatively easy to access (through the private database vendor IHS), but true consumption is harder to gauge.

The updated hydraulic fracturing projections at th e state level do not show a major departure from and are essentially consistent with the pr evious report but have a more subdued peak and a longer tail (Figure ES2). This is due to the increased lik elihood that the industry has hydraulically fractured more formations that can be placed into the tight oil and gas category. The annual peak water use previously estim ated at 145,000 AF in th e early 2020’s is now thought to be a broad peak plateauing at ~ 125,000 AF/yr during the 2020’s. However, fresh water consumption is estimated to stay at the general level of ~70,000 AF/y r and to decrease in future decades. Adding other oil and gas industr y water uses, such as waterflooding and drilling, brings projected maximum water use up to ~ 180,000 AF/yr during the 2 020-2030 decade with a much lower consumption which brings the to tal mining water use to a maximum of ~340,000 AF/yr around the year 2030. These values remain small compared to the state water use (Figure ES3). In 2010, hydraulic fracturing water use repr esented about 0.5% of the water use in the state. However, the hydraulic fracturing water use is unevenly distribut ed across the state and may represent locally a higher fr action of the total water use.

Figure ES2. State-level projecti ons to 2060 of hydraulic fractur ing water use and fresh-water consumption and comparison to earlier water projections. 0 50 100 150

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Calendar Yea rWater Use/Consumption (thousand AF)

Water Use; 2011 report Water Use; this report Water Consumption; this reportiii Figure ES3. Average state level wate r use (all categories) in 2001-2010.v 

## Table of Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. ............ i

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................. ............... v List of Figures ............................................................................................................... ................ vii

List of Tables ................................................................................................................ ................. xi Acknowledgments................................................................................................................ ........ xiii Acronyms ...................................................................................................................... ............... xiii

I. Introduction .................................................................................................................. ........... 1

II. Methodology ................................................................................................................... ........ 3

II-1. Historical and Cu rrent Water Use ........................................................................................3

II-1-1 Indicator for Quality Control ...................................................................................3

II-1-2 Hydraulically-fractured Length ...............................................................................5

II-1-3 Beyond the Database ................................................................................................6

II-2. Future Water Use Projections ..............................................................................................7

II-3. Notes on Collected Information ...........................................................................................8

III. Historical and Curre nt Water Use ......................................................................................... 11

III-1. Play Description .............................................................................................................. .11

III-1-1 Barnett Shale ..........................................................................................................11

III-1-2 Eagle Ford Shale ....................................................................................................12

III-1-3 TX-Haynesville Shale and East Texas Basin .........................................................12

III-1-4 Permian Basin ........................................................................................................13

III-1-5 Anadarko Basin ......................................................................................................14

III-1-6 East Texas Basin ....................................................................................................14

III-1-7 Gulf Coast Texas....................................................................................................15

III-2. Current Water Consumption and Sources ........................................................................54

III-2-1 Information about Recycling/Re use and Brackish Water Use ..............................54

III-2-2 2011 HF Water Use and Consumption ..................................................................54

III-3. Comparison to Earlier Findings .......................................................................................59

III-4. Drilling Water Use ...........................................................................................................6 3

IV. Water Use Projections.......................................................................................................... . 65

V. Conclusions ................................................................................................................... ........ 93

VI. References .................................................................................................................... ......... 95 Appendix 1: Revision to 2011 Report .......................................................................................... 97vii 

## List of Figures

Figure 1. Comparison of five approaches to co mputing lateral length (Barnett Shale play). ..........9 Figure 2. Histograms of lateral lengths accordin g to various approaches: (a) “test”; (b) “survey”; (c) “GIS” (Barnett Sh ale play); and (d) “test” (E agle Ford Shale play). .......9 Figure 3. Water use intensity in the Barnett Shale play, showing comparison among between top operators in the play. ..............................................................................................10 Figure 4. Barnett Shale horizontals, various historical parameters and coefficients for reported and estimated water use as a func tion of time: (a) number of wells; (b) water use; (c) average/median lateral le ngth; (d) average/median water use per well; (e) average/median water use inte nsity; (f) average/median proppant loading........................................................................................................................ ..16 Figure 5. Barnett Shale horizontal water use intens ity as a function of (a ) depth; (b) operator and depth; and (c) formation thickness. .......................................................................17 Figure 6. Barnett Shale spatial distribution of (a ) water intensity; and (b) density of lateral (cumulative length per area). .......................................................................................18 Figure 7. Barnett Shale county-leve l average lateral spacing. .......................................................19 Figure 8. Map view of lateral expression of horiz ontal wells in the Barnett Shale centered on Tarrant County. ............................................................................................................20 Figure 9. Annual well count in Johnson (a) and Tarrant (b) counties. ..........................................21 Figure 10. Eagle Ford horizontals, various histor ical parameters and coefficients for reported

and estimated water use as a function of tim e: (a) number of wells; (b) water use; (c) average/median lateral length; (d) average/median water use per well; (e) average/median water use intensity; (f) average/median proppant loading. ................22 Figure 11. Eagle Ford Shale horizontal wells’ wate r use intensity as a f unction of (a) depth; and (b) formation thickness. ........................................................................................23 Figure 12. Eagle Ford Shale spatia l distribution of (a) water in tensity; and (b) density of lateral (cumulative length per area). ............................................................................24 Figure 13. Eagle Ford Shale county -level average lateral spacing. ...............................................25 Figure 14. TX-Haynesville Shale horizontals, vari ous historical parameters and coefficients for reported and estimated water use as a function of time: (a) number of wells; (b) water use; (c) average/median lateral length; (d) average/median water use per well; (e) average/median water use inte nsity; (f) average/median proppant loading........................................................................................................................ ..26 Figure 15. TX-Haynesville Shale horizontal wate r use intensity as a function of (a) depth; and (b) formation thickness. ........................................................................................27 Figure 16. TX-Haynesville Shale spatial distributi on of (a) water intensity ; and (b) density of lateral (cumulative length per area). ............................................................................28 Figure 17. TX-Haynesville Shale county -level average la teral spacing. .......................................29 Figure 18. Wolfberry verticals, va rious historical parameters a nd coefficients for reported

and estimated water use as a function of tim e: (a) number of wells; (b) water use; (c) average/median vertical productive section length; (d) average/median water use per well; (e) average/median water us e intensity; (f) aver age/median proppant loading........................................................................................................................ ..30viii Figure 19. Wolfcamp horizontals, various historical parameters and coefficients for reported

and estimated water use as a function of tim e: (a) number of wells; (b) water use; (c) average/median lateral length; (d) average/median water use per well; (e) average/median water use intensity; (f) average/median proppant loading. ................31 Figure 20. Canyon Sand horizontals, various histor ical parameters and coefficients for reported and estimated water use as a func tion of time: (a) number of wells; (b) water use; (c) average/median lateral le ngth; (d) average/median water use per well; (e) average/median water use inte nsity; (f) average/median proppant loading........................................................................................................................ ..32 Figure 21. Clearfork verticals, various historical parameters and coefficients for reported and

estimated water use as a function of time: (a) number of wells; (b) water use; (c) average/median vertical productive secti on length; (d) average/median water use per well; (e) average/median water use intensity; (f) average/median proppant loading........................................................................................................................ ..33 Figure 22. San Andres-Grayburg verticals, various historical parameters and coefficients for reported and estimated water use as a func tion of time: (a) number of wells; (b) water use; (c) average/median vert ical productive sect ion length; (d) average/median water use per well; (e) av erage/median water use intensity; (f) average/median proppant loading. ...............................................................................34 Figure 23. San Andres-Grayburg horizontals, various historical parameters and coefficients for reported and estimated water use as a function of time: (a) number of wells; (b) water use; (c) average/median lateral length; (d) average/median water use per well; (e) average/median water use inte nsity; (f) average/median proppant loading........................................................................................................................ ..35 Figure 24. Permian Basin spatial distribution of water intensity for (a) vertical and (b)

horizontal wells. ...........................................................................................................36 Figure 25. Permian Basin spatial distribution of (a) vertical well density and (b) density of lateral (cumulative length per area) for horizontal wells. ............................................37 Figure 26. Permian Basin county-level average lateral spacing ....................................................38 Figure 27. Granite Wash horizontals, various hi storical parameters and coefficients for reported and estimated water use as a func tion of time: (a) number of wells; (b) water use; (c) average/median lateral le ngth; (d) average/median water use per well; (e) average/median water use inte nsity; (f) average/median proppant loading........................................................................................................................ ..39 Figure 28. Cleveland horizontals, va rious historical parameters a nd coefficients for reported

and estimated water use as a function of tim e: (a) number of wells; (b) water use; (c) average/median lateral length; (d) average/median water use per well; (e) average/median water use intensity; (f) average/median proppant loading. ................40 Figure 29. Marmaton horizontals, va rious historical parameters and coefficients for reported

and estimated water use as a function of tim e: (a) number of wells; (b) water use; (c) average/median lateral length; (d) average/median water use per well; (e) average/median water use intensity; (f) average/median proppant loading. ................41 Figure 30. Granite Wash horizontal water us e intensity as a f unction of depth. ...........................42 Figure 31. Cleveland horizontal water use intensity as a f unction of depth. .................................42 Figure 32. Granite Wash spatial distribution of (a ) water intensity; and (b ) density of lateral (cumulative length per area). .......................................................................................43ix Figure 33. Granite Wash horizontals c ounty-level average lateral spacing ...................................44 Figure 34. Cleveland spatial distribution of (a) water intensity; and (b) density of lateral (cumulative length per area). .......................................................................................45 Figure 35. Marmaton spatial distribution of (a) water intensity; and (b ) density of lateral (cumulative length per area). .......................................................................................46 Figure 36. Anadarko spatial distribution of (a) water intensity; and (b ) density of lateral (cumulative length per area). .......................................................................................47 Figure 37. Map view of wells’ la teral expression and vertical well location in the Anadarko

Basin. ........................................................................................................................ ...48 Figure 38. Cotton Valley verticals, various histor ical parameters and coefficients for reported

and estimated water use as a function of tim e: (a) number of wells; (b) water use; (c) average/median vertical productive section length; (d) average/median water use per well; (e) average/median water us e intensity; (f) aver age/median proppant loading........................................................................................................................ ..49 Figure 39. Cotton Valley horizonta ls, various historical parame ters and coefficients for reported and estimated water use as a func tion of time: (a) number of wells; (b) water use; (c) average/median lateral le ngth; (d) average/median water use per well; (e) average/median water use inte nsity; (f) average/median proppant loading........................................................................................................................ ..50 Figure 40. Cotton Valley horizontal water us e intensity as a function of depth. ...........................51 Figure 41. Cotton Valley spatial distribution of density of lateral (cumulative length per area). ........................................................................................................................ .....51 Figure 42. Cotton Valley spatial distribution of density of vertical wells (years 2005-2011).......52 Figure 43. Olmos horizontals, variou s historical parameters and coefficients for reported and

estimated water use as a function of time: (a) number of wells; (b) water use; (c) average/median lateral length; (d) av erage/median water use per well; (e) average/median water use intensity; (f) average/median proppant loading. ................53 Figure 44. Location of waste water treatment facilit ies that provide or have provided water to the industry for HF as of July 2012. ............................................................................58 Figure 45. Spatial distribution of HF water use in 2008 and 2011. ...............................................60 Figure 46. Bar plot comparison of 2011 actua l water use to projections from 2009. ....................61 Figure 47. County-level cross-plot comparison of 2011 actual water use to projections from 2008. Values on x- and y- axis repres ent counties whose actual (y-axis) / projected (x-axis) water use is 0. A to tal of 168 counties ar e represented. .................62 Figure 48. State-level projections to 2060 of HF water use and fresh-water consumption and comparison to earlier water projections. ......................................................................81 Figure 49. State-level projections to 2060 of o il and gas industry wate r use and fresh-water consumption. ................................................................................................................81 Figure 50. Counties with non-zero pr ojected water use. Same c overage as in the 2011 report (thick blue lines) with th e addition of Polk, Tyler, Ja sper, and Newton counties in East Texas (red circle). ................................................................................................82 Figure 51. Spatial location of the oil and gas wi ndows in the (a) Barne tt Shale and (b) Eagle

Ford Shale. ................................................................................................................... 82 Figure 52. Barnett Shale water use and consump tion projections: (a) co mparison with earlier projections; (b) water use and consumption projections under the three scenarios. ....83x Figure 53. Eagle Ford Shale water use and c onsumption projections: (a) comparison with earlier projections; (b) water use and consumption projections under the three

scenarios. .................................................................................................................... ..84 Figure 54. Pearsall Shale water use and consump tion projections: (a) comparison with earlier projections; (b) water use and consumption projections under the three scenarios. ....85 Figure 55. Haynesville and Bossier Shales wa ter use and consumption projections: (a) comparison with earlier projections; (b) water use and consumption projections

under the three scenarios. .............................................................................................86 Figure 56. Haynesville-West Shale water use an d consumption projections: (a) comparison with earlier projecti ons; (b) water use and consum ption projections under the

three scenarios. .............................................................................................................8 7 Figure 57. East Texas (not in cluding Haynesville and Bossi er Shales) water use and consumption projections: (a) comparison w ith earlier projections; (b) water use and consumption projections under the three scenarios. .............................................88 Figure 58. Gulf Coast (not including shales) water use and consumption projections: (a) comparison with earlier projections; (b) water use and consumption projections

under the three scenarios. .............................................................................................89 Figure 59. Anadarko Basin water use and cons umption projections: (a) comparison with earlier projections; (b) water use and consumption projections under the three

scenarios. .................................................................................................................... ..90 Figure 60. Permian Basin water use and consump tion projections: (a) comparison with earlier projections; (b) water use and consumption projections under the three scenarios. ....91 Figure 61. Permian Basin water use and consump tion projections under the three scenarios: (a) Barnett and Woodford Sh ales; (b) Wolfcamp Shale and Wolfberry play; and (c) other Permian Basin formations. ............................................................................92 Figure 62. Summary of projected water use by mining industry in Texas (2012-2060). ..............94 Figure 63. Average state level water use (all categories) in 2001-2010. .......................................94xi 

## List of Tables

Table 1. Representivity of collected information ........................................................................ 10 Table 2. Percentage of wells in each play or re gion that yielded a complete and consistent data set (water, proppant, length) from year 2011. ....................................................... 15 Table 3. Barnett Shale county-level average la teral spacing for top producing counties. ........... 19 Table 4. Eagle Ford Shale county-level average la teral spacing for top producing counties. ..... 25 Table 5. TX-Haynesville Shale county-leve l average lateral spacing for top producing

counties. ..................................................................................................................... ... 29 Table 6. Granite Wash county-level average la teral spacing for top producing counties ........... 44 Table 7. Estimated percentages of recycling/ reused and brackish water use in main HF

areas in 2011. ................................................................................................................ 56 Table 8. Estimated groundwater / surface water sp lit (does not include recycling / reuse) ........ 56 Table 9. HF water use in 2008 and 2011compare d to the 2011 projected water use from

2008........................................................................................................................... .... 56 Table 10. County-level estimate of 2011 HF wate r use and water consumption (kAF). ............ 57 Table 11. Drilling water use information ..................................................................................... 63 Table 12. Recent trends in well completion and water use in hydraulic-fractured plays. ........... 69 Table 13. Coefficients (%) to compute water consum ption to be applied to total water use. ..... 69 Table 14. Estimated flow back/produced water vo lume relative to HF injected volume. ........... 70 Table 15. County-level estimate of 2012-2060 pr ojections for HF water use and water consumption (AF). ........................................................................................................ 71 Table 16. County-level estimate of 2012-2060 proj ections for oil and gas water use and water consumption (AF). .............................................................................................. 76 Table 17. Update to Table 52 of 2011 report (now obsolete and superseded by this report) ...... 97xiii 

## Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank engineers and staff from many oil and gas operating companies for giving their time in answering our request s and sharing their know ledge of the hydraulic fracturing process. Special thanks to C. J. Tred way for managing the project, to Dr. Dan Hardin (TWDB) and his staff for reviewing the report, an d to BEG internal reviewers, particularly Dr. Bridget Scanlon. Thanks too to L’Oreal Stepney and her staff at TCEQ for providing useful information. We are also grateful to IHS for providing free access to their Enerdeq database, which was used extensively in th e course of this work. The repor t also benefited from a thorough editing by Amanda R. Masterson of the Bureau of Economic Geology at The University of Texas

at Austin.



## Acronyms

AF Acre-foot

BEG Bureau of Economic Geology

EOR Enhanced Oil Recovery

Fm. Formation

GW Groundwater

HF Hydraulic fracturing

kAF Thousand acre-feet

Mgal Million gallons

PSD Powell Shale Digest

RRC Railroad Commission (of Texas)

SW Surface water

TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

TDS Total dissolved solids

TWDB Texas Water Development Board

TXOGA Texas Oil & Gas Association1 

## I. Introduction

This work is an update of the “Current and Proj ected Water Use in the Texas Mining and Oil and Gas Industry” (Nicot at al., 2011) report released in 2011 by the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) and prepared by the Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG). The 2011 report documents future and projected water use in all segments of the mining industry: oil and gas, aggregates, coal, and other indus trial and metallic substances. In particular, it looked at three main water categories in the upstream segm ent of the oil and gas industry: drilling, waterflooding and enhanced oil recovery (EOR), and hydraulic fracturing (HF).

How is this report different from the 2011 Report?

This report focuses on HF water use and associat ed drilling; the information in the 2011 report relating to waterflooding and EOR water use as well as drilling not associated with hydraulically-fractured wells did not require updating. Th is update also benefited from more participation from the industry, especially for information not typically available or easily

extractable from state records. We also have a longer record for many pl ays, indicating trends and allowing for better future projections. In ad dition, we presented three scenarios for water use and water consumption for each play (high, medium , low) as was done in Bené et al. (2007) but not in the 2011 report. Furthermore we made the distinction between water use and water consumption more explicit. Water use is the amount of water used in an operation regardless of the water source provided; water is either fresh or brackish. Fresh water is defined as any water

with a total dissolved solids (TDS) content of <1,000 mg/L; the upper lim it for brackish water is 35,000 mg/L, but often in this do cument the limit will be <10,000 mg/L. Water consumption is fresh water use excluding recycli ng and reuse. Reuse is understood as the water originating from previous HF operations whereas recycling is more general a nd could include, for example, produced water from conventional wells or wa ste water obtained from other industries or municipalities.

Scope of work

As in the 2011 report, this update’s scope of work includes two main tasks: (1) documenting current (year 2011) and past water use from HF; and (2) estimating projected water use. Both tasks are completed at the county level for the entir e state of Texas. Task 1 consists of gathering water use data and establishing statistics needed fo r the projection phase in the spirit of what was done in the 2011 report but with a more detailed processing of the data. Task 2 is to produce a projection of county- level water use to 2060 using previously deri ved statistics and input from the industry.

This current document is organized in the follo wing way. We first desc ribe the methodology and its caveats as well as the challenges to making projections. We then examine the 2011 water use and compare our new findings to the 2011 projec tions made in 2008 as a way to validate our approach. We then present projections to 2060 acco rding to three scenario s: high estimates, most likely estimates, and low estimates.3 

## II. Methodology

II-1. Historical and Current Water Use

We followed a methodology similar to that us ed in the 2011 report, making use of the IHS Enerdeq database ( http://www.ihs.com/products/oil-gas-information/dataaccess/enerdeq/browser.aspx ). The IHS data were cross-checked with information from individual companies (number of oil/gas wells, of vertical/horizontal wells, amount of proppant) through discussion with company experts. In add ition to production data, the Enerdeq database contains completion information submitted by op erators to the Railroa d Commission (RRC) of Texas through the W-2 and G-1 fo rms for oil and gas, respectivel y. In the best cases, and as noted by statistics provided in forthcoming secti ons of this report, the database contains all information of interest to us: API number, locati on of the well, well geometry, amount of water used, and amount of proppant used. Because, across plays, the completeness of the data is variable and because typographical errors are no t infrequent, we developed several indicators for quality control: water intensity (amo unt of water used per unit length of lateral or us eful vertical section) and proppant loading (a mount of proppant per unit water volume). When either water intensity or proppant loading fo r a given well is out of range, the well is flagged and obvious errors corrected (for example, reporting water use in gal but displaying bbl as the unit instead of gal). Details on the approach follow.

The three primary data types used to estimate HF water volumes include reported values of fluid and proppant used to fracture each well and th e total well length over which fracturing procedures were performed. Data were extracted separately from the IHS database for individual producing formations having a significant number (> ~100 to 200) of wells lo cated in Texas that were completed between January 1, 2005 a nd December 31, 2011 that upon preliminary accounting had been fractured using > 100,000 gal of fluids. These include the Barnett, Eagle Ford, Haynesville, Cotton Valley, and Olmos formations, and several formations in the Anadarko Basin (Granite Wash, Cleveland, Ma rmaton) and the Permian Basin (Wolfcamp, Spraberry, Canyon, Clear Fork, San Andres, and Gra yburg). For this analysis, the Wolfcamp and Spraberry were combined and the San Andres and Grayburg were combined.

As we did in the 2011 report we relied on the IH S database to recognize the currently active plays by downloading basic information on all we lls drilled in Texas since 2010 (included early 2012 but with many gaps in the reporting). Our inte rest was not in computing water use but in determining those plays with e nough activity to warrant a more detailed study. Many additional wells were fractured in other plays and did c ount toward the total water use in 2011, but they were not part of the detailed analyses of t hose plays cited earlier. Those minor plays are, however, accounted for in the general Gulf Coast and Permian Basin count.



### II-1-1 Indicator for Quality Control

For producing formations having a sufficient numb er of wells completed during this period, the data were analyzed by annual inte rvals. Wells having actual or estimated total HF water use of <100,000 gal (i.e., small-scale trad itional fracturing performed pr imarily on verti cal/directional wells) were omitted from calculations as they account for comparatively insignificant water volumes compared to the fracturing currently being practiced in many plays. This minimum4 volume distinction was applied to vertical/directional wells only, and all horizontal wells were

included in the estimates.

Critical evaluation and editing of the raw data was required. The purpose of the editing process was, through a step-wise logical procedure, to exclude wells that used or (in the absence of accurate data) were likely to have used <100,000 ga l of HF fluids while retaining and accounting for wells that used or (again, in the absence of accurate data) were likely to have used ≥ 100,000 gal of HF fluids. For many wells, one or more of the reported data values is absent, incomplete, or inaccurate, due either to cleric al errors or to partial reporting (omission errors). Clerical errors include the incorrect assignment of units (gal vs. bbl, lb vs. ton, etc.) and/or typographical errors. Omission errors primarily in clude the non-reporting or unde r-reporting of fluid volumes (proppant amounts seem to be accurately reported much more consistently than fluid volumes).

The data were screened for errors by examining ratios between the differe nt values, including the total reported volume of fluids used per linear foot of the total fractured well depth interval (water use intensity, gal/ft), the total mass of proppant per total volume of HF fluids (proppant loading, lb/gal), and the total mass of proppant pe r linear foot of the total fractured well depth interval (proppant intensity, lb/ft). These ratios were examined for outliers and inaccuracies by sorting hierarchically through the data based on the various ratios. Edits were performed on the

raw data where rectifiable errors could be identi fied, the most prevalent consisting of modifying units where such changes resulted in ratios cons istent with other similar wells. In some cases, sufficient details were reported in the data comments to correct inaccurate data values, although this type of edit was extremely limited.

In general, proppant loading (lb/ga l) was used as the primary data screening ratio because of the generally consistent reporting of total proppant amounts. HF flui d volumes resulting in proppant loading values (average of all stages) >5 lb/gal were deemed as under-reported. Barring a unit’s error, these values generally reflect reported fl uid volumes that include only acid treatments and in some cases raw gel product volumes and do not also include the volumes of water used. For vertical/directional wells having reported propp ant amounts and with absent or under-reported HF volumes, wells with <100,000 lb of proppant we re excluded from the estimates based on an assumed 1.0 lb/gal loading ratio.

A finer level of resolution in the water use data could be achieved by binning the hydraulic fracturing stages into slickwater, gel, and cros s-linked gel systems with the latter two having a smaller water use intensity. Unfortunately the da tabase does not allow for an accurate count in each category. The information, however, was used in a qualitative way, checking its consistency with common practices in a play.

Following the data screening and editing procedures , the data were classified into two main groups: 1) wells judged to have accurately reporte d fluid volumes and 2) wells judged to have inaccurately reported fluid volumes. The average (a nnual) water use intensity (gal/ft) values of the Group 1 wells were multiplied by the (annual) sum total fractured length (ft) of the Group 2 wells to produce annual estimat es of the total water use of the Group 2 wells. The average intensity values represent truncated averages ba sed on 90% of the data that were calculated by eliminating values less than the 5th percentile or great er than the 95th per centile of the Group 1 population to reduce the impacts of extreme va lues. The Group 2 annual total estimates were then added to the Group 1 annual total values to produ ce estimates of actual annual total water5 use. Values are reported for the major producing formations listed above by year and by county. County locations were assigned base d on the wellhead coordinates.

A separate estimate using the same procedures was calculated for the HF water used during 2011 for all wells meeting the minimum 100,000 gal criteria but that were not completed in one of the producing formations listed above and for whic h insufficient data exis t for temporal trend analysis.



### II-1-2 Hydraulically-fractured Length

HF lengths for individual wells were determined using five approaches, e ach relying on different information in the database. All five approaches were applied to varying degrees to determine horizontal well HF lengths while only the first two were applied to vertical/directional wells. The first approach used the difference between th e minimum and maximum reported test treatment depths and is referred to as th e “test” length. This was the prim ary length used in an estimated minimum of 95% of all wells. The second appro ach used the difference between the minimum and maximum perforation depths, which was identical in most cases to that of the test length and is referred to as the “perf” length. The “perf” leng th was used in place of the test length in a few

cases that resulted in more re alistic use intensity values. Th e test and “perf” lengths are considered to be the most accurate length information available for most wells.

A third approach utilized the survey information and is referred to as the “s urvey” length. In this approach, the angle relative to the horizontal plane between successive well survey points was calculated. The horizontal length of the well wa s determined as the difference between the minimum depth at which that angle became less than 2.5 degrees and the maximum well depth. This approach also provided the average depth of the horizontal well section and additionally the beginning and ending X-Y coordinate locations of the horizontal we ll section used to map well density in GIS for the various plays. If no inform ation was available to cal culate a test or perf length, the survey length was considered to be th e next-best available length information. In most

cases where all three were availa ble, the survey length is in go od agreement with both the test and perf lengths. This value was used only in a few cases where neither a test nor a perf length

was available.

A fourth length value was calculated as the diffe rence between the reported driller’s well depth and the bottom hole true depth, referred to as the “true value” or “TV” length and a fifth length value was calculated as the simple horizontal lin ear distance between the X-Y coordinates of the well surface and bottom hole coordinates (“GIS” lengt h). Both of these values are considered to be only general estimates of the horizontal section length and were used in a very limited number

of instances where more accurate information was not available. For a very few instances (<<1%) no length values were available for a gi ven well. In these cases , the annual (truncated) average well length for that pr oducing formation was assigned.

The fourth and fifth approaches, simpler to use, were adopted in the 2011 report. The HF water intensity for horizontal wells is computed slightly differently from the approach in the 2011 report. Instead of using the dist ance between the wellhead of the to e of the lateral, we used a shorter distance defined by the ope rator-defined “test length” more representative of the true length of the lateral. The test le ngth is consistent with the “test” length but consistently smaller by 10 to 25%. The lateral length value matters as it used to compute water in tensity, itself used to make projections. There is relati vely little difference between the different approaches (Figure 1)6 but the “test” approach used in this document is systematically smaller than the “GIS” approach used in the 2011 document, that is, water inte nsity values reported in this document are systematically greater than thos e in the 2011 report. The median value of water intensity using the “test” and “survey” approach es are 26% and 23% larger than the “GIS” median value (Figure 2) in the Barnett Shale play. The “test” water in tensity median in the Eagle Ford play is 16% larger than the “GIS” medi an value (Figure 2d).



### II-1-3 Beyond the Database

In the 2011 report we made the explicit distinct ion between shale plays and tight gas plays. Although, as explained in the 2011 report, there ar e real differences between them, from an operational standpoint the differenc e is blurred (for example, wells taping Wolfcamp shale oil and Spraberry tight oil) and, in th is update, we did not try systema tically to assign one of either category to some plays.

For each of the plays with sufficient data we extracted yearly information, presented in the Results Section, about:

‐ Total number of wells

‐ Total water use, including estimation of data gaps

‐ Average/median length of laterals

‐ Water use in Mgal/ft

‐ Water intensity in gal/ft

‐ Proppant loading in lb/gal

The IHS database provides only water use, that is, the amount of water used during a given HF job regardless of the water source(s ). In actuality, water can come from several sources. It can be “new” water or it can also be recycled or reus ed water. “New” water can be surface water or groundwater or it can be from an alternative source such as m unicipal water or treated waste water. Water also be fresh (<1,000 mg/L) and it s use can directly compete with other more conventional users (municipal use, irrigation use). It can be brackish or even more saline than sea water (that is, >~35,000 mg/L). Water consumption is simply defined as the water use which is not from recycled or reused water and from which brackish and saline water use is taken out. Note, however, that this simple definition doe s not capture a more co mplex reality. Use of

brackish water in areas with limited fresh water supplies could compete w ith conventional users. This document does not try to sort out such issues; we simply define water consumption as water use minus recycled/reused water volumes and minus brackish or saline water volumes.

Access to detailed information about water sources on the provider side is difficult. Large water suppliers do not necessarily track the ultimate usage of their water. Groundwater conservation districts (GCD’s) do not always collect informa tion about withdrawal am ounts and eventual use of the water. A request to the Texas Commissi on on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) on reuse of treatment water yielded a helpful list of facilities but not the amount of water transferred, and

further this does not account for di rect reuse at a site. The demand si de, that is, operators, is very fragmented.

We collected information not present in the IH S database but of interest to TWDB and the general public about: (1) nature of the water source (river, lake , city water, groundwater, stock pond/gravel pit / quarry, wholesaler , treated industrial waste water) and it status (private, public). The ultimate goal is to determine the groundwat er and surface water (GW/SW) split. Optimally,7 this issue would be resolved at the county leve l but it may not be possible; (2) amount of water injected from reuse of flow back water, recycl ed water can include water from commercial and municipal waste water treatment facilities; (3) TDS of the new water [fresh (<1000 mg/L), slightly brackish (1000-3000 mg/L), br ackish (3000-10,000 mg/L or 10,000-35,000 mg/L), saline (>35,000 mg/L)].

In this document, we applied to all counties within a play / re gion the same brackish water use, recycling/reuse fraction, and GW/SW split. U ndoubtedly, this is an approximation but the

amount of information available does not allow accurate assessments at the county level.



### II-2. Future Water Use Projections

The 2011 report followed a mixed approach to es timate projected water use, the so-called resource-based and production-based appro aches. Although both approaches are somehow interdependent, we believe that the resource-based approach gives the best results and is used in

this document. As described in more details in the 2011 report, it cons ists of four steps:

(1) Gather historical data in terms of average well water use and average well spacing. It is important to establish these elements through time to see trends rather than just focusing on the past few months. (2) Estimate ultimate well density across the play; it is a function of several factors, such as geological prospectivity (for example, within play core or not, shale thickness) and cultural features (urban /rural). In this step, ultimate bounda ries of the play are identified. (3) Compute approximate tota l number of wells needed. (4) Distribute through time and space, constrai ned by the assumed number of drilling rigs available (see earlier comment).

After obtaining water use, correction factors to account for recycling/reuse and use of non-fresh water are applied. We asked industry operators for projected recycling/reuse, brackish water use, and groundwater / surface water split in 2020. Given the rapid pace of change in the industry, the values obtained are somewhat speculative. Alth ough not a guarantee for accuracy, those values are, however, consistent with what industry obs ervers report and cons istent with our own knowledge of treatment techniques and state of surface water and groundwater withdrawals across the state. The basic reporting unit for the water use projections is the county. Projections for recycling / reuse, brackish water use beyond 2020 to 2060, were made accounting for the typical current volume of flow back (limiting reus e) and for brackish water resources / lack of

fresh water in the area of interest.

As discussed in the 2011 report, despite our best efforts, it is likely that the projected water use amounts will be more accurate at the play than at the county level. As done in the 2011 report, we did not assume any repeat HF, as discussions with industry experts and recent publications (Sinha and Ramakrishnan, 2011) suggest that little repeat HF will take place.

The 2011 report provides only one annual estimate. However, in an earlier report on the Barnett Shale only (Nicot and Potter, 2007; Bené et al, 2007), BEG made use of high, medium, and low

water use scenarios. The different scenarios we re based on various level of prospectivity and anticipated gas price. This update also makes us e of three scenarios, high, most likely, and low water use, but in addition to prospectivity a nd gas price, they take into account level of recycling/reuse and use of br ackish and saline water.8 

### II-3. Notes on Collected Information

We obtained information on all the major play s, some with better coverage, by contacting operators. Fraction of HF wells drilled by contacted operato rs in the 2010-2012 period is documented by play and provides an estimate of the uncertainty. The coverage (Table 1) was calculated by adding the number of wells comple ted in the 2010-early 20 12 period by contacted operators and normalizing that sum by the total number of wells completed during the same period. We collected information about recyc ling/reuse, use of brackish water, surface water/groundwater split. Coverage varies from 40% (Barnett Shale) to 10.5% (Permian Far West). Consistency in information from operato rs in a given play suggests that even low percentages are representative of the industry as a whole in that play despite some variability among operators (Figure 3). The figure shows a sli ght overall increase in wa ter use intensity with increasing depth but it also shows that ope rators can have diffe rent approaches.9 Figure 1. Comparison of five approaches to computing lateral length (Barnett Shale play).

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 2. Histograms of lateral lengths according to various approaches: (a) “test”; (b) “survey”; (c) “GIS” (Barnett Shale play); and (d ) “test” (Eagle Ford Shale play). 0 50 100 150 200

0 - 2 0 0

4 0 0 - 6 0 0

8 0 0 - 1 0 0 0

1 2 0 0 - 1 4 0 0

1 6 0 0 - 1 8 0 0

2 0 0 0 - 2 2 0 0

2 4 0 0 - 2 6 0 0

2 8 0 0 - 3 0 0 0

3 2 0 0 - 3 4 0 0

3 6 0 0 - 3 8 0 0

4 0 0 0 - 4 2 0 0

4 4 0 0 - 4 6 0 0

4 8 0 0 - 5 0 0 0

5 2 0 0 - 5 4 0 0

5 6 0 0 - 5 8 0 0

6 0 0 0 - 6 2 0 0

6 4 0 0 - 6 6 0 0

6 8 0 0 - 7 0 0 0

7 2 0 0 - 7 4 0 0

7 6 0 0 - 7 8 0 0

8 0 0 0 - 8 2 0 0

8 4 0 0 - 8 6 0 0

8 8 0 0 - 9 0 0 0

9 2 0 0 - 9 4 0 0

9 6 0 0 - 9 8 0 0

> 1 0 0 0 0

"test" Length (ft)

Number of bins: 51; Bin size: 200; Number of data points: 1837Well Count Histo g ram2.0 lateralCom p utation Barnett.xlsx

Histo g ram2.0 lateralCom p utation Ea g leFord.xls Histo g ram2.0 lateralCom p utation Barnett.xlsx10 Table 1. Representivity of collected information

Play/Region Consumption information (%)

Permian Far West 10.5%

Permian Midland 23%

Anadarko Basin 11%

Barnett Shale 40% Eagle Ford Shale 31.2%

East Texas Basin 14.5% All Plays 27.2%

Figure 3. Water use intensity in the Barnett Shale play, showing comparison among between top operators in the play.11 

## III. Historical and Current Water Use

After a short description of the major HF plays in Texas (Section III-1), we present water use and consumption numbers (Section III-2 ) that we compare to findings of the 2011 report (Section III3). We also briefly address dril ling water use (Section III-4).



### III-1. Play Description

In this section we describe relevant features of each play which will then be used in the Projections Section (Section IV). Note that water use intensity and proppant loading values represent an average of the sometimes time-varyi ng mix of slickwater / gel systems applied to the play at a given time. For example, a decrease in water use intensity may mean a better water efficiency in a technique or a move to a more water-efficient technique.



### III-1-1 Barnett Shale

The Barnett Shale is the first in Texas and around the world to submit to intense slick-water HF since the mid-1990’s, first using vertical wells. After a transition period, Barnett Shale operators use currently horizontal wells almost exclusiv ely. After a strong gr owth in the mid-2000’s (>2000 wells completed per year), the play has seen a relative decrease in the total number of wells completed in a year (Figure 4a) because of the reduced demand following the economic slump and the decreasing price of gas. Although dr illing activity has abated at the edges of the play core, it is very vigorous in the core itself (Denton, Johnson, Tarrant, and Wise counties) and has considerably picked up in th e so-called combo play in the nor thern confines of the play in Cooke and Montague counties. A weekly news letter, the Powell Shale Digest (PSD; May 29, 2012) noted a sharp increase in oil production since mid-2010. Substantial amounts of oil and

condensate have made those count ies attractive to operators. Over all the total amount of water used is relatively steady at 25 kA F/yr (Figure 4b). The Barnett pl ay is the Texas play with the highest degree of reporting water use at >90% (Table 2). Note that the bottom four plots of composite Figure 4 (as well as on similar figures in this document) show the fraction of wells used to compute the parameter on the secondary axis. High well reporting, allied with the large number of wells, gives us confidence that the wa ter use values are particularly accurate in this play. The length of the laterals has been slowly increasing in the past few years (~3,500 ft in 2011) with a concomitant water use increase (Figur e 4c and d). However water intensity (water amount per unit length) has stayed steady at ~ 1,200 gal/ft (Figure 4e). Note that the water intensity as reported in this doc ument is higher than that reporte d in the 2011 report because of a slight change in computing it (see Section II-1-2). In contrast to water intensity, proppant loading has been increasing sligh tly over time to ~0.8 lb/g al in 2011 (Figure 4f).

In order to better understand water intensity and in an effort to modulate it across a play, we plotted water intensity against depth and thickn ess (Figure 5a and c). The trend seems upwards with increasing depth and thickness but is very noisy and tenuous at best. Water intensity appears to be rather dependent on the well operator (Figure 5b) and, thus, somehow difficult to vary across a play. Nevertheless, spatial distribution of water intensity shows a higher intensity in Denton County and in the eastern ha lf of Wise County, areas in wh ich the Barnett is the deepest as well as in Montague County in the oil window (Figure 6a).

In agreement with our methodology, it is also us eful to understand the cumulative length of laterals in a given area or with in a county. A key input to the pr ojected water use is to assume12 that the entire county will be hypothetically drilled up by paralle l laterals extending from one side of the county to the other side and at regu larly spaced intervals (at, for example, a 1,000- ft interval [see Nicot et al., 2011 for details]). Figure 6b displays such density of well laterals, which is fairly high in Johnson County and the southern half of Tarra nt County. The average lateral spacing, which is simply the inverse of the lateral dens ity, is shown in Figure 7 and detailed in Table 3 (it is calcula ted in those sections of the county with an actual shale footprint). The county with the highest rela tive cumulative length of laterals (Johnson County) yields an average spacing between assumed parallel latera ls of ~1,700 ft. This is still removed from the operational distance between laterals of 1,000 ft or even 500 ft, suggesting that this county, despite its past activity w ill still see further significant activity as illustrated by the coverage gaps in Figure 8. The decrease in well completion activity in Johnson C ounty as seen in Figure 9a is more related to price gas than to a true depletion of the res ource in the county.



### III-1-2 Eagle Ford Shale

The Eagle Ford Shale play has seen tremendous deve lopment in the past 2 years. Initially started as a new Barnett Shale, it quickly turned into a di fferent type of play when the extent of the oil window became clear. In addition to the fast increase in wells completed (~1,400 in 2011) (Figure 10a) and the subsequent increase in wa ter use at ~24 kAF in 2011 (Figure 10b), the Eagle Ford Shale has the unique feature among all the plays examined in this document to experience a sharp decrease in water intensity (Fi gure 10e) decreasing almost in half in 4 years to ~850 gal/ft in 2011. This is seemingly due to operational changes moving from high-volume slick water HF operations to gel fracs that can ca rry as much proppant with much less water. The use of cross-link gels for oil production requires a higher proppa nt loading (Fan et al., 2011). This decrease in water intensity combined with an increase in average lateral length (~5,000 ft, Figure 10c) still translates into a decrease in wa ter use per well to ~5 million gallons/well (Figure 10d). Not surprisingly, the proppant loading has considerably in creased to 1 lb/gal in 2011 (Figure 10f). The question we will not try to answer despite its relevance to water use projection is how transferable to other plays is this switch to gel fracs and whether it could happen elsewhere on a large scale. The percentage of wells with consistent data sets is only ~47% (Table 2), making the Eagle Ford data set more uncer tain that than of the Barnett Shale.

The cross-plots of water intensity vs. depth a nd thickness are inconclusi ve and even misleading (Figure 11a and b). They show no real trend exce pt perhaps a decrease in water intensity with depth. However, Figure 12a clearly shows a higher water intensity in the down dip sections of the play, suggesting an intensity as high as 1400 ga l/ft in the gas-rich area and 800 gal/ft in the

oil-rich area. Densities of late ral (Figure 12b) and average late ral spacing (Figure 13, Table 4) suggest that the Eagle Ford Shale play has two cores: next to the Me xican border in Dimmit, LaSalle, and Zavala Counties and south of San Antonio in Karnes and De Witt Counties. The low average lateral spacing (>10,000 ft) suggests that many more wells will be drilled and completed there in the future.



### III-1-3 TX-Haynesville Shale an d East Texas Basin

This document deals only with the Texas section of the Haynesville Shale. In East Texas the Haynesville is a deep gas play, despite a report that one company has located a liquid-rich area in the Haynesville in Panola County with 350 horizontal drill sites (PSD, May 29, 2012). These are expensive wells, but they are located in an ar ea with multiple stacked formations amenable to13 HF. The Texas section of the play has seen a qu ick increase in the number of wells drilled (~250 in 2011, Figure 14a) and a subsequent increase in water use (~1.6 kAF, Figure 14b). This play, with the Cotton Valley Fm., also in East Texas, has the smallest fraction of wells with usable data (32% in 2011, Table 2). Lateral length (~5,00 ft), well water use (~8 million gal/well), and water intensity (~1,400 gal/ft in 2011) have all increased in th e past 3 years (Figure 14c, d, and e) whereas proppant loading has st ayed stable at 0.8 lb/gal (Fi gure 14f). Water intensity as a function of depth and thickness does not show any reliable pattern (Figure 15). Water intensity (Figure 16b) and density of late ral (Figure 16c) are spatially co rrelated. The highest correlations are in Harrison County and where Shelby and Sa n Augustine counties meet (Harrison, Shelby, San Augustine, and Panola counties are all in the TX-Haynesville core area). County-level average lateral spacing (Figure 17and Table 5) with a minimum value at ~24,000 ft suggests that many more wells will be completed in this play.



### III-1-4 Permian Basin

The Permian Basin, comprising the Midland Basin to the East and the Delaware Basin to the West, with the Central Platform in between, has a long history of mostly oil production. It has also received much attention recently because of hydraulically fractured vertical wells in the socalled Wolfberry play (Wolfcamp and Spraberry, Fi gure 18). More recentl y, attention has shifted to horizontal wells in the Wolfcamp Shales (Fi gure 19), one of the source rocks of the many oil accumulations in the Permian Basin. Several other plays are also being hydraulically fractured in the basin such as the Canyon Formation (Figure 20), the Clear Fork Formation (Figure 21), and the San Andres (Figure 22 and Figure 23) among others.

The Wolfberry was the first play in the Permian Basin to benefit from the technological progress made in the Barnett Shale play. The wells are vertical and have grown from <500 wells/yr to >1,500 wells in 2011 (Figure 18a). The annual amount of water use had also increased to almost 8 kAF in 2011 (Figure 18b). Approximately 80% of the wells have consistently good data. As the length of the productive vert ical section has increased from 1.500 ft to >2,500 ft in the past few years (Figure 18c), so has the average wate r use per well which is >1 million gal/well in 2011, relatively small volume compared to that of horizontal wells in shal e plays. As productive sections become longer, the water intensity incr eased slightly to ~400 gal/ft (Figure 18e), but proppant loading remained constant at ~0.9 lb/g al (Figure 18f). Water intensity seems to be higher in the Wolfberry of the Delaware Basin (F igure 24a), but that ba sin contains very few wells (Figure 25a), (and they might even be mi snamed). The well density is the highest in Glasscock and Reagan Counties.

Slick water horizontal wells have been jumped in 2011 from a lo w level of <50 wells/yr to 160 wells (Figure 19a), with a concomitant incr ease in total water use (~1.5 kAF in 2011, Figure 19b). Lateral length (~5,000 ft in 2011), well wate r use (~5 million gal/well in 2011), and water intensity (800 gal/ft in 2011) all increased too (Figure 19c, d, and e), but average proppant loading stayed steady at ~1 lb/g al (Figure 19f). Water intensity is higher in the center of the Midland Basin (Figure 24b), and the density of lateral is the highest in Ward County (Figure 25b) but the average lateral spac ing is still very high at ~23,0 00 ft (Figure 26), which suggests that many wells remain to be drilled and completed.

Other, less publicized plays also received increased interest, as shown by water intensity rising or remaining steady (Figure 20e, Figur e 21e, Figure 22e, and Figure 23e). Other plays, not targeted for the same scrutiny, have also seen a de velopment of HF. They were included in a14 miscellaneous file that included all fractured well s not included in a targ eted play. Overall the Permian Basin has a high fraction (~85%) of wells with a consistent data set (Table 2), thus giving us confidence that that the water use valu es are relatively accurate (especially for those formations hosting a large number of wells).



### III-1-5 Anadarko Basin

The Anadarko Basin contains several formations of interest, in particular the Granite Wash (Figure 27) but also the Clev eland and Marmaton formations (Figure 28 and Figure 29). Similarly to the development of the horizontal we lls in the Wolfcamp in an area where HF was done on mostly vertical wells, the Anadarko Basin is seeing a shift toward horizontal wells. The

Granite Wash has seen an increase from a few horizontal wells in 2006 to >300 in 2011 (Figure 27a) with a parallel increase in water use to <4 kAF in 2011 (Figure 27b). In the same time the length of the lateral has grown to ~4,500 ft (in 20 11) (Figure 27c) and the average well water use to >5 million gallons (Figure 27d). Water intens ity has reached a value of ~1,200 gal/ft (Figure 27e), but the proppant loading ha s remained steady at ~0.6 lb/gal (Figure 27f). The Cleveland and Marmaton horizontal wells display a similar evolution but for a smaller number of wells (~150 and ~40, respectively) and smaller water intensity at ~3 00 gal/ft (Figure 28e and Figure 29e). the fraction of wells with directly usable information was calculated at ~70% (Table 2). Water intensity as a function of depth failed to show a clear trend (F igure 30 and Figure 31).

Spatial distribution of Granite Wash water intens ity (Figure 32a) and density of lateral (Figure 32b) confirms that Wheeler County is the most attractive county. At th e county level, Wheeler County shows the smallest lateral spacing and plen ty of room for additional wells (Figure 33 and Table 6). HF activities in the Cleveland and Marmaton Formations are focused on Hemphill, Lipscomb, and Ochiltree Counties (Figure 34 an d Figure 35). Combining information from the three plays illustrates that th e county with the smallest av erage lateral spacing (Lipscomb County) still allows for significant development at ~11,000 ft (Figure 36), as illustrated in Figure

37.



### III-1-6 East Texas Basin

The East Texas Basin contains many formations susceptible to being hydraulically fractured. This section focuses on the Cotton Valley Fm., but , as was done for the Permian Basin and the Gulf Coast Basin, all water use data from wells in formations that were not part of the plays targeted for detailed study were st ill added to the total water use.

The Cotton Valley Fm. has been producing for decad es and has been subjected to HF for almost as long. However, as observed in the rest of the state, there is a general shift from vertical to horizontal wells. Annual completions of vertical wells have been decreasing from ~1500 wells per year in 2007 to ~300 in 2011 (Figure 38a), wh ereas horizontal wells have been increasing from almost none in 2005 to ~100 in 2011 (Figur e 39a). Total water use has followed the same path from ~1.5 kAF/yr to ~0 and from ~0 to 0.6 kAF/yr, respectivel y (Figure 38b and Figure 39b). In 5 years, the length of lateral has increased from ~1,000 ft to ~4,000 ft in 2011 (Figure 39c) with the associated water use increase to 4 million gallons per well in 2011 (Figure 39d). In the same period, water intensity has stayed st eady at ~1,000 gal/ft (Figure 39e) and proppant loading has remained at ~0.8 lb/gal (Figure 39f). The overall represen tivity of the usable data set is at a steady ~70% for the horizontal wells bu t decreasing to only 25% fo r the vertical wells. A water intensity vs. depth cross- plot (Figure 40) displays no o bvious trends but maps of well15 density (Figure 41 and Figure 42) show that horizontal wells are being completed in the same

areas as where the vertical wells were drilled an d that there is a good overlap of the high density

values.



### III-1-7 Gulf Coast Texas

Similarly to the Permian Basin and the East Te xas Basin, the Gulf Coast Basin, which includes many counties from the Mexican border to the Loui siana state line, contains several formations amenable to being hydraulically fractured. Each of these formations is not described here (for example, the Austin Chalk), but th eir water use is included in the total reported below. In this section, we document the Olmos Sands, where HF is taking place through horizontal wells. The annual number of completion is st ill low at 70 completions a year (Figure 43a) but growing and the total water use displays the same growth (~0.5 kAF in 2011, Figure 43b). Average lateral length has reached ~4,000 ft in 2011 (Figure 43c ), and the average water use per well has increased to 4 million gal/well (Figure 43d). Although irregular through the years, water intensity has reached a value of ~1,000 gal/ft (Figure 43e) cons istent with what has been

observed elsewhere.

Table 2. Percentage of wells in each play or regi on that yielded a complete and consistent data set (water, proppant, length) from year 2011.

Play / Region Percent

Barnett 92.7% Eagle Ford 46.9% Haynesville 31.8% Cotton Valley 31.4%

Anadarko 69.4%

Permian Basin 84.9%

ResultsSummary_year2011.xlsx16 Barnett Shale:

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f) Note: red squares represent average ; blue diam onds represent median; only partial data for 2012

Figure 4. Barnett Shale horizontals, various hist orical parameters and coefficients for reported

and estimated water use as a function of time: (a) number of wells; (b) water use; (c) average/median lateral length; (d) average/median water use per well; (e) average/median water use intensity; (f) average/median proppant loading.17 Barnett Shale:

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 5. Barnett Shale horizontal water use intensity as a function of (a) de pth; (b) operator and depth; and (c) formation thickness.18 Barnett Shale:

(a)

(b)

Note: 25 km 2 = 154 × 40 acres, that is, 154 wells/25 km 2 = 1 well/40 acres

Figure 6. Barnett Shale spatial distribution of (a ) water intensity; and (b) density of lateral (cumulative length per area).19 Barnett Shale:

Figure 7. Barnett Shale county-le vel average lateral spacing.

Table 3. Barnett Shale county-level average lateral spacing for top producing counties.

County

Name Sum lateral length /

county area (km/km 2 ) Average Lateral
Spacing (1000 ft)

Johnson 1.94 1.69

Tarrant 1.66 1.98

Hood 0.75 4.35

Parker 0.53 6.20

Wise 0.48 6.77

Denton 0.47 6.99

Somervell 0.34 9.76

Others >10×10 3 ft Note: Average spacing = 1/ (l ateral length density); Counties are sorted by decrea sing lateral length density20Figure 8. Map view of lateral expression of horizontal wells in the Barnett Shale centered on Tarrant County.21 (a)

(b)

Figure 9. Annual well count in Johns on (a) and Tarrant (b) counties.22 Eagle Ford Shale:

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f) Note: red squares represent average ; blue diam onds represent median; only partial data for 2012

Figure 10. Eagle Ford horizontals, various histori cal parameters and coefficients for reported and estimated water use as a function of time: (a) numb er of wells; (b) water us e; (c) average/median lateral length; (d) average/median water use per well; (e) average/median water use intensity; (f) average/median proppant loading.23 Eagle Ford Shale:

(a)

(b)

Figure 11. Eagle Ford Shale horizontal wells’ water use intensity as a func tion of (a) depth; and (b) formation thickness.24 Eagle Ford Shale:

(a)

(b)

Note: 25 km 2 = 154 × 40 acres, that is, 154 wells/25 km 2 = 1 well/40 acres

Figure 12. Eagle Ford Shale spatial distribution of (a) water intensit y; and (b) density of lateral (cumulative length per area).25 Eagle Ford Shale:

Figure 13. Eagle Ford Shale county -level average lateral spacing.

Table 4. Eagle Ford Shale county-level average lateral spacing for top producing counties.

County

Name Sum lateral length /

county area (km/km 2 ) Average Lateral
Spacing (1000 ft)

Karnes 0.236 13.93

Dimmit 0.162 20.30

La Salle 0.116 28.20

De Witt 0.111 29.63

Gonzales 0.080 41.01

McMullen 0.075 43.79

Webb 0.080 41.1126 TX-Haynesville Shale:

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f) Note: red squares represent average ; blue diam onds represent median; only partial data for 2012

Figure 14. TX-Haynesville Shale horizontals, vari ous historical parameters and coefficients for reported and estimated water use as a function of time: (a) number of wells; (b) water use; (c) average/median lateral length; (d) average/median water use per well; (e) average/median water use intensity; (f) average/median proppant loading.27 TX-Haynesville Shale:

(a)

(b)

Figure 15. TX-Haynesville Shale horizontal water us e intensity as a function of (a) depth; and (b)

formation thickness.28 TX-Haynesville Shale:

(a)

(b)

Note: 25 km 2 = 154 × 40 acres, that is, 154 wells/25 km 2 = 1 well/40 acres

Figure 16. TX-Haynesville Shale spatial distributi on of (a) water intensity ; and (b) density of lateral (cumulative length per area).29 TX-Haynesville Shale:

Figure 17. TX-Haynesville Shale coun ty-level average lateral spacing.

Table 5. TX-Haynesville Shale county-level aver age lateral spacing for top producing counties.

County

Name Sum lateral length /

county area (km/km 2 ) Average Lateral
Spacing (1000 ft)

San Augustine 0.137 23.97

Shelby 0.074 44.24

Nacogdoches 0.065 50.78

Sabine 0.061 54.11

Panola 0.046 72.03

Harrison 0.045 72.8430 Permian Basin, Wolfberry Verticals:

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f) Note: red squares represent average ; blue diam onds represent median; only partial data for 2012

Figure 18. Wolfberry verticals, va rious historical parameters and coefficients for reported and estimated water use as a function of time: (a) numb er of wells; (b) water us e; (c) average/median vertical productive section length; (d) average/ median water use per well; (e) average/median water use intensity; (f) averag e/median proppant loading.31 Permian Basin, Wolfcamp Horizontals:

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f) Note: red squares represent average ; blue diam onds represent median; only partial data for 2012

Figure 19. Wolfcamp horizontals, va rious historical parameters a nd coefficients for reported and

estimated water use as a function of time: (a) number of wells; (b ) water use; (c) average/median lateral length; (d) average/median water use per well; (e) average/median water use intensity; (f) average/median proppant loading.32 Permian Basin, Canyon – Horizontals:

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f) Note: red squares represent average ; blue diam onds represent median; only partial data for 2012

Figure 20. Canyon Sand horizontals, various historic al parameters and coefficients for reported

and estimated water use as a function of time: (a) number of wells; (b) water use; (c) average/median lateral length; (d) average/median water use per well; (e) average/median water use intensity; (f) average/median proppant loading.33 Permian Basin, Clearfork - Verticals

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f) Note: red squares represent average ; blue diam onds represent median; only partial data for 2012

Figure 21. Clearfork verticals, various historical parameters and coefficients for reported and estimated water use as a function of time: (a) numb er of wells; (b) water us e; (c) average/median vertical productive section length; (d) average/ median water use per well; (e) average/median water use intensity; (f) averag e/median proppant loading.34 Permian Basin, San Andres-Grayburg -Verticals

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f) Note: red squares represent average ; blue diam onds represent median; only partial data for 2012

Figure 22. San Andres-Grayburg verticals, various historical parameters and coefficients for reported and estimated water use as a function of time: (a) number of wells; (b) water use; (c) average/median vertical productive section lengt h; (d) average/median water use per well; (e) average/median water use intensity; (f) average/median proppant loading.35 Permian Basin, San Andres -Grayburg -Horizontals

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f) Note: red squares represent average ; blue diam onds represent median; only partial data for 2012

Figure 23. San Andres-Grayburg horizontals, various historical parameters and coefficients for reported and estimated water use as a function of time: (a) number of wells; (b) water use; (c) average/median lateral length; (d) average/median water use per well; (e) average/median water use intensity; (f) average/median proppant loading.36 Permian Basin:

(a)

(b)

Figure 24. Permian Basin spatial distribution of wate r intensity for (a) vert ical and (b) horizontal

wells.37 Permian Basin:

(a)

Note: 25 km 2 = 154 × 40 acres, that is, 154 wells/25 km 2 = 1 well/40 acres

(b) Figure 25. Permian Basin spatial distribution of (a) vertical well density and (b) density of lateral (cumulative length per area) for horizontal wells.38 Permian Basin

Figure 26. Permian Basin county-level average lateral spacing39 Anadarko Basin: Granite Wash Horizontals:

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f) Note: red squares represent average ; blue diam onds represent median; only partial data for 2012

Figure 27. Granite Wash horizontals, various histor ical parameters and co efficients for reported

and estimated water use as a function of time: (a) number of wells; (b) water use; (c) average/median lateral length; (d) average/median water use per well; (e) average/median water use intensity; (f) average/median proppant loading.40 Anadarko Basin: Cleveland Horizontals:

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

Note: red squares represent average ; blue diam onds represent median; only partial data for 2012

Figure 28. Cleveland horizontals, various historical parameters and coefficients for reported and estimated water use as a function of time: (a) numb er of wells; (b) water us e; (c) average/median lateral length; (d) average/median water use per well; (e) average/median water use intensity; (f) average/median proppant loading.41 Anadarko Basin: Marmaton Horizontals:

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f) Note: red squares represent average ; blue diam onds represent median; only partial data for 2012

Figure 29. Marmaton horizontals, various historical parameters and coefficients for reported and estimated water use as a function of time: (a) numb er of wells; (b) water us e; (c) average/median lateral length; (d) average/median water use per well; (e) average/median water use intensity; (f) average/median proppant loading.42 Anadarko Basin: Granite Wash Horizontals:

Figure 30. Granite Wash horizontal water use intensity as a function of depth.

Anadarko Basin: Cleveland Horizontals:

Figure 31. Cleveland horizontal water us e intensity as a function of depth.43 Anadarko Basin: Granite Wash Horizontals:

(a)

(b)

Note: 25 km 2 = 154 × 40 acres, that is, 154 wells/25 km 2 = 1 well/40 acres Figure 32. Granite Wash spatial distribution of (a ) water intensity; and (b ) density of lateral (cumulative length per area).44 Anadarko Basin: Granite Wash Horizontals:

Figure 33. Granite Wash horizontals c ounty-level average lateral spacing

Table 6. Granite Wash county-level average lateral spacing for top producing counties

County

Name Sum lateral length /

county area (km/km 2 ) Average Lateral
Spacing (1000 ft)

Wheeler 0.351 9.34

Hemphill 0.082 39.74

Roberts 0.036 90.5445 Anadarko Basin: Cleveland Horizontals:

(a)

(b)

Note: 25 km 2 = 154 × 40 acres, that is, 154 wells/25 km 2 = 1 well/40 acres

Figure 34. Cleveland spatial distribution of (a) water intensity; and (b) density of lateral (cumulative length per area).46 Anadarko Basin: Marmaton Horizontals:

(a)

(b)

Note: 25 km 2 = 154 × 40 acres, that is, 154 wells/25 km 2 = 1 well/40 acres

Figure 35. Marmaton spatial distribution of (a) water intensity; and (b ) density of lateral (cumulative length per area).47 Anadarko Basin: Horizontals:

(a)

Note: 25 km 2 = 154 × 40 acres, that is, 154 wells/25 km 2 = 1 well/40 acres

(b)

Figure 36. Anadarko spatial distribution of (a) water intensity; and (b ) density of lateral (cumulative length per area).48 Figure 37. Map view of wells’ la teral expression and vertical well location in the Anadarko

Basin.49 East Texas Basin: Cotton Valley Verticals

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f) Note: red squares represent average ; blue diam onds represent median; only partial data for 2012

Figure 38. Cotton Valley verticals, various historical parameters and coefficients for reported and estimated water use as a function of time: (a) numb er of wells; (b) water us e; (c) average/median vertical productive section length; (d) average/ median water use per well; (e) average/median water use intensity; (f) averag e/median proppant loading.50 East Texas Basin: Cotton Valley Horizontals

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

Note: red squares represent average ; blue diam onds represent median; only partial data for 2012

Figure 39. Cotton Valley horizontals, various histor ical parameters and coefficients for reported

and estimated water use as a function of time: (a) number of wells; (b) water use; (c) average/median lateral length; (d) average/median water use per well; (e) average/median water use intensity; (f) average/median proppant loading.51 East Texas Basin: Cotton Valley

Figure 40. Cotton Valley horizontal water us e intensity as a function of depth.

Note: 25 km 2 = 154 × 40 acres, that is, 154 wells/25 km 2 = 1 well/40 acres

Figure 41. Cotton Valley spatial distribution of de nsity of lateral (cumulative length per area).52 East Texas Basin: Cotton Valley

Note: 25 km 2 = 154 × 40 acres, that is, 154 wells/25 km 2 = 1 well/40 acres Note: Cotton Valley wells drilled before 2005 are not included (see Nicot et al., 2011 for details).

Figure 42. Cotton Valley spatial distribution of density of vertical wells (years 2005-2011).53 Gulf Coast Basin, Olmos - Horizontal

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

Note: red squares represent average ; blue diam onds represent median; only partial data for 2012

Figure 43. Olmos horizontals, various historical parameters and coefficients for reported and estimated water use as a function of time: (a) numb er of wells; (b) water us e; (c) average/median lateral length; (d) average/median water use per well; (e) average/median water use intensity; (f) average/median proppant loading.54 

### III-2. Current Water Consumption and Sources

III-2-1 Information about Recycling/Reuse and Brackish Water Use

We collected information about recycling/re use and brackish water use gathered during discussions with operators (Table 7). The amount of fresh water used is quite unequal across the different plays as a function of the local conditions. It can be as low as 20% in Far-West Texas or nearly 100% in East Texas. Collecting a sufficient amount of information concerning recycling/reuse and brackish water use is an improvement over the 2011 report which overall underestimated it. Reuse is limited by the amount of flow back that varies across plays. We could not document volumes of water recycled from wa stewater treatment plants, but the TCEQ lists ~30 municipal and industrial faci lities located in the Barnett Shale and Eagle Ford Shale plays that provide water to the industry (Figure 44) . Groundwater/surface water could be extremely variable within a single play, but water data al so reflect local conditions (Table 8): heavy surface water use towards the eastern pa rt of the state and reliance on groundwater (sometimes brackish) elsewhere. The following short paragraphs disc uss recycling/reuse and brackish water use and GS/SW split in major plays/regions.

Barnett Shale : For the most part, operators use fresh surf ace water in this play (estimated at 80% of “new” water). This is a change from the 50%+ groundwater use estimated in 2006 in Bené et al. (2007) and Nicot and Potter ( 2007). Some operators use brackish water, particularly in the combo play and on the western edges of the pl ay. Some also use outfall from wastewater treatment plants. Overall, little recycling/reuse and brackish water use is currently occurring in this play as compared to othe r plays further west or south.

Eagle Ford Shale : Operators rely mostly on groundwater (e stimated at 90% of “new” water) and there is a significant amount of brackish water being used (currently estimated at 20% but variable among operators). Several aquifers are brackish in the f ootprint of the play: the Gulf Coast aquifers and the Wilcox aquifers as well as the downdip section of the Carrizo aquifer.

Haynesville Shale and East Texas Basin : Water is generally plenti ful in East Texas and no significant recycling/reuse and use for brackis h water was documented during this study. We estimated it at 5%, mostly from treatment plan ts and produced water from Cotton Valley wells.

We estimated that about 70% of the “new” water is groundwater.

Permian Basin : A significant percentage (30% or more) of the HF water used in both the

Midland and Delaware basins is brackish. Nearly all of the water used is groundwater tapping aquifers such as the Ogallala (which is ofte n brackish towards its southern domain, where the industry has many HF operations ), and the Dockum, Trinity Edwards, Capitan, and other aquifers. The industry currently does little r ecycling/reuse, although several companies use produced water from conventional oil and gas op erations. Such produced water has relatively low salinity at several places in the basin.

Anadarko Basin : This basin has hosted much recycling/ reuse (estimated at 20%) and use of brackish water (estimated at 30%). Most of the “new” water is groundwater (estimated at 80%).



### III-2-2 2011 HF Water Use and Consumption

Combining information collected from the IHS database, industry information, and selected information from the 2011 report results in an estimated water use for HF of ~81,500 AF across the state in 2011 (Table 9). The Barnett Shale and the Eagle Ford shale used a similar amount of55 water (~25 kAF), but less fresh water was used in the Eagle Ford. The Permian Basin is catching up (~15 kAF), but it uses relativel y less fresh water than the two shale plays. Water use in the Texas section of the Haynesville Shale is becoming subordinate to other plays located in the same area (for example, Cotton Valley). Count y-level water use (Table 10) shows that many

counties across the state have some HF wate r use (126 counties with >1AF in 2011 and 26 counties with >1kAF). The top 10 HF users consis t of Tarrant County in the Barnett core (8.8 kAF), Webb County in the southern Eagle Ford (4.6 kAF), Johnson County in the core of the Barnett Shale (4.2 kAF), Karnes County in the Eagle Ford (3.9 kAF), Wheeler County in the Granite Wash of the Anadarko Basin (3.8 kAF), Dimmit County in the Eagle Ford (3.7 kAF), Denton County in the core of the Barnett Shal e (3.2 kAF), Montague County in the combo play of the Barnett Shale (3.2 kAF), La Salle County in the Eagle Ford (2.9 kAF), and Wise County in the core of the Barnett Shale (2.3 kAF). The top te n counties total about half of the HF water use in the state. The top 10 counties stay the same when only water consumption is considered despite some reshuffling because of the variab le impact of recycling/reuse and brackish water

use.

In the next section we compare our current fi ndings to the findings of the 2011 report (that projected a water use of 62 kAF in 2011, Tabl e 9) and explain the discrepancies.56 Table 7. Estimated percentages of recycling/ reus ed and brackish water use in main HF areas in

2011.

Play / Region Type Current (2011)

%

Permian Far West Recycled/reused 0%

Brackish 80%

Fresh 20%

Permian Midland Recycled/reused 2%

Brackish 30%

Fresh 68%

Anadarko Basin Recycled/reused 20%

Brackish 30%

Fresh 50%

Barnett Shale Recycled/reused 5%

Brackish 3%

Fresh 92%

Eagle Ford Shale Recycled/reused 0%

Brackish 20%

Fresh 80%

East Texas Basin Recycled/reused 5%

Brackish 0%

Fresh 95%

Table 8. Estimated groundwater / surface water split (does not include recycling / reuse)

Play / Region Groundwater Surface Water

Barnett Shale 20% 80% Eagle Ford Shale 90% 10%

East Texas Basin 70% 30%

Anadarko Basin 80% 20%

Permian Basin 100% 0%

Table 9. HF water use in 2008 and 2011compared to the 2011 projected water use from 2008.

Play / Region

Unit: kAF 2011 Actual

Water Use Fraction
Non-R/R

Non-brackish 2011 Actual Water Consumption 2011 Projected

Water Use

Barnett Shale 25.75 0.92 23.69 33.08 Eagle Ford Shale 23.76 0.8 18.81 10.07

East Texas Basin 7.54 0.95 7.06 8.46

Anadarko Basin 6.52 0.5 3.21 2.26

Permian Basin 14.44 0.68 / 0.2 8.55 7.26

Gulf Coast Basin 3.49 0.95 / 0.8 3.31 1.00

Statewide 81.51 0.79* 64.63 62.13

*: computed from state consumption and use columns (sum of other rows) FrackingWaterUse2008&2011_Bob-JPComp_2.xls57 Table 10. County-level estimate of 2011 HF wa ter use and water consumption (kAF).

County HF Water Use (kAF) HF Water Consumption (kAF) County HF Water Use (kAF) HF Water Consumption (kAF)

Andrews 1.391 0.946 Limestone 0.268 0.214 Angelina 0.007 0.006 Lipscomb 0.382 0.191

Archer 0.017 0.016 Live Oak 0.972 0.777 Atascosa 1.009 0.807 Loving 0.189 0.038

Bee 0.066 0.053 McMullen 1.752 1.401

Borden 0.033 0.023 Madison 0.204 0.163

Brazos 0.238 0.191 Marion 0.010 0.010

Brooks 0.008 0.006 Martin 2.035 1.384

Burleson 0.247 0.197 Maverick 0.192 0.154

Caldwell 0.075 0.060 Midland 1.573 1.070

Carson 0.085 0.042 Milam 0.034 0.027

Cherokee 0.010 0.009 Mitchell 0.018 0.012 Clay 0.058 0.053 Montague 3.221 2.963

Cochran 0.031 0.021 Moore 0.076 0.038 Coke 0.001 n/a Nacogdoches 1.128 1.072

Cooke 1.480 1.362 Newton 0.098 0.093

Crane 0.159 0.108 Nolan 0.011 0.008

Crockett 0.475 0.323 Nueces 0.016 0.013 Crosby 0.012 0.008 Ochiltree 0.273 0.136 Culberson 0.166 0.033 Orange 0.006 n/a

Dallas 0.079 0.073 Palo Pinto 0.041 0.038

Dawson 0.089 0.061 Panola 0.966 0.917

Denton 3.249 2.989 Parker 1.086 1.000

DeWitt 2.151 1.721 Pecos 0.110 0.022

Dimmit 3.706 2.965 Polk 0.133 0.126

Ector 0.756 0.514 Potter 0.044 0.022

Ellis 0.038 0.035 Re agan 1.240 0.843

Erath 0.012 0.011 Reeves 0.522 0.104 Fayette 0.132 0.106 Roberts 0.393 0.197

Franklin 0.014 0.014 Robertson 0.306 0.245

Freestone 0.424 0.339 Runnels 0.004 0.003

Frio 0.729 0.583 Rusk 0.158 0.150

Gaines 0.142 0.096 Sabine 0.147 0.139 Garza 0.001 n/a San Augustine 1.622 1.541

Glasscock 1.434 0.975 Schleicher 0.090 0.061 Gonzales 2.224 1.779 Scurry 0.010 0.007 Grayson 0.021 0.020 Shackelford 0.002 0.002 Gregg 0.025 0.024 Shelby 1.419 1.348

Grimes 0.095 0.076 Sherman 0.002 0.001 Guadalupe 0.018 0.014 Smith 0.005 0.005

Hansford 0.011 0.005 Somervell 0.287 0.264

Hardeman 0.017 0.012 Starr 0.036 0.029 Harrison 0.893 0.849 Sterling 0.057 0.039 Hemphill 1.462 0.731 Stonewall 0.001 n/a

Henderson 0.012 0.012 Sutton 0.034 0.023 Hidalgo 0.059 0.047 Tarrant 8.805 8.101

Hill 0.131 0.120 Terrell 0.010 0.007 Hockley 0.005 0.003 Terry 0.003 0.002

Hood 0.645 0.593 Titus 0.003 0.00358 County HF Water Use (kAF) HF Water Consumption (kAF) County HF Water Use (kAF) HF Water Consumption (kAF) Houston 0.178 0.142 Tyler 0.076 0.072 Howard 0.552 0.376 Upshur 0.004 0.004 Hutchinson 0.005 0.002 Upton 1.761 1.198

Irion 0.875 0.595 Ward 0.568 0.114 Jack 0.048 0.044 Washington 0.036 0.029 Jasper 0.087 0.083 Webb 4.596 3.677

Johnson 4.192 3.857 Wheeler 3.792 1.896

Karnes 3.869 3.095 Wilson 0.417 0.334 Kenedy 0.006 0.005 Winkler 0.062 0.012 Kleberg 0.034 0.028 Wise 2.314 2.129

La Salle 2.901 2.321 Yoakum 0.018 0.013 Lavaca 0.118 0.094 Young 0.008 0.007 Lee 0.131 0.105 Zapata 0.032 0.026

Leon 0.273 0.218 Zavala 0.407 0.127

SUM 81.50 kAF 64.63 kAF

Note: filtered at 0.001 kAF

Source: TCEQ, 2012

Figure 44. Location of waste water treatment facilitie s that provide or have provided water to the industry for HF as of July 2012. FrackingWaterUse2008&2011_Bob-JPComp_2.xls59 

### III-3. Comparison to Earlier Findings

Projections made in 2009 for 2011 in the 2011 report underestimated water use by about 30% (81.5 kAF compared to 62.1 kAF, Ta ble 9). It is important to understand the underlying causes in order to develop better projec tions in this document. Compar ing actual water use in 2008 and 2011 (Figure 45) shows (1) extensio n of HF across the state, Ba rnett Shale stays relatively steady, fracturing in the Haynesville Shale a nd Anadarko Basin expands, and the Eagle Ford becomes much more prominent as does the Perm ian Basin. A bar plot illustrates the county-bycounty discrepancies between proj ections and actual numbers (Fi gure 46). A cross-plot is a different way of presenting the same informati on (Figure 47), and it is apparent that most counties with larger water use (dots in the uppe r right-hand side of th e side) were correctly accounted (no dots on either the x- or y-axis), even if it was underestimated (dots mostly below the 1:1 line). Major discrepancies occurred because there was no Barnett ex tension outside of the core area (for example, Bosque, Comanche, Er ath, and Palo Pinto coun ties in Figure 46), and because of more and faster development in the Eagle Ford Shale and Permian Basin. Both these factors are connected to the drop in gas price and increase in oil pr ice in the past 2 or 3 years, parameters notoriously difficult to predict.60~36,000 AF ~81,500 AF(Nicot el al., 2011)including ~17,000 AFof recycling/reuseand use of brackish waterFigure 45. Spatial distribution ofHF water use in 2008 and 2011.61Figure 46. Bar plot comparison of 2011 actual water use to projections from 2009.62 Note: Note the log-log scale.

Figure 47. County-level cross-plot comparison of 2011 actual water use to projections from 2008. Values on x- and y- axis re present counties whose actual (y-axi s) / projected (x-axis) water

use is 0. A total of 168 counties are represented.63 

### III-4. Drilling Water Use

In the course of the study, we also collected in formation about drilling water use. Results are not sufficiently representative to change results presented in th e 2011 report amounting to 8 kAF. The general observation, though, is that drilling requires water of better quality than HF although in smaller amounts (Table 11). The amount of wa ter used depends on the length of the well and on operator preferences but also, mo re importantly, heavily on local factors. For example, in the Eagle Ford the drilling muds used in drilling thr ough horizontal sections (for example, Fan et al., 2011) are oil-based.

Table 11. Drilling water use information

Play / Region in 1000’s gal/well Range provided by operators Comments

Barnett Shale 250

210-420

168

500 N/A

~Fresh

~Fresh

~Fresh Eagle Ford
Shale 125

420

160

126

252-420 N/A
N/A

~Fresh

~Fresh

~Fresh

East Texas

Basin 600 840-1,100

420 N/A

~Fresh

~Fresh

Anadarko Basin 200

420 N/A

~Fresh

Midland Basin (Permian Basin) 84

100

210

210-420 ~Fresh
N/A

~Fresh

~Fresh

Delaware Basin (Permian Basin) 100

210-420 N/A

Brackish Note: fresh is defined as TDS<3,000 mg/L65 

## IV. Water Use Projections

This section describes projections for HF wate r use and fresh-water consumption in Texas to year 2060. As described in the 201 1 report, all projections entail many uncertainties and those caveats are still valid in this update. In genera l, the life of the play s was extended beyond 2060, less prospectivity was given to the gas window , and steeper development to the oil window section of plays or tight oil plays. The overall results is that the HF water use will have a broad plateau at ~125 kAF/yr around the 2020-2030 decade and then slowly decrease with time to 2060 and beyond (Figure 48). However, the amount of fresh water consumed (that is, not recycled or reused or brackish water) will stay relatively constant at ~70 kAF despite the increase in water use and then slowly subside with the decrease in HF activities. Fresh-water use will decrease for two reasons: (1) the industry is getting be tter at reusing flow back (but sometimes limited by the small fraction coming back) and at finding alternate sources of recycling (treatment plants, produced water from conventiona l wells) and at using brackish water because of the technological advances in additives tolerating more saline water. And (2) the Permian Basin, which may become the focus of HF in Texas in the long run, offers great production potential. In the Permian Basin, fr esh water is at a premium and brackish water is already used by the industry.

Total oil and gas water use and consumption (combining HF, waterflooding, and drilling) is presented in Figure 49. Oil and gas water use, cons istent with the defini tion of make-up fresh water used in this document, was computed by summing HF water use (Fi gure 48), drilling water use –with no change from the 2011 report, a nd waterflood water use –computed from the 2011 report by adding fresh and brackish water use. O il and gas water consum ption was computed by summing HF water consumption (Figure 48), dri lling water use –with no change from the 2011 report and the additional note th at water use and consumption are identical. Waterflood water consumption is the same as water use in the 2011 report that represen ted fresh water use. Projected oil and gas water use and consump tion are dominated by HF. By design, in the 2011 report, drilling technology was projected to move th e industry away from the use of fresh water. Progress in waterflooding was also projected to decrease fresh wate r requirements but to increase

brackish water use until the whole industry relies only on saline wate r (not showed). Under these assumptions, oil and gas industry water use is proj ected to peak with a broad plateau at 180 kAF in the 2020-2030 decade, slowly declining to ~60 kAF by 2060. Fresh water consumption in the oil and gas industry is projected to reach a maxi mum of ~100 kAF before the end of this decade and then to slowly decrease to a low level of a few tens of thousands AF by the middle of the

century.

We did not account for many unknowns that could po ssibly impact the results as they did in the Eagle Ford Shale when the indus try switched from slick-water fr acs to gel fracs in the oil window that use less water. The Eagle Ford was the only play in which we observed such a trend, everywhere else the trend (based on 2 to 5 years of data) shows an increase or a steady value in water intensity (Table 12). Data abou t recycling/reuse and brackish water use were derived from industry information of these uses as of today and in 2020 (Table 13). The most likely values from 2011 and 2020 are essentially estimated directly from the various responses in a given play. Extrapolation to 2060 and translat ion to high and low s cenarios for all years starting in 2012 are speculative and are based on industry trends and on th e general knowledge of the authors about fresh and brackish water aquife rs and of their yields around the state. The66 amount of reuse cannot be larger than the amount of flow back / produced water from recently fractured wells and at the play level reuse is likely less becaus e of the operational issues of transporting water. Some plays, such as the Haynesville and Eagle Ford Shales, are at a disadvantage for this; they produce back less than 20% of the inje cted water (Table 14). They, and others, could however take advantage of produced water from other formations.

We did not deviate much from the overall wate r use of the 2011 report because of constraints accounted for the 2011 report and re lated to drilling rig count, la bor force availability/staff shortage, infrastructure development, and othe r factors. National rig count seems steady at ~2,000 or slightly lower in the past year (~50% of them in Texas), but drillers are improving at operating them, which suggests that the projections presented in this update are consistent with the number of drilling rigs currently available.

Cumulative water use is related to the eventual well density or lateral spacing. Ultimate average spacing between laterals, or ver tical well density, is the parameter driving water use along with water intensity. Typical vertical well spacing is 1 well per 40 acres; that ratio can decrease to 1 well per 20 or 10 acres in some instances. Typi cal lateral spacing can be computed from 1 horizontal well per 160 acres. If la teral length is 5,000 ft, the resul ting spacing between laterals is 1,400 ft. If the horizontal well dens ity declines to 1 well per 40 acres, lateral spacing is 350 ft. This update document assumes a lateral spaci ng of 1000 ft, perhaps smaller in oil windows (Figure 51).

County-level projections for HF water use and wa ter consumption are listed in Table 15. The county coverage is essentially the same as in th e 2011 report with the additi on of four counties in East Texas (Polk, Tyler, Jasper , and Newton counties, Figure 50) . Total oil and gas (combining HF, waterflooding, and drilling) county-level projections are presented in Table 16.

The following paragraphs address HF projection i ssues specific to each play and region. Each play is represented by two pl ots. One plot compares proj ections from the 2011 report to projections from this update. The second plot disp lays water use and fresh water consumption in the high, low, and most likely scen arios. Only the latter is disp layed in the first plot and is retained as the preferred set of projections to be used by the TWDB. As explained in the Methodology Section (Section II), low and high scenarios were deri ved by varying two factors: (1) the prospectivity factor, which assesses the ultimate amount of HF in a play, varies on a county and play basis from 1 to 0, with 1 meani ng the county is within the core area and highly prospective (for example, Tarrant County in the Barnett Shale) and near- zero values suggesting

that little of the count y will be developed (for example ,S hackelford County in the Barnett Shale); and (2) coefficients for recycling/ reuse and brackish water use (Table 13). The prospectivity factor was changed according to a s liding linear scale: a value of 1 stays at 1 but a value of 0.2 either goes to zero (low water use sc enario) or 0.4 (high wa ter use scenario). The change was made systematically with no tentative ex ercise to tailor it to each county/play couple. In the case of tight oil/ tight gas plays, a third fa ctor was varied. This factor varies from 0 to 1 and addresses the spatial coverage of the county that could ultimately undergo HF. In the case of resource plays such as shale plays, the factor is constant and close to one because the whole footprint of the play is potentially a target for drilling. The only unknown is the well density which is accounted for through the prospectivity factor. In tight oil/ga s plays, it cannot be assumed that the whole footprint of the formation will experience HF because some parts of it can be properly produced through conventional wells . This third factor was used in the East67 Texas (Cotton Valley), Anadarko (Granite Wash ), Gulf Coast (Austin Chalk), and Permian

basins.

Barnett Shale : In this play with the longest history, we considerably decreas ed the prospectivity

factors outside of the core area in the most likel y scenario. That is, inst ead of increasing water use because of the expansion of the productive Barn ett Shale footprint, we assumed that most of the HF will stay confined to the core area and stay relatively stable for a few years before slowly decreasing (Figure 52a). The peak from earlier pr ojections has disappeared and water use should stay below 30 kAF and decrease more slowly th an projected in the 2011 report. The high water use scenario projection (Figure 52b) displays a small increase in water use (but not in water consumption) in the 2020 decade because the prospect ivity factors are closer to those used in the 2011 report.

Eagle Ford Shale : Projections for this play display a d ecrease in water use compared to those projected values of the 2011 report (Figure 53a ) because of the observed decrease in water intensity that we assumed will hold in the future . The projections suggest a slow increase in water for the next 10 years with a broad p eak at ~35kAF and a slow decrease beyond 2060. Unlike the Barnett with a clearly delimited core , we assumed that most counties in the Eagle Ford are highly prospective and thus there is not much variation between high and low scenario projections except when recycli ng/reuse and use of brackish wa ter are included (Figure 53b).

Pearsall Shale : This gas play was briefly hydraulically fractured in the mid-2000’s and has not

received a lot of attention since then. However, initial production estimates suggest that the play will be produced in the future. We used the same water use parameters in the Pearsall as those in the Eagle Ford Shale because these plays are geographically close. Projections from the 2011 report were only slightly modifi ed displacing the peak water use at ~10 kAF by about 5 years into the future (Figure 54a). As was the case for the Eagle Ford, the high and low scenarios are mostly impacted by the amount of recycling/ reuse and brackish wate r use (Figure 54b).

TX-Haynesville and Bossier Shales : The Haynesville and Bossier Shales have declined in operator interest because of their relatively high operational cost and low gas prices. They are, however, still likely to produce si gnificant amounts of gas in the future, albeit at a lower rate than anticipated in the 2011 re port. Projections of this update document show a decreased and broader peak (Figure 55a), with annual water us e slated to be no higher than ~12kAF. A minor player, the Haynesville-West play will possibly undergo some development on the western flank of the East Texas Basin and its water use proj ections stay similar to that of the 2011 report (Figure 56a), with a decrease peak as well. Lo w and high scenario projections stay relatively close together (Figure 55b), because there is litt le variability in terms of projected non-fresh water use (almost none).

Other East Texas Formations : This category includes all formations except the Haynesville and Bossier Shales, such as the Cotton Valley, Jame s Lime, Bossier Sands, and others. The same water consumption data used in the Haynesville were used for th is group of formations. Relative to the 2011 report projections, the projections deri ved in this update assumed a broader peak displaced toward the future by ~10 years (F igure 57a). Projected maximum water use is estimated at <5 kAF/yr. The small variance between water use and water consumption is explained by the location of the plays in East Texas where fresh water is relatively abundant and the large differences between the different scenario projections is due to the spread of the third factor, addressing spatial coverage of th e formation of interest (Figure 57b).68 Gulf Coast Formations : Amount of water use and consumpti on in the Gulf Coast Basin outside of the shale plays is very uncertain. The Gulf Coast Basin is the area in Texas that has experienced the least HF (Nicot et al., 2011) and explained th e large range of projections between the different scenarios (Figure 58b). Th is category include formations such as the Olmos Sands and the Austin Chalk, and these proj ections assumed that water use will peak at ~8kAF in the 2020’s (Figure 58a). Water consump tion is assumed to be much lower because most of the plays are in South Texas, wher e there are some brackish water resources.

Anadarko Basin : Anadarko Basin consists mostly of the Granite Wash in Hemphill and Wheeler

counties and the Marmaton/Cleveland in Ochiltree and Lipscomb counties. Current water use in this basin is much higher than anticipated in the 2011 report proj ections. We revisited prospectivity factors and the projected water us e reaches a broad peak of ~9kAF in the 2020’s (Figure 59a) with a smaller projected water cons umption because of anticipated recycling/reuse and brackish water use. However, the uncertainty in final coverage put this basin in the same category as the Gulf Coast Basin and East Basin category, resulting in a la rge spread of potential outcomes (Figure 59b).

Permian Basin : As has the Anadarko Basin, the Permian Basin has grown much faster than anticipated and water use projections call for a plateau at ~40 kAF during the 2020-2040 period (Figure 60a) concomitant with a fairly stable fr esh water consumption at 10-15 kAF. The large gap between water use and water consumption, much larger than presented in the 2011 report (Figure 60a), is due to the expectation of ava ilability of significant amounts of brackish water and of their extensive use by the industry (as currently documented by anecdotal evidence). The large range in outcome from the different sc enarios is related to the unknowns in spatial coverage of the non-shale plays (Figure 60b). We now turn to the desc ription of the major components making up water use in the Permian Basin. Although the Barnett-Woodford system in the Permian Basin has received limited interest, we assume it will produce gas in the future (Figure 61a). The most likely scenario calls for a peak at ~5 kAF in 2035 but with the possibility of a high scenario with a much higher water us e and a low scenario with no development. Development centered on the Wolfcamp is more certain and differences between high and low scenario projections were derived mostly from assumptions on the level of use of non-fresh water(Figure 61b). The other formations in the Pe rmian Basin also display the same uncertainty related to the amount of spatial coverage (“third factor” as de scribed above). The most likely scenario projection is estimated to have a br oad peak in the 15-20 kAF range for many years with considerably less water consumption (Figure 61c).69 Table 12. Recent trends in well completion a nd water use in hydraulic-fractured plays.

Play Well Type ~# of

Recent Wells/yr Recent Trend (well/yr) Water Use
/ well (Mgal) Water Use Intensity

(gal/ft) Recent

Trend (water use) Barnett H 1500 down / steady n/a 1200 steady

Eagle Ford H 1000 strongly up n/a 850 down

TX-Haynesville H 250 up n/a 1400 steady

Granite Wash H 250 strongly up n/a 1200 steady / up V 60 strongly down 1500 800 steady

Cleveland H 100 steady n/a 250 steady V 20 down 1.7 2000 steady

Marmaton H 30 strongly up n/a 250 steady V 10 steady 1.0 2500 up

Cotton Valley H 100 up n/a 1000 steady V 300 strongly down 0.8 1200 steady

Olmos H 50 up n/a 1000 up V 100 strongly down 0.15 2500 steady
Wolfcamp H 150 strongly up n/a 900 strongly up

Wolfberry V 2000 up 1.0 350 up

Canyon V 300 down 0.4 500 up

Clear Fork V 800 up 0.8 350 up

San Andres H 50 strongly down n/a 350 strongly up V 800 steady / up 0.15 500 steady

Table 13. Coefficients (%) to compute water cons umption to be applied to total water use.

Play / Region High

Water Use Most Likely Low

Water Use

Far West Permian Basin Recycling

2011 0 0 0

2020 0 50 40

2060 0 40 40

Brackish

2011 80 80 80

2020 80 30 50

2060 80 40 50

Permian Midland Basin Recycling

2011 2 2 2

2020 2 25 30

2060 2 30 40

Brackish

2011 30 30 30

2020 30 40 40

2060 30 40 50

Anadarko Basin Recycling

2011 20 20 20

2020 20 30 40

2060 20 40 40

Brackish70 Play / Region High

Water Use Most Likely Low

Water Use

2011 30 30 30

2020 30 30 30

2060 30 30 40

Barnett Shale Recycling

2011 5 5 5

2020 5 10 25

2060 5 20 20

Brackish

2011 3 3 3

2020 3 15 20

2060 3 25 25

Eagle Ford Shale Recycling

2011 0 0 0

2020 0 10 10

2060 0 10 10

Brackish

2011 20 20 20

2020 20 40 50

2060 20 50 50

South Texas Recycling

2011 0 0 0

2020 0 10 10

2060 0 10 10

Brackish

2011 20 20 20

2020 20 40 50

2060 20 50 50

East Texas Recycling

2011 5 5 5

2020 5 10 10

2060 5 10 10

Brackish

2011 0 0 0

2020 0 0 10

2060 0 10 10

Table 14. Estimated flow back/produced water volume relative to HF injected volume.

Play / Region Comment Delaware Basin (Permian Basin) Close to 100% in year 1, 150% well life

>200% well life Midland Basin (Permian Basin) 50%-100% in year 1
Anadarko Basin ~50% in month 1, 90% at month 6 Barnett Shale 10-20% month 1, 20-60% well life 70% year1; 150% in 5 years Eagle Ford Shale 20% over life;

20% over life Haynesville Shale 20% over life;

15% over life Cotton Valley Fm. 60% month 1, >100% well life;

40% or 100% over life71Table 15. County-level estimate of 2012-2060 projectionsfor HF water use and water consumption (AF).CountyWater Use (AF)Water Consumption (AF)2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060Anderson 0 31 58 89 119 131 139 124 105 85 66 0 23 41 64 86 97 104 92 76 61 46Andrews 1,391 1,617 2,140 2,0531,965 1,878 1,654 1,431 1,207983 806 946 862 749 690 634 580 501 425 351 279 224Angelina 7 60 160 260 360 379 345 310 276 241 207 6 56 144 231 315 327 293 260 228 196 165Aransas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Archer 17 81 183 284 385 354 321 289 257 225 193 16 68 137 206 270 239 209 181 154 129 106Armstrong 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Atascosa 1,009 2,902 2,638 2,589 2,594 2,598 2,602 2,314 1,953 1,5911,230 807 2,064 1,583 1,500 1,443 1,386 1,329 1,144 935 736 545Austin 0 0 98 195 293 264 234 205 176 146 117 0 0 59 115 169 148 129 110 92 75 59Bailey 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Bandera 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Bastrop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Baylor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Bee 66 80 101 108 94 81 67 54 40 27 13 53 60 64 67 57 48 39 31 23 15 7Bell 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Bexar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Blanco 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Borden 33 228 638 892 899 906 764 622 480 338 230 23 122 223 307 303 300 248 198 150 104 69Bosque 0 192 329 466 603 553 502 452 402 352 301 0 162 247 338 422 373 327 283 241 202 166Bowie 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Brazoria 0 41 60 79 97 91 79 67 55 43 31 0 31 38 49 59 54 46 38 31 24 17Brazos 238 322 696 931 1,166 1,036 905 775 644 514 384 191 243 431 559 681 592 506 423 343 267 193Brewster 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Briscoe 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Brooks 8 37 49 62 62 54 46 38 30 22 14 6 28 31 38 38 32 27 22 17 12 8Brown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Burleson 247 331 943 1,409 1,877 1,676 1,474 1,273 1,071 867 665 197 250 580 840 1,090 952 819 690 567 447 334Burnet 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Caldwell 75 90 116 103 90 77 64 52 39 26 13 60 68 73 64 55 46 38 29 22 14 7Calhoun 0 25 33 42 42 37 31 26 21 15 10 0 19 21 26 26 22 18 15 11 8 5Callahan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Cameron 0 37 50 62 62 54 46 38 30 22 14 0 28 31 38 38 32 27 22 17 12 8Camp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Carson 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Cass 0 10 25 41 56 68 60 52 45 37 30 0 9 24 38 52 60 52 45 38 31 24Castro 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Chambers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Cherokee 10 70 128 186 244 284 253 221 190 158 126 9 66 122 173 223 254 221 189 159 129 101Childress 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Clay 58 194 355 516 678 621 565 508 452 395 339 53 164 266 374 474 419 367 318 271 227 186Cochran 31 94 121 149 176 203 180 158 135 113 90 21 50 42 51 59 67 59 50 42 35 27Coke 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Coleman 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Collin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Collingsworth 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Colorado 0 38 517 996 1,462 1,314 1,166 1,018 870 722 574 0 29 312 587 843 741 643 548 458 371 287Comal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Comanche 0 125 228 332 436 392 349 305 261 218 174 0 105 171 241 305 265 227 191 157 125 96Concho 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Cooke 1,480 1,653 1,294 934 575 215 0 0 00 0 1,362 1,396 970 677 402 145 0 0 0 0 0Coryell 0 289 1,012 947 684 421 158 0 0 0 0 0 244 759 686 479 284 103 0 0 0 072CountyWater Use (AF)Water Consumption (AF)2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060Cottle 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Crane 159 339 438 559 681 802 729 656 583 510 438 108 181 153 189 223 257 229 203 177 152 128Crockett 475 996 1,636 1,946 1,760 1,4751,190 905 620 335 149 323 531 573 669 594 489 387 288 194 103 45Crosby 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Culberson 166 141 188 576 963 1,280 1,163 1,047 931 814 698 33 75 66 149 231 290 262 235 207 180 154Dallam 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Dallas 79 654 1,018 848 679 509 339 170 0 0 0 73 553 763 615 475 343 220 106 0 0 0Dawson 89 476 724 918 954 990 844 699 553 408 294 61 254 253 308 308 308 257 208 160 115 80Deaf Smith 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Delta 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Denton 3,249 3,159 2,106 1,053 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,989 2,667 1,579 763 0 0 0 0 0 0 0DeWitt 2,151 1,977 1,773 1,5691,354 1,130 907 684 460 237 14 1,7211,407 1,065 924 780 638 500 369 243 122 7Dickens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Dimmit 3,706 4,777 4,7654,857 4,871 4,834 4,232 3,489 2,746 2,002 1,259 2,9653,407 2,828 2,774 2,6692,534 2,145 1,710 1,294895 516Donley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Duval 0 70 94 117 118 103 87 72 57 42 27 0 53 59 73 72 61 51 41 32 23 14Eastland 0 0 424 642 550 458 367 275 184 92 0 0 0 318 465 385 309 238 172 110 53 0Ector 756 983 1,340 1,434 1,5291,484 1,309 1,134 959 784 644 514 524 469 478 488 451 390 332 274 219 176Edwards 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ellis 38 87 126 166 206 185 164 144 123 103 82 35 74 95 120 144 125 107 90 74 59 45El Paso 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Erath 12 163 253 343 433 397 361 325 289 253 217 11 137 190 249 303 268 235 203 173 145 119Falls 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Fannin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Fayette 132 1,081 2,329 2,093 1,822 1,526 1,229 932 636 340 43 106 773 1,402 1,236 1,054 864 681 505 337 176 23Fisher 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Floyd 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Foard 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Fort Bend 0 35 46 58 58 51 43 36 28 21 14 0 26 29 36 35 30 25 20 16 11 7Franklin 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Freestone 424 750 975 1,229 1,424 1,404 1,241 1,076 912 748 584 339 678 846 1,042 1,196 1,164 1,012 863 720 582 449Frio 729 1,119 1,146 1,1761,189 1,159 1,127 1,097 947 769 589 583 809 701 708 692 647 602 559 465 364 266Gaines 142 830 1,273 1,709 1,8811,841 1,582 1,323 1,064 805 599 96 443 445 563 588 542 456 372 290 212 152Galveston 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Garza 1 237 315 394 473 426 379 331 284 237 189 0 126 110 136 160 141 123 106 89 72 57Gillespie 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Glasscock 1,434 1,938 2,621 2,466 2,311 1,978 1,646 1,313 980648 427 975 1,033 917 848 780 655 535 419 306 198 128Goliad 0 34 45 56 56 49 42 35 27 20 13 0 25 28 35 34 29 24 20 15 11 7Gonzales 2,224 1,746 1,5521,358 1,164 970 776 582 388 194 0 1,779 1,241 931 798 669 545 427 313 204 99 0Gray 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Grayson 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Gregg 25 134 224 313 402 449 405 362 318 274 230 24 127 208 284 357 391 347 305 263 223 184Grimes 95 125 287 448 569 506 443 380 317 254 191 76 94 178 270 334 291 249 209 170 133 97Guadalupe 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Hale 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Hall 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Hamilton 0 251 304 253 203 152 101 51 0 0 0 0 212 228 184 142 103 66 32 0 0 0Hansford 11 0 513 1,025 879 732 586 439 293 146 0 5 0 205 397 329 265 205 148 95 46 0Hardeman 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Hardin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Harris 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Harrison 893 1,578 2,223 2,012 1,851 1,6891,527 1,365 1,203 1,041 880849 1,479 2,030 1,808 1,6361,469 1,307 1,149 996 847 70473CountyWater Use (AF)Water Consumption (AF)2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060Hartley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Haskell 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Hays 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Hemphill 1,462 2,484 2,231 1,978 1,724 1,470 1,217 963 710 456 203 731 1,132 892 766 646 533 426 325 231 143 61Henderson 12 46 124 201 278 333 296 259 222 185 148 12 44 117 187 254 297 259 222 186 151 118Hidalgo 59 63 83 104 105 91 78 64 51 37 24 47 47 53 65 64 54 45 37 28 20 13Hill 131 1,429 1,225 1,021 816 612 408 204 0 0 0 120 1,207 919 740 571 413 265 128 0 0 0Hockley 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Hood 645 409 580 751 921 829 737 645 553 461 369 593 346 435 544 645 560 479 403 332 265 203Hopkins 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Houston 178 237 305 271 237 203 170 135 102 68 34 142 179 193 168 144 121 99 77 57 37 18Howard 552 1,471 2,360 2,8222,642 2,250 1,859 1,468 1,076685 422 376 784 826 970 892 745 604 468 336 210 126Hudspeth 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Hunt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Hutchinson 5 0 90 180 154 128 103 77 51 26 0 2 0 36 70 58 47 36 26 17 8 0Irion 875 1,478 2,429 2,889 2,613 2,190 1,766 1,343 920 497 221 595 788 850 993 882 725 574 428 287 152 66Jack 48 242 363 485 605 545 485 424 363 303 242 44 204 273 351 424 368 315 265 218 174 133Jackson 0 34 45 56 56 49 42 35 28 20 13 0 25 29 35 34 29 25 20 15 11 7Jasper 87 105 135 120 105 90 75 60 45 30 15 83 79 86 75 64 54 44 34 25 16 8Jeff Davis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Jefferson 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Jim Hogg 0 45 60 75 75 65 56 46 37 27 17 0 34 38 46 46 39 32 26 20 15 9Jim Wells 0 34 45 57 57 50 42 35 28 21 13 0 26 29 35 35 30 25 20 15 11 7Johnson 4,192 4,038 3,365 2,6922,019 1,346 673 0 0 0 0 3,857 3,4102,524 1,952 1,413 909 437 0 0 0 0Jones 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Karnes 3,869 2,749 2,457 2,165 1,863 1,554 1,245 937 629 320 11 3,095 1,9561,475 1,273 1,073 876 686 505 331 165 6Kaufman 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Kendall 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Kenedy 6 57 76 95 95 83 71 58 46 34 22 5 43 48 59 58 49 41 33 26 19 12Kent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Kerr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Kimble 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0King 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Kinney 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Kleberg 34 37 49 62 62 54 46 38 30 22 14 28 28 31 38 38 32 27 22 17 12 8Knox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Lamar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Lamb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Lampasas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0La Salle 2,901 4,432 4,425 4,5324,621 4,698 4,147 3,440 2,732 2,025 1,318 2,321 3,154 2,612 2,5632,499 2,427 2,070 1,659 1,265 889 530Lavaca 118 913 1,522 1,3881,241 1,086 930 775 620 464 309 94 651 915 818 716 613 513 418 326 239 155Lee 131 203 392 508 624 553 484 414 345 274 204 105 152 243 305 365 316 270 226 184 142 103Leon 273 663 1,289 1,800 2,309 2,192 1,934 1,674 1,416 1,155 898 218 487 8311,166 1,487 1,4151,225 1,041 864 693 529Liberty 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Limestone 268 307 347 388 410 376 332 287 242 197 153 214 281 307 333 346 312 270 229 190 153 116Lipscomb 382 560 1,026 876 725 574 423 272 121 0 0 191 255 410 339 272 208 148 92 39 0 0Live Oak 972 783 729 676 692 720 748 776 689 575 461 777 558 439 399 392 388 384 379 324 261 200Llano 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Loving 189 313 418 561 704 690 627 565 502 439 376 38 167 146 187 227 213 191 169 147 127 107Lubbock 0 0 0 51 103 154 140 126 112 98 84 0 0 0 10 21 31 28 25 22 20 17Lynn 0 0 246 336 427 517 460 402 345 287 230 0 0 86 116 144 171 149 128 108 88 69McCulloch 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 074CountyWater Use (AF)Water Consumption (AF)2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060McLennan 0 53 120 187 253 228 203 177 152 127 101 0 45 90 135 177 154 132 111 91 73 56McMullen 1,752 2,545 2,7623,067 3,329 3,562 3,306 2,930 2,553 2,177 1,801 1,4011,815 1,627 1,729 1,7971,840 1,658 1,430 1,211 1,001 801Madison 204 261 561 750 940 832 727 622 518 413 308 163 197 348 451 549 475 406 339 275 214 155Marion 10 121 270 420 569 579 522 466 408 351 295 10 114 249 380 506 506 449 393 339 286 236Martin 2,035 2,446 3,071 2,824 2,577 2,267 1,892 1,516 1,141 765 512 1,384 1,305 1,075 963 855 731 597 468 344 224 145Mason 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Matagorda 0 46 61 77 77 67 57 47 37 28 18 0 35 39 48 47 40 33 27 21 15 9Maverick 192 1,574 1,857 2,241 2,626 3,010 2,843 2,538 2,234 1,928 1,623154 1,119 1,074 1,226 1,3681,501 1,376 1,195 1,022 856 698Medina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Menard 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Midland 1,573 2,640 3,265 3,034 2,803 2,465 2,045 1,6251,205 785 488 1,070 1,408 1,143 1,034 928 791 643 499 361 227 136Milam 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Mills 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Mitchell 18 238 317 397 476 428 381 333 286 238 190 12 127 111 136 161 142 124 106 89 73 57Montague 3,221 3,496 2,9972,497 1,998 1,498 999 499 0 00 2,963 2,952 2,248 1,8101,398 1,011 649 312 0 0 0Montgomery 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Moore 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Morris 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Motley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Nacogdoches 1,128 1,424 2,066 1,937 1,809 1,659 1,503 1,347 1,1911,036 880 1,072 1,327 1,873 1,731 1,593 1,438 1,283 1,132 985842 704Navarro 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Newton 98 125 161 143 125 108 89 71 54 36 18 93 94 102 89 76 64 52 41 30 20 9Nolan 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Nueces 16 34 45 56 56 49 42 35 28 20 13 13 25 29 35 34 29 25 20 15 11 7Ochiltree 273 408 748 985 815 646 476 306 136 0 0 136 186 299 382 306 234 166 103 44 0 0Oldham 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Orange 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Palo Pinto 41 194 356 518 680 612 544 476 408 340 272 38 164 267 376 476 413 354 298 245 196 150Panola 966 1,412 1,988 1,801 1,655 1,511 1,366 1,221 1,077932 787 917 1,323 1,816 1,618 1,4641,314 1,169 1,028 891 758 630Parker 1,086 925 1,255 1,5851,916 1,724 1,533 1,3411,149 958 766 1,000 781 941 1,1491,341 1,164 996 838 690 551 421Parmer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Pecos 110 130 173 387 601 746 674 601 528 456 383 22 69 60 108 156 180 161 142 123 105 87Polk 133 180 232 206 180 155 129 103 77 52 26 126 136 147 128 110 92 75 59 43 28 14Potter 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Presidio 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Rains 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Randall 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Reagan 1,240 3,207 4,019 3,6273,236 2,844 2,332 1,8201,308 796 444 843 1,710 1,4071,247 1,092 942 758 580 409 244 133Real 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Red River 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Reeves 522 866 1,155 1,744 2,3332,509 2,304 2,098 1,893 1,6871,481 104 462 404 556 705 713 646 581 518 456 395Refugio 0 32 42 53 53 46 39 33 26 19 12 0 24 27 33 32 27 23 19 14 10 7Roberts 393 1,628 1,419 1,210 1,002 793 584 376 167 0 0 197 742 568 469 376 287 205 127 54 0 0Robertson 306 587 741 773 806 734 639 544 449 354 259 245 501 587 619 648 584 500 419 342 268 196Rockwall 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Runnels 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Rusk 158 477 930 1,384 1,838 1,707 1,5421,378 1,213 1,048 884 150 446 850 1,2451,627 1,487 1,3221,161 1,005 853 707Sabine 147 235 470 705 940 861 783 705 627 548 470 139 218 423 625 823 743 666 590 517 445 376SanAugustine1,622 2,092 1,953 1,814 1,6741,534 1,395 1,256 1,116 977837 1,541 1,941 1,758 1,610 1,465 1,323 1,186 1,052 921 793 670San Jacinto 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0San Patricio 0 28 37 46 46 40 34 28 22 17 11 0 21 23 28 28 24 20 16 13 9 675CountyWater Use (AF)Water Consumption (AF)2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060San Saba 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Schleicher 90 312 468 568 584 507 430 354 277 200 140 61 166 164 195 197 168 140 113 87 61 42Scurry 10 0 249 341 432 524 466 408 349 291 233 7 0 87 117 146 174 151 130 109 89 70Shackelford 2 0 156 311 467 421 374 327 280 234 187 2 0 117 226 327 284 243 204 168 134 103Shelby 1,419 1,658 3,073 2,9292,785 2,621 2,377 2,133 1,889 1,645 1,400 1,348 1,539 2,771 2,6072,446 2,270 2,027 1,790 1,5611,337 1,120Sherman 2 0 0 92 184 158 132 105 79 53 26 1 0 0 36 69 57 46 36 26 16 8Smith 5 18 49 80 111 133 118 103 88 74 59 5 17 47 75 101 118 103 88 74 60 47Somervell 287 184 260 336 413 372 330 289 248 207 165 264 155 195 244 289 251 215 181 149 119 91Starr 36 48 64 79 79 69 59 49 39 29 18 29 36 40 49 48 41 35 28 22 16 10Stephens 0 52 184 315 447 402 357 312 268 223 179 0 44 138 229 313 271 232 195 161 128 98Sterling 57 265 707 881 893 905 765 625 484 344 236 39 141 248 303 302 300 249 199 151 105 71Stonewall 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Sutton 34 0 390 534 677 821 730 639 547 456 365 23 0 137 183 229 272 237 204 171 140 109Swisher 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Tarrant 8,805 6,836 5,469 4,1012,734 1,367 0 0 0 0 0 8,101 5,7734,102 2,974 1,914 923 0 0 0 0 0Taylor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Terrell 10 0 162 221 281 341 303 265 227 189 151 7 0 57 76 95 113 98 84 71 58 45Terry 3 0 243 332 422 511 454 397 341 284 227 2 0 85 114 142 169 148 127 106 87 68Throckmorton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Titus 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Tom Green 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Travis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Trinity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Tyler 76 110 147 184 185 161 137 114 90 66 42 72 83 93 114 113 96 80 65 50 36 23Upshur 4 57 247 437 627 764 690 617 543 469 396 4 54 226 393 555 665 591 519 449 382 316Upton 1,761 2,955 3,728 3,442 3,1562,870 2,398 1,927 1,455983 664 1,198 1,576 1,305 1,171 1,041 916 749 588 433 283 185Uvalde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Val Verde 0 0 80 110 139 168 150 131 112 94 75 0 0 28 38 47 56 49 42 35 29 22Van Zandt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Victoria 0 35 46 58 58 51 43 36 28 21 14 0 26 29 36 35 30 25 20 16 11 7Walker 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Waller 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ward 568 568 683 888 871 855 764 672 581 489 398 114 568 239 297 278 260 228 197 167 138 110Washington 36 0 497 878 798 718 638 559 479 399 319 29 0 298 516 459 404 351 300 251 204 160Webb 4,596 3,661 3,476 3,052 2,626 2,244 1,872 1,501 1,128 699 2553,677 2,627 2,109 1,814 1,529 1,274 1,033 803 580 344 113Wharton 0 43 57 71 72 62 53 44 35 26 17 0 32 36 44 43 37 31 25 20 14 9Wheeler 3,792 3,524 3,072 2,6202,168 1,717 1,265 813 362 0 0 1,8961,605 1,229 1,015 813 622 443 274 117 0 0Wichita 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Wilbarger 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Willacy 0 23 31 39 39 34 29 24 19 14 9 0 18 20 24 24 20 17 14 11 8 5Williamson 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Wilson 417 1,612 1,865 1,6791,492 1,306 1,119 932 746 560 373 3341,146 1,119 986 858 734 615 501 392 287 187Winkler 62 464 618 821 1,024 979 873 767 661 556 450 12 247 216 275 332 305 267 231 195 160 127Wise 2,314 2,757 2,450 2,144 1,8381,531 1,225 919 613 306 0 2,129 2,3281,838 1,555 1,287 1,034 796 574 368 176 0Wood 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Yoakum 18 238 330 423 384 346 308 269 230 192 154 13 127 116 145 130 115 100 86 72 59 46Young 8 0 78 157 235 211 188 164 141 118 94 7 0 59 113 164 143 122 103 85 68 52Zapata 32 41 55 68 68 60 51 42 33 25 16 26 31 35 42 42 35 30 24 19 13 8Zavala 407 2,065 2,427 2,2802,167 2,035 1,904 1,773 1,5021,197 891 326 1,477 1,465 1,3511,247 1,132 1,020 912 747 575 410SUM (kAF) 81.5 110 132 135 134 122 104 87 70 53 39 64.8 78.2 76.9 76.0 72.8 64.2 53.2 43.4 34.4 26.3 19.1MiningWaterUse2010-2060_5.xls76Table 16. County-level estimate of 2012-2060 projections for oil and gas water use and water consumption (AF).CountyWater Use (AF)Water Consumption (AF)2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060Anderson 39 129 140 157 177 181 185 169 147 126 105 67 87 88 98 109 115 121 109 93 78 63Andrews 3,212 3,481 3,959 3,833 3,7103,511 3,177 2,842 2,5092,192 1,929 1,868 1,2311,029 921 819 742 640 544 453 372 311Angelina 0 116 220 316 412 427 389 351 312 274 237 32 112 203 286 366 374 336 299 263 228 195Aransas 0 12 10 8 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 10 11 10 8 6 5 5 5 5 5 5Archer 30 351 405 444 483 389 344 311 279 246 213 239 326 337 343 344 252 222 194 167 142 119Armstrong 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Atascosa 1,012 2,993 2,770 2,713 2,706 2,700 2,693 2,393 2,021 1,6491,279 867 2,155 1,711 1,618 1,551 1,484 1,415 1,219 1,000790 590Austin 0 28 127 224 320 288 257 226 194 163 132 20 29 88 143 195 173 151 130 110 91 73Bailey 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Bandera 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Bastrop 0 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12Baylor 1 14 14 14 14 14 13 13 13 13 13 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 13Bee 66 111 127 129 112 95 80 67 53 40 26 92 90 89 87 74 62 52 44 36 28 20Bell 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Bexar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Blanco 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Borden 27 272 679 926 927 929 784 639 494 352 244 72 165 263 339 331 323 267 214 164 117 82Bosque 0 470 557 627 696 579 516 466 416 365 315 238 439 462 485 502 387 340 296 255 216 180Bowie 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Brazoria 0 91 102 113 125 114 100 88 76 64 52 42 80 78 82 86 76 67 59 52 45 38Brazos 238 364 741 975 1,207 1,072 938 804 670 536 402 266 286 477 602 721 628 538 451 368 287 211Brewster 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Briscoe 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Brooks 27 70 77 84 80 69 60 52 44 36 28 50 60 58 60 55 47 41 36 31 26 22Brown 23 35 34 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 17 16 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14Burleson 247 380 995 1,459 1,923 1,717 1,512 1,306 1,100 892 686 279 299 632 890 1,135 993 855 723 595 471 354Burnet 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Caldwell 75 98 123 111 98 85 72 59 46 33 20 82 75 81 71 62 54 45 37 29 22 14Calhoun 18 48 52 57 55 47 41 35 30 25 19 34 41 39 41 38 32 28 24 21 18 15Callahan 84 93 88 88 87 83 79 74 70 66 62 29 24 18 17 16 15 15 15 15 15 15Cameron 27 58 65 72 68 57 47 39 31 23 15 38 47 45 48 43 34 28 23 18 13 9Camp 13 12 12 11 11 11 10 9 9 8 8 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0Carson 2 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13Cass 1 30 39 48 58 68 60 52 45 37 30 26 28 36 44 52 60 52 45 38 31 24Castro 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Chambers 0 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9Cherokee 10 129 172 216 263 299 267 236 204 173 141 80 123 163 201 239 269 236 204 173 144 116Childress 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Clay 63 508 613 699 786 655 584 527 471 414 357 318 472 506 538 563 435 382 333 286 243 202Cochran 56 128 154 181 208 234 210 187 163 139 115 46 64 54 63 71 79 70 62 54 46 38Coke 520 511 484 480 477 451 425 397 370 346 322 114 84 46 40 33 32 31 29 28 27 26Coleman 100 113 108 107 107 102 97 91 86 82 77 37 31 24 23 22 21 21 21 21 21 20Collin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Collingsworth 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Colorado 28 129 608 1,078 1,534 1,376 1,2211,067 913 759 605 86 120 402 667 913 802 697 596 499 406 317Comal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Comanche 2 388 444 485 525 419 363 319 276 232 188 224 366 374 379 380 278 240 204 170 138 109Concho 515 507 480 477 474 448 422 394 367 343 320 114 84 46 40 34 33 31 30 29 28 27Cooke 1,493 1,708 1,343 978 612 246 28 27 26 2524 1,391 1,434 1,001 702 421 158 13 13 13 13 13Coryell 0 569 1,238 1,102 767 434 158 0 0 0 0 236 522 972 827 548 284 103 0 0 0 077CountyWater Use (AF)Water Consumption (AF)2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060Cottle 32 43 41 41 41 39 38 36 34 33 31 18 16 14 14 13 13 13 13 13 13 13Crane 280 508 617 728 840 947 861 776 692 610 531 227 246 225 249 273 299 265 232 201 174 149Crockett 507 1,097 1,732 2,0351,843 1,552 1,261 971 682 394 207 553 606 641 730 650 539 434 332 235 143 85Crosby 1,083 1,050 994 987 980 926 871 814 757 706 656 224 161 82 69 55 53 50 47 45 43 40Culberson 279 293 506 873 1,240 1,535 1,393 1,250 1,110 972 843 151 97 249 308 371 415 368 323 279 240 208Dallam 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Dallas 79 726 1,076 888 700 512 339 170 0 0 0 134 624 818 651 493 343 220 106 0 0 0Dawson 268 695 954 1,137 1,164 1,184 1,023 862 703 546 423 165 323 328 371 360 353 296 241 189 140 104Deaf Smith 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Delta 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Denton 3,249 3,297 2,220 1,136 51 19 13 13 13 13 13 3,108 2,805 1,688 840 44 13 13 13 13 13 13DeWitt 2,177 2,061 1,858 1,6461,421 1,188 958 729 500 271 42 1,8011,493 1,149 999 846 694 550 413 281 155 35Dickens 0 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 13Dimmit 3,708 4,874 4,919 5,001 5,001 4,952 4,337 3,580 2,824 2,0681,315 3,068 3,506 2,980 2,9132,795 2,648 2,246 1,797 1,368958 569Donley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Duval 52 133 147 160 153 131 114 99 84 69 54 96 114 110 114 105 89 77 68 58 50 41Eastland 333 578 937 1,091 934 764 644 535 425 318 211 286 303 539 619 472 335 263 196 133 75 21Ector 845 1,144 1,537 1,612 1,690 1,628 1,435 1,245 1,056 870 725 850 612 588 577 570 520 447 377 310 251 206Edwards 0 28 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 28 28 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29Ellis 38 112 147 180 213 186 164 144 123 103 82 56 99 114 133 150 125 107 90 74 59 45El Paso 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Erath 12 470 505 521 536 426 376 340 304 268 232 274 443 427 411 391 283 250 218 188 161 134Falls 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Fannin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Fayette 132 1,149 2,403 2,164 1,887 1,585 1,282 979 677 375 72 166 844 1,476 1,306 1,118 922 733 551 377 210 51Fisher 432 426 403 401 398 376 355 332 309 289 269 97 71 40 35 30 28 27 26 25 24 24Floyd 148 156 148 147 146 139 131 123 116 109 102 42 34 23 21 19 19 19 18 18 18 17Foard 3 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10Fort Bend 25 66 72 79 75 65 56 49 41 34 27 47 56 54 56 52 44 38 33 29 24 20Franklin 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 3 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Freestone 429 929 1,117 1,331 1,4941,458 1,291 1,121 954 785 618 600 844 975 1,133 1,254 1,213 1,056 903 757 615 479Frio 729 1,167 1,217 1,2431,250 1,215 1,178 1,142 986 804 620 666 858 772 774 752 702 652 603 504 398 296Gaines 124 914 1,429 1,846 2,0001,945 1,671 1,398 1,127 859 651 190 517 590 686 694 635 533 436 344 259 197Galveston 0 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6Garza 53 321 395 469 544 491 438 386 334 284 234 44 166 144 164 184 162 142 122 104 87 71Gillespie 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Glasscock 1,838 2,402 3,057 2,8872,718 2,355 1,994 1,6341,275 921 681 1,590 1,165 1,010 923 839 704 575 452 334 224 153Goliad 25 64 70 77 73 63 54 47 40 33 26 46 55 53 55 50 42 37 32 28 24 20Gonzales 2,164 1,791 1,600 1,405 1,207 1,010 813 616 418 221 24 1,764 1,288 980 844 712 585 463 346 233 126 23Gray 68 78 75 74 74 70 67 63 60 57 53 26 22 17 16 15 15 15 15 15 15 15Grayson 6 19 18 18 18 18 18 18 17 17 17 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14Gregg 25 191 274 353 433 476 429 383 337 292 246 71 182 256 322 387 418 371 326 282 240 199Grimes 95 159 323 483 602 537 471 405 340 275 209 120 129 214 305 367 321 276 233 192 153 115Guadalupe 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10Hale 1,289 1,235 1,168 1,160 1,152 1,087 1,022 954 886 826 766 252 177 82 67 51 48 45 42 39 36 33Hall 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Hamilton 0 361 393 314 236 157 101 51 0 0 0 93 321 312 239 169 103 66 32 0 0 0Hansford 13 88 577 1,068 904 749 602 456 309 162 16 68 79 261 432 348 278 218 161 108 59 13Hardeman 0 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10Hardin 0 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12Harris 0 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24Harrison 868 1,763 2,388 2,145 1,9561,778 1,608 1,438 1,268 1,098930 1,021 1,658 2,189 1,935 1,735 1,557 1,386 1,219 1,059 903 75378CountyWater Use (AF)Water Consumption (AF)2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060Hartley 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Haskell 90 98 93 93 92 88 83 79 74 70 66 30 25 18 17 16 16 15 15 15 15 15Hays 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Hemphill 1,441 2,567 2,314 2,0371,763 1,499 1,244 988 732 476 223 1,498 1,209 971 821 683 562 452 349 252 163 80Henderson 3 120 176 235 296 346 308 272 235 198 161 91 113 166 218 269 310 272 235 199 164 131Hidalgo 46 119 130 143 136 117 101 88 74 61 48 85 101 98 102 94 79 69 60 52 44 37Hill 131 1,572 1,343 1,106 869 632 422 218 1314 14 244 1,349 1,031 819 617 427 279 141 13 14 14Hockley 6 18 18 18 18 17 17 17 17 16 16 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13Hood 645 529 678 820 961 841 743 651 559 467 375 695 465 528 608 679 566 485 409 338 271 209Hopkins 42 41 38 38 38 36 34 31 29 27 25 8 6 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1Houston 178 254 322 287 254 220 187 152 119 85 51 195 196 210 185 161 138 116 94 74 54 35Howard 619 1,611 2,491 2,939 2,747 2,343 1,940 1,538 1,138 742476 643 870 898 1,028 938 782 633 490 354 226 142Hudspeth 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Hunt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Hutchinson 21 51 156 237 204 173 144 115 86 58 30 32 34 85 110 90 75 62 50 39 28 20Irion 1,677 2,286 3,192 3,643 3,3572,890 2,423 1,955 1,487 1,026713 1,070 937 937 1,065 940 778 621 471 327 190 102Jack 17 501 575 635 693 572 499 438 378 317 256 232 459 470 487 497 381 328 278 231 187 146Jackson 25 64 70 77 73 63 55 47 40 33 26 46 55 53 55 51 43 37 32 28 24 20Jasper 87 118 148 133 118 103 88 73 58 43 28 100 92 98 88 77 67 57 47 38 30 21Jeff Davis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Jefferson 0 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14Jim Hogg 33 85 93 102 97 83 72 63 53 44 34 61 73 70 73 67 56 49 43 37 31 26Jim Wells 25 65 71 78 74 64 55 48 40 33 26 46 55 53 55 51 43 37 33 28 24 20Johnson 4,192 4,240 3,530 2,8092,086 1,365 683 10 10 10 10 4,029 3,6112,680 2,059 1,471 918 447 10 10 10 10Jones 117 125 119 118 117 111 106 99 93 88 82 35 29 20 19 17 17 17 16 16 16 16Karnes 3,882 2,820 2,528 2,229 1,919 1,603 1,288 975 662 349 35 3,155 2,0281,545 1,336 1,127 923 728 542 363 192 29Kaufman 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Kendall 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Kenedy 42 108 118 130 123 106 92 80 68 55 43 78 92 89 92 85 72 62 55 47 40 33Kent 29 39 38 38 38 36 35 33 32 31 29 18 16 14 14 13 13 13 13 13 13 13Kerr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Kimble 0 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17King 8,635 8,287 7,836 7,783 7,7307,293 6,857 6,402 5,946 5,545 5,144 1,704 1,198 565 461 357 334 311 291 271 253 236Kinney 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Kleberg 27 70 77 84 80 69 60 52 44 36 28 51 60 58 60 55 47 41 36 31 26 22Knox 3 15 15 15 15 14 14 14 14 14 14 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12Lamar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Lamb 647 620 586 582 579 546 513 479 445 415 385 127 89 41 34 26 24 22 21 19 18 17Lampasas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0La Salle 2,889 4,569 4,617 4,7054,772 4,830 4,263 3,541 2,819 2,098 1,380 2,408 3,293 2,801 2,7312,647 2,556 2,183 1,757 1,349 959 590Lavaca 145 1,003 1,613 1,4701,313 1,148 985 824 662 501 340 179 742 1,005 898 786 673 567 465 368 274 184Lee 132 230 421 536 650 577 506 435 363 290 218 151 179 272 333 390 340 292 246 201 158 117Leon 327 847 1,482 1,983 2,481 2,349 2,077 1,802 1,530 1,256 985 361 629 9771,301 1,611 1,5271,325 1,129 941 758 584Liberty 0 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16Limestone 271 383 402 424 431 391 347 302 257 212 167 356 350 355 363 361 325 283 242 203 166 129Lipscomb 387 656 1,098 926 758 597 446 294 142 21 21 434 335 467 375 290 221 161 105 52 13 13Live Oak 1,002 851 814 751 757 776 798 820 729 610 492 853 627 523 473 455 443 433 422 363 294 230Llano 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Loving 542 691 792 925 1,058 1,020 934 848 762 681 601 300 256 223 251 279 259 229 202 175 152 131Lubbock 6,211 5,963 5,663 5,673 5,684 5,419 5,089 4,745 4,401 4,097 3,794 1,228 865 433 365 298 290 268 249 229 212 196Lynn 981 974 1,166 1,246 1,3271,365 1,255 1,144 1,033 929 826 226 168 179 192 205 227 200 175 150 128 107McCulloch 42 40 38 38 38 35 33 31 29 27 25 8 6 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 179CountyWater Use (AF)Water Consumption (AF)2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060McLennan 0 194 234 265 296 235 203 177 152 127 101 119 185 197 206 212 154 132 111 91 73 56McMullen 1,720 2,653 2,9123,203 3,448 3,666 3,398 3,010 2,622 2,235 1,850 1,4651,924 1,775 1,860 1,9111,941 1,746 1,507 1,276 1,056 848Madison 204 295 597 785 972 861 754 646 538 430 323 227 231 384 485 581 504 432 362 295 231 169Marion 5 208 348 483 619 622 561 501 440 379 319 73 196 322 438 552 546 485 425 368 312 258Martin 2,435 2,906 3,527 3,262 2,998 2,657 2,251 1,8451,441 1,043 771 2,190 1,4351,191 1,059 933 796 651 513 380 257 177Mason 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Matagorda 34 87 96 105 100 86 75 64 55 45 35 63 75 72 75 69 58 51 44 38 32 27Maverick 174 1,652 1,988 2,364 2,737 3,111 2,933 2,617 2,302 1,986 1,674188 1,196 1,201 1,342 1,4741,597 1,461 1,269 1,085 910 744Medina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Menard 1,185 1,148 1,086 1,079 1,071 1,012 952 889 827 772 717 244 175 88 74 59 56 53 50 48 45 43Midland 1,719 2,876 3,522 3,2723,025 2,666 2,227 1,7881,350 918 612 1,661 1,506 1,2561,127 1,005 855 695 542 395 257 164Milam 0 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14Mills 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Mitchell 27 284 361 435 511 460 409 358 309 259 211 50 162 142 163 184 162 141 122 103 86 70Montague 3,233 3,776 3,2282,665 2,102 1,538 1,026 52525 24 24 3,186 3,216 2,452 1,950 1,474 1,025 663 326 14 14 14Montgomery 0 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15Moore 4 16 16 16 16 16 16 15 15 15 15 13 13 13 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 13Morris 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Motley 130 138 132 131 130 123 117 110 103 97 91 39 31 22 20 19 18 18 18 18 17 17Nacogdoches 1,073 1,642 2,299 2,141 1,986 1,815 1,643 1,471 1,2991,128 958 1,220 1,550 2,101 1,9301,764 1,591 1,420 1,251 1,089 932 779Navarro 11 25 24 24 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 17 16 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15Newton 98 138 173 156 138 120 102 84 67 49 31 111 107 115 102 89 77 65 54 43 33 23Nolan 214 218 207 205 204 193 182 171 160 150 140 54 42 26 24 21 21 20 20 19 19 18Nueces 25 64 70 77 73 63 55 47 40 33 26 46 55 53 55 51 43 37 32 28 24 20Ochiltree 286 508 824 1,040 853 674 503 332 161 24 23 329 266 355 418 325 247 180 116 57 13 13Oldham 15 14 13 13 13 12 12 11 10 9 9 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0Orange 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5Palo Pinto 120 547 656 752 847 709 625 552 480 408 336 281 446 483 524 557 430 370 314 261 212 165Panola 958 1,578 2,136 1,919 1,7491,590 1,438 1,286 1,134 983832 1,095 1,484 1,959 1,731 1,552 1,392 1,240 1,091 948 808 674Parker 1,083 1,180 1,464 1,7332,001 1,748 1,545 1,353 1,162970 779 1,215 1,035 1,139 1,2841,414 1,176 1,009 851 702 563 434Parmer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Pecos 409 543 690 878 1,068 1,180 1,072 966 861 762 672 274 227 313 331 353 359 320 283 249 220 198Polk 133 195 247 221 195 170 144 118 92 67 41 148 151 162 143 125 107 90 74 58 43 29Potter 2 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13Presidio 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Rains 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Randall 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Reagan 1,350 3,414 4,211 3,8023,395 2,985 2,457 1,9311,406 886 529 1,361 1,825 1,5011,323 1,153 991 796 610 432 265 155Real 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Red River 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Reeves 611 1,111 1,520 2,067 2,6192,761 2,522 2,285 2,052 1,8271,614 701 632 688 796 908 888 791 700 615 541 477Refugio 23 60 66 72 69 59 51 44 38 31 24 43 51 49 51 47 40 35 30 26 22 18Roberts 365 1,711 1,502 1,270 1,041 822 611 400 189 20 20 423 819 647 524 412 316 231 151 76 20 20Robertson 305 691 813 817 826 746 651 556 461 366 271 431 599 654 657 664 595 512 431 354 279 208Rockwall 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Runnels 285 287 272 271 269 255 240 225 210 197 184 70 53 32 29 26 25 24 24 23 22 22Rusk 210 719 1,149 1,569 1,9941,844 1,668 1,492 1,316 1,141967 323 637 1,017 1,377 1,730 1,578 1,404 1,234 1,070 912 759Sabine 147 331 584 809 1,035 946 858 770 682 595 508 196 319 536 728 915 826 739 653 571 491 413SanAugustine 1,584 2,198 2,077 1,9281,779 1,628 1,479 1,330 1,1801,032 884 1,642 2,052 1,880 1,7221,567 1,415 1,268 1,124 983 847 715San Jacinto 0 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9San Patricio 20 52 57 63 60 51 44 39 33 27 21 38 45 43 45 41 35 30 26 23 19 1680CountyWater Use (AF)Water Consumption (AF)2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060San Saba 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Schleicher 230 473 621 718 732 647 562 477 392 308 241 144 213 199 226 225 194 165 136 109 84 64Scurry 3 34 280 368 456 544 483 423 363 304 246 37 33 118 143 169 193 168 145 123 102 83Shackelford 219 464 562 655 747 628 558 500 442 385 328 264 285 329 373 409 305 263 224 187 153 121Shelby 1,388 1,861 3,283 3,1092,938 2,754 2,496 2,238 1,980 1,723 1,467 1,536 1,745 2,976 2,7812,593 2,400 2,143 1,892 1,6501,414 1,185Sherman 9 42 35 121 207 178 151 124 98 71 44 28 33 26 55 84 70 59 48 39 29 21Smith 20 91 107 125 145 163 147 131 115 100 84 67 71 85 100 117 132 117 102 88 74 61Somervell 287 237 304 367 431 377 333 292 250 209 168 309 208 236 272 304 253 217 183 151 121 93Starr 35 90 99 108 103 89 77 67 57 46 36 65 77 75 77 71 60 52 46 39 34 28Stephens 5,158 5,248 5,064 5,103 5,141 4,775 4,458 4,1413,825 3,541 3,257 1,2261,004 663 630 591 476 423 374 328 285 244Sterling 89 343 780 947 953 958 812 667 522 380 270 107 191 290 338 331 325 270 217 166 120 85Stonewall 629 615 583 579 575 543 511 478 445 416 387 136 99 53 45 38 36 34 33 31 30 29Sutton 33 59 446 582 720 858 763 668 573 481 389 81 53 185 225 264 303 264 227 192 160 130Swisher 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Tarrant 8,805 7,084 5,672 4,2452,817 1,391 12 12 12 12 12 8,313 6,0204,294 3,105 1,985 935 12 12 12 12 12Taylor 71 81 77 77 76 73 69 65 62 58 55 26 22 17 16 15 15 15 15 15 15 14Terrell 502 540 673 724 776 806 740 672 606 544 483 158 128 145 152 160 173 154 136 120 105 92Terry 90 119 355 439 525 606 543 479 416 354 293 51 45 121 144 168 192 167 144 122 102 83Throckmorton 200 204 194 193 191 181 171 161 150 141 132 52 40 25 23 20 20 19 19 19 18 18Titus 8 8 7 7 7 7 6 6 5 5 5 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Tom Green 53 72 69 69 68 66 63 60 58 55 53 31 28 24 24 23 23 23 23 23 23 23Travis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Trinity 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10Tyler 78 123 160 197 198 174 150 127 103 79 55 91 96 106 127 125 109 93 78 63 49 36Upshur 39 199 379 551 726 851 771 690 609 529 450 95 164 325 474 620 723 644 566 491 419 349Upton 1,744 3,075 3,887 3,575 3,265 2,960 2,470 1,984 1,499 1,020699 1,863 1,694 1,458 1,2961,144 1,001 817 641 473 318 219Uvalde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Val Verde 0 66 144 169 195 221 199 179 158 139 120 67 66 91 97 102 108 98 89 81 74 68Van Zandt 56 65 62 62 61 59 56 53 50 47 45 22 19 15 15 14 14 14 14 13 13 13Victoria 25 66 72 79 75 65 56 49 41 34 27 47 56 54 56 52 44 38 33 29 24 20Walker 0 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11Waller 0 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7Ward 582 632 775 968 941 915 815 716 617 521 429 622 620 317 362 333 307 267 229 193 161 132Washington 0 44 545 924 840 757 673 589 506 422 338 30 46 346 561 500 442 385 330 277 227 178Webb 4,599 3,878 3,708 3,257 2,804 2,397 2,007 1,623 1,238 796 3413,948 2,844 2,337 2,014 1,701 1,422 1,166 922 687 439 196Wharton 31 81 89 97 93 80 69 60 51 42 33 58 69 67 69 64 54 47 41 36 30 25Wheeler 3,794 3,609 3,157 2,6822,210 1,748 1,293 839 385 22 21 3,8501,683 1,308 1,071 850 651 469 298 139 20 20Wichita 59 65 62 62 61 58 55 52 49 46 44 20 17 12 12 11 11 11 11 10 10 10Wilbarger 7 20 20 20 20 20 19 19 19 18 18 15 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14Willacy 17 44 49 53 51 44 38 33 28 23 18 32 38 37 38 35 29 26 22 19 17 14Williamson 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Wilson 418 1,671 1,929 1,740 1,548 1,357 1,165 973 782 590 399 373 1,2061,182 1,045 912 783 659 540 426 315 210Winkler 152 621 787 977 1,169 1,110 991 873 756 642 531 125 318 295 341 387 351 305 261 220 183 149Wise 2,313 3,014 2,661 2,293 1,9241,556 1,238 932 625 319 13 2,348 2,5842,037 1,691 1,360 1,046 809 587 380 189 13Wood 17 26 25 25 25 24 23 22 21 21 20 13 12 11 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10Yoakum 1,052 1,264 1,300 1,382 1,334 1,240 1,147 1,052 957 870 783 246 299 209 222 191 171 151 132 115 99 84Young 15 142 197 244 291 236 206 183 159 135 111 125 136 165 188 208 156 135 116 97 81 65Zapata 30 78 85 93 89 76 66 57 49 40 31 56 66 64 66 61 51 45 39 34 29 24Zavala 407 2,140 2,531 2,3792,257 2,118 1,977 1,838 1,5591,245 932 409 1,555 1,570 1,4481,336 1,212 1,092 975 802 622 450SUM (kAF) 118.4 159.3 178.4 179.6175.1 159.9 139.0 119.1 99.6 81.4 65.4 92.7 96.491.8 88.0 82.0 71.3 59.7 49.4 39.8 31.3 23.881 Figure 48. State-level projections to 2060 of HF water use and fresh-water consumption and comparison to earlier water projections.

Figure 49. State-level projections to 2060 of o il and gas industry wate r use and fresh-water consumption. 0 50 100 150

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Calendar YearHF Water Use/Consumption (thousand AF)

Water Use; 2011 report Water Use; this report Water Consumption; this report

0 50 100 150 200

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Calendar YearO&G Water Use/Consumption (thousand AF)

O&G Fresh and Brackish Water Use O&G Fresh Water Consumption

O&G WaterUse&Consumption_2.xls82 Figure 50. Counties with non-zero pr ojected water use. Same c overage as in the 2011 report (thick blue lines) with the a ddition of Polk, Tyler, Jasper, a nd Newton counties in East Texas (red circle).

Source: Montgomery et al. (2005) Source: McMahon and Vaden (2011)

Figure 51. Spatial location of the o il and gas windows in the (a) Ba rnett Shale and (b) Eagle Ford

Shale.83 (a)

(b)

Figure 52. Barnett Shale water use and consump tion projections: (a) co mparison with earlier projections; (b) water use and consumption projections under the three scenarios. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060Water Use and Consumption (kAF) Bar - 2011 report - water use

Bar - 2011 report - fresh water use

Bar - this report - water use

Bar - this report - fresh water use

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060Water Use and Consumption (kAF) Bar - Most likely - water use

Bar - most likely - fresh water use

Bar - High - water use

Bar - High - fresh water use

Bar - Low - water use

Bar - Low - fresh water use

TrackChan g es 1.xls84 (a)

(b)

Figure 53. Eagle Ford Shale water use and consum ption projections: (a) comparison with earlier projections; (b) wate r use and consumption projectio ns under the thr ee scenarios. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060Water Use and Consumption (kAF) EF - 2011 report - water use

EF - 2011 report - fresh water use

EF - this report - water use

EF - this report - fresh water use

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060Water Use and Consumption (kAF) EF - Most likely - water use

EF - most likely - fresh water use

EF - High - water use

EF - High - fresh water use

EF - Low - water use

EF - Low - fresh water use

TrackChan g es 1.xls85 (a)

(b)

Figure 54. Pearsall Shale water use and consump tion projections: (a) comparison with earlier projections; (b) wate r use and consumption projectio ns under the thr ee scenarios. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060Water Use and Consumption (kAF) Prsl - 2011 report - water use

Prsl - 2011 report - fresh water use

Prsl - this report - water use

Prsl - this report - fresh water use"

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060Water Use and Consumption (kAF) Prsl - Most likely - water use

Prsl - most likely - fresh water use

Prsl - High - water use

Prsl - High - fresh water use

Prsl - Low - water use

Prsl - Low - fresh water use

TrackChan g es 1.xls86 (a)

(b)

Figure 55. Haynesville and Bossier Shales wa ter use and consumption projections: (a) comparison with earlier pr ojections; (b) water us e and consumption projections under the three

scenarios. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060Water Use and Consumption (kAF) Hay - 2011 report - water use

Hay - 2011 report - fresh water use

Hay - this report - water use

Hay - this report - fresh water use"

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060Water Use and Consumption (kAF)

Hay - Most likely - water use

Hay - most likely - fresh water use

Hay - High - water use

Hay - High - fresh water use

Hay - Low - water use

Hay - Low - fresh water use

TrackChan g es 1.xls87 (a)

(b)

Figure 56. Haynesville-West Shale water use and consumption proj ections: (a) comparison with earlier projections; (b) water use and consum ption projections under the three scenarios. 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060Water Use and Consumption (kAF) HayW - 2011 report - water use

HayW - 2011 report - fresh water use

HayW - this report - water use

HayW - this report - fresh water use"

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060Water Use and Consumption (kAF) HayW - Most likely - water use

HayW - most likely - fresh water use

HayW - High - water use

HayW - High - fresh water use

HayW - Low - water use

HayW - Low - fresh water use

TrackChan g es 1.xls88 (a)

(b)

Figure 57. East Texas (not includi ng Haynesville and Bossier Shal es) water use and consumption projections: (a) comparis on with earlier projections; (b) wate r use and consumption projections

under the three scenarios. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060Water Use and Consumption (kAF) ETX - 2011 report - water use

ETX - 2011 report - fresh water use

ETX - this report - water use

ETX - this report - fresh water use

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060Water Use and Consumption (kAF) ETX - Most likely - water use

ETX - most likely - fresh water use

ETX - High - water use

ETX - High - fresh water use

ETX - Low - water use

ETX - Low - fresh water use

TrackChan g es 1.xls89 (a)

(b)

Figure 58. Gulf Coast (not including shales) water use and consumption projections: (a) comparison with earlier pr ojections; (b) water us e and consumption projections under the three

scenarios. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060Water Use and Consumption (kAF) GC - 2011 report - water use

GC- 2011 report - fresh water use

GC - this report - water use

GC - this report - fresh water use"

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060Water Use and Consumption (kAF) GC - Most likely - water use

GC - most likely - fresh water use
GC - High - water use

GC - High - fresh water use

GC - Low - water use

GC - Low - fresh water use

TrackChan g es 1.xls90 (a)

(b)

Figure 59. Anadarko Basin water use and consump tion projections: (a) comparison with earlier projections; (b) water use and consumption projections under the three scenarios. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060Water Use and Consumption (kAF) Andk - 2011 report - water use

Andk- 2011 report - fresh water use

Andk - this report - water use

Andk - this report - fresh water use"

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060Water Use and Consumption (kAF) Andk - Most likely - water use

Andk - most likely - fresh water use
Andk - High - water use

Andk - High - fresh water use

Andk - Low - water use

Andk - Low - fresh water use

TrackChan g es 1.xls91 (a)

(b)

Figure 60. Permian Basin water use and consump tion projections: (a) comparison with earlier projections; (b) water use and consumption projections under the three scenarios. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060Water Use and Consumption (kAF) PB - 2011 report - water use

PB - 2011 report - fresh water use

PB - this report - water use

PB - this report - fresh water use

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060Water Use and Consumption (kAF) PB - Most likely - water use
PB - most likely - fresh water use
PB - High - water use
PB - High - fresh water use

PB - Low - water use

PB - Low - fresh water use

TrackChan g es 1.xls92 (a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 61. Permian Basin water use and consumpti on projections under the three scenarios: (a) Barnett and Woodford Shales; (b ) Wolfcamp Shale and Wolfberry play; and (c) other Permian

Basin formations. 0 4 8 12 16 20

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060Water Use and Consumption (kAF) B-W PB - Most likely - water use

B-W PB - most likely - fresh water use

B-W PB - High - water use

B-W PB - High - fresh water use

B-W PB - Low - water use

B-W PB - Low - fresh water use

0 5 10 15 20 25

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060Water Use and Consumption (kAF) Wolfberry/camp - Most likely - water use
Wolfberry/camp - most likely - fresh water use
Wolfberry/camp - High - water use
Wolfberry/camp - High - fresh water use

Wolfberry/camp - Low - water use
Wolfberry/camp - Low - fresh water use

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060Water Use and Consumption (kAF) PB Tight O&G - Most likely - water use PB Tight O&G - most likely - fresh water use PB Tight O&G - High - water use PB Tight O&G - High - fresh water use PB Tight O&G - Low - water use PB Tight O&G - Low - fresh water use

TrackChan g es 1.xls93 

## V. Conclusions

This update to the 2011 report (whose conclusi ons were partly summarized in Nicot and Scanlon, 2012) does not fundamentally change the water use projections put forward originally. Both documents outline a water use th at is likely to stay in the vicinity of 100±50 kAF/yr for many years. The new projections lo wer and broaden the expected peak water use and displace the center of gravity of HF water use toward West Texas, an area of the state that has less fresh water. This mechanically translates into a higher brackish water use which when allied with improvement in reuse techno logies results in a much lower fresh water consumption than was projected in the 2011 repo rt. The eventual solution in West Texas, after the initial step of using slightly brackish groundwater, is to use more saline brackish water or the abundant produced water from c onventional wells to avoid competition with other users who will also rely more and more on brackish water as their water needs increase. In addition to this expected recycling from ot her uses, the industry itself is making rapidly maturing technological advances th at will improve reuse. Fortunately flow back is abundant in most places where fresh water is not (such as in West Texas). However, as in all predictive work, unexpected events can generate large devi ations from the projec tions (as the shale gas revolution did for domestic oil production). The simple discovery of an additional major play (deeper play?) beyond those described in this document could change the state-level water projections. They, however, are unlikely to devi ate much in order of magnitude from those

outlined here.

It follows that oil and gas wa ter use projections remain a r easonable fraction of mining water use projections, no more than 54% (Figure 62) a nd a smaller fraction still of the total amount on water use in Texas every year: <0.1 million AF (81.5 kAF in 2011) compared to 15+ million AF (Figure 63).94 MiningWaterUse2010-2060_4_TWDB_just.xls Note: modified from the 2011 report (Nicot et al., 2011, Fig. 135)

Figure 62. Summary of projected water us e by mining industry in Texas (2012-2060).

BarPlots_WaterUse_6.xls Source: TWDB historical water use surveys, http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/waterpla nning/waterusesurvey/estimates/ Note: value displayed for mining water use is the 230 kAF from Nicot et al. (2011) rather than the projected 296 kAF listed in TWDB (2012, p.137) or the 2001-2010 average of 184.4 kAF computed with limited information.

Figure 63. Average state level water use (all categories) in 2001-2010. 0 100 200 300 400

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Calendar YearMining Water Use (thousand AF) ALL O&G Aggregate Coal Others95 

## VI. References

Bené, P. G., Harden, Bob, Griffi n, S. W., and Nicot, J. -P., 2007, Northern Trinity/Woodbine aquifer groundwater ava ilability model: assessment of groundw ater use in the northern Trinity aquifer due to urban growth and Barnett Shal e development: Texas Water Development Board, TWDB Contract Number 0604830613, 50 p. + apps..

Fan, L., R. Martin, J. Thompson, K. Atwood, J. Robinson, and G. Lindsay, 2011, An Integrated Approach for Understanding Oil and Gas Reserves Potential in Eagle Ford Shale Formation:

SPE 148751.

McMahon, C., and Vaden, H., 2011, Eagle Ford Shale liquids volumes exceed early expectations. Powell Shale Digest, October 10, 2011, v.1, p. 26-29.

Montgomery, S. L., Jarvie, D. M., Bowker, K. A., and Pollastro, R. M., 2005, Mississippian Barnett Shale, Fort Worth Basin, north-central Texas: gas-shale play with multi-trillion cubic foot potential. AAPG Bulletin, v. 89, no. 2, p. 155-175.

Nicot, J. -P., and Potter, E., 2007, Histori cal and 2006–2025 estimation of ground water use for gas production in the Barnett Shale, North Texas: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, letter report prep ared for R. W. Harden & Associates and Texas Water Development Board, 66 p.

Nicot, J.-P., and Scanlon, B. R., 2012, Water use for shale-gas production in Texas, U.S.: Environmental Science and Technology, v. 46, p. 3580

‒ 3586.

Nicot, J. -P., Hebel, A. K., Ritter, S. M., Wald en, S., Baier, R., Galusky, P., Beach, J. A., Kyle, R., Symank, L., and Breton, C., 2011, Current and projected water use in the Texas mining and oil and gas industry: The Universi ty of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, Contract Report No. 090480939 prepared for Texas Water Development Board, 357 p. Accessed on 2012: https://www.twdb.state.tx.us/rwpg/rp gm_rpts/0904830939_MiningWaterUse.pdf

Sinha, S., and Ramakrishnan, H., 2011, A novel sc reening method for selection of horizontal refracturing candidates in shal e gas reservoirs: Society of Petroleum Engineers Paper #144032.

Texas Water Development Board, 2012, Water for Texas, Vol. II, TWDB Document GP-9-1, January, 392 p.97 

## Appendix 1: Revision to 2011 Report

Although the material below is now obsolete (Tab le 17), we thought it was important to correct Table 52 of the 2011 report (“Projected water us e in the Barnett Shale (Fort Worth Basin)”). Although correct values were used in tables of higher order (s tate level or cumulative across water uses) in the 2011 report, its table 52 was not updated between the draft version and the

final version.

Table 17. Update to Table 52 of 2011 report (now obsolete and supersed ed by this report)

County 2010* 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

AF
Archer 0 1,618 1,292 369 0 0
Bosque 913 2,547 1,065 0 0 0 Clay 634

951 3,731 5,596 1,663 2,495 0 0 0

Comanche 429 2,524 1,125 0 0 0

Cooke 101 282 118 0 0 0 Coryell 0 1,793 1,140 263 0 0

Dallas 620 769 271 0 0 0
Denton 1,674 587 0 0 0 0
Eastland 0 1,127 1,157 386 0 0

Ellis 325 235 63 0 0 0
Erath 2,017 2,500 882 0 0 0
Hamilton 190 1,118 498 0 0 0
Hill 1,008 1,249 441 0 0 0
Hood 1,720 990 215 0 0 0

Jack 1,835 2,386 1,706 2,218 535

696 0 0 0

Johnson 3,308 1,537 241 0 0 0
McLennan 0 1,380 680 62 0 0 Montague 539

809 3,174

4.760 1,415 2,122 0 0 0

Palo Pinto 446 2,627 1,171 0 0 0
Parker 4,003 1,787 153 0 0 0
Shackelford 0 1,121 1,151 384 0 0

Somervell 771 443 96 0 0 0
Stephens 0 1,854 1,178 272 0 0

Tarrant 3,147 1,104 0 0 0 0

Wise 4,220

4.642 1,961 2,157 308

338 0 0 0

Young 0 563 578 193 0 0 Total (Th. AF) 27.9

29.5 40.3

44.5 17.4

19.2 1.9 0.0 0.0

Note: double strikethrough on the incorrect values replaced by the correct but obsolete values.