Mike Keester, LRE Water Rohit Goswami, WSP Bridget Scanlon, UT Bureau of Economic Geology Van Kelley, INTERA January 2021 TAGD Virtual Business Meeting

1. Lightning Round:
Current TWDB Groundwater Studies
Historical Groundwater Pumping Estimates
Mike Keester, LRE Water
Recharge Estimates
Rohit Goswami, WSP
Mining Water Use
Bridget Scanlon, UT-Austin Bureau of Economic Geology
Injection Well Buffer Zones
Rohit Goswami, WSP
Brackish Groundwater Commingling
Van Kelley, INTERA

2. HISTORICAL GROUNDWATER
PUMPING ESTIMATION
Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts
Regular Business Meeting
January 26, 2021
Mike Keester, PG
Mike.Keester@LREWater.com
512-962-7660

3. • Five Aquifers
 Pecos Valley
 Edwards-Trinity (Plateau)
 Trinity (Hill Country)
 Edwards (BFZ)
 Lipan
• 35 Conservation Districts
• 56 Counties
• 6 Regional Water Planning Groups
 (E, F, G, J, K, L)
PROJECT AREA

4. • Water Use Survey (WUS) Data Evaluation
 Data collection
 Stakeholder outreach
 Identify issues with the WUS data
• Plan to Address WUS Data Issues
 Alternative data sources
 Plan for pumping dataset construction
• Pumping Dataset
 Tools for automated construction of
pumping dataset for a GAM
 Pumping datasets
PROJECT PHASES

5. • Prepare a pumping dataset that is as accurate
as possible for updating the GAM(s) in the
study area
• Provide a consistent methodology for
estimating pumping using publicly available
data
• Develop a process that is applicable to future
GAM updates in other areas
PROJECT GOALS

6. Development of Estimates of Recharge and
Surface Water- Groundwater Interactions
for Aquifers in Central and West Texas
TWDB Contract # 2048302455

7. Study Area

8. — Project objectives: estimate
a) groundwater recharge
b) groundwater-surface water (GW-SW) interactions
— Technical approach: detailed distributed hydrological
modeling and streamflow analyses
— Identification of Models
— literature and information review
— preliminary modeling with the three proposed models – SWB,
SWAT, GW Toolbox
— Data collation and preparation for model input
— identification and streamlining of data inputs
— preparation of input files for all the models
Technical Approach

9. — Modeling
— Calibration
— results
— Comparative Analysis
— range of results
— heatmaps of differences in results
— water budget tables
— evaluate strengths and weaknesses of the tools
— recommendations on appropriate tools to use
Approach (Cont.)

10. Objective
Model Identification
Input Data
Model Calibration
Model-Estimated
Recharge & GW-SW
Interactions
Calibration
Decision
Yes
No
Work Flow and Approach
Comparative Analysis &
Results
Model
Selection
No
Yes

11. — Project timeline
— Final report ready by end of the year
— Stakeholder meetings in late Fall 2021
More information please contact
— Cindy Ridgeway, Manager, GAM
— Cindy.Ridgeway@Twdb.Texas.gov
— Robert Bradley, Contract Manager
— Robert.Bradley@Twdb.Texas.gov
— Rohit Goswami, Project Manager
— Rohit.Goswami@wsp.com, 737-703-3854

12. Development of Water Use Estimates
and Projections in the Texas Mining
and Oil and Gas Industries (FY2020)
Project Timeline: Dec. 2020 – Mar. 2022
Funding from TWDB through USGS Water Use Data and
Research Program Grant
Bridget Scanlon, JP Nicot, Robert Reedy, and Qian Yang
Bureau of Economic Geology, Jackson School of Geosciences
University of Texas at Austin
TWDB: Contract Manager, Katie Dahlberg
Bureau of Economic Geology

13. Water Use Estimates Texas Mining and Oil and Gas
Oil and Gas
• Task 1. Quantify current and historical water use for hydraulic fracturing and
produced water volumes
• Task 2. Identify the sources of water for hydraulic fracturing
• Task 3. Develop projections of future water demand for hydraulic fracturing for oil & gas
(2030–2080)
Coal, Lignite, and Aggregates
• Task 4. Identify locations of operations and quantify current and projected future
water use for coal and lignite mining
• Task 5. Identify locations of operations and quantify current and projected future water
use for aggregates
Coordination:
• Task 6. Collaborate with USGS personnel on water use for the mining category

14. Task 1. Quantify current and historical water use for
hydraulic fracturing and produced water volumes
Hydraulic Fracturing
• Data sources for HF water use: FracFocus and IHS
• Time period: 2009 – 2020
• Permian, Eagle Ford, Barnett, and Haynseville
• Surveys to estimate water reuse
• Produced water volumes
• Data sources: IHS database
• Time period: 2009 – 2019
• Focus on wells in unconventional reservoirs

15. Task 3. Develop projections of future water demand
for hydraulic fracturing for oil & gas (2030–2080)
• Projected well inventory for unconventional reservoirs
• Technically Recoverable Resource estimate (TRR, assuming all potential
wells will be drilled)
• Consider recent well spacing and vertical stacking to develop projections
• Spatial resolution (well inventory/mi2)
• Expand on previous projections for water demand for hydraulic fracturing
for the Permian Basin, Barnett, Eagle Ford, and Haynesville plays
• Texas Oil and Gas Association: workgroup to provide input to the project
• TWDB Mining Study website:
https://www.twdb.texas.gov/waterplanning/data/projections/MiningStud
y/index.asp
• Contact at TWDB: Katie Dahlberg: Katie.Dahlberg@twdb.texas.gov

16. 950
440
860
300
Hydraulic
Fracturing (HF)
Produced
Water (PW)
10,400
2,850
1,380
580
1,960
2,620
Projected Totals - Billion gal
b)
Delaware Basin
207,000 wells
Bakken 68,700 wells
MidlandBasin
113,000 wells
Eagle Ford
105,000 wells
Marcellus
124,000 wells
• Oil plays in semiarid W U.S.; gas plays in humid
east
• PW from oil reservoirs >> than that from gas
reservoirs
Permian PW = 50× Marcellus PW
• Partially mitigate water sourcing and disposal
issues by reusing PW for HF
• Projected PW volumes = ~ 4× HF water demand in
the Delaware
Maximize reuse of PW for HF
Scanlon, B. R., Ikonnikova, S., Yang, Q. & Reedy, R.
C. , Will water issues constrain oil and gas
production in the U.S.? Env. Sci. & Technol.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.9b06390

17. Highlights
• Irrigation demand exceeds produced water
(PW) volumes and could accommodate treated
PW.
• Treated PW could also be used to recharge
depleted aquifers if there was confidence in
the treatment process Scanlon, B. R. et al. Can we beneficially
reuse produced water from oil and gas
extraction in the U.S.? Science of the Total
Environment
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
pii/S0048969720305957

18. Services to Develop Procedures and Tools to
Delineate Areas Designated or Used for Class II Well
Wastewater Injectate
TWDB Contract # 2000012453
TAGD Meeting: January 26, 2021

19. — Legislative mandate
— Default buffer zone
— Regional analysis
— Workgroup feedback
Project Overview

20. Study Area

21. Aquifer Assessment

22. Aquifer Assessment

23. — Project Timeline
— Report available by Fall 2021
For more information, please contact
— Erika Mancha, Manager, IWT
— Erika.Mancha@Twdb.Texas.gov
— Juan Acevedo, Contract Manager
— Juan.Acevedo@Twdb.Texas.gov
— Rohit Goswami, Project Manager
— Rohit.Goswami@wsp.com, 737-703-3854

24. A Presentation by
Brackish Groundwater Commingling
Contract No. 2000012442
January 26, 2021
Van Kelley, INTERA
James Golab, TWDB

25. Why Commingling?
25
25
Defined in TAC §76.10(16)
Commingling – the mixing, mingling, blending or
combining through the borehole casing or annulus or
the filter pack of water that differ in chemical quality,
which causes quality degradation of any aquifer or zone
TDLR Texas Water Well Drillers Advisory Council Summit
was held on 8/17/18

26. Scope & Study Objective
26
26
Objective of Study – To document a scientific assessment
of brackish groundwater commingling issues statewide and
with a focus on select aquifer/regions.

27. Assessment of Select Aquifer/Regions
27
27
Develop data driven
assessments of potential for
comingling in the following
aquifers/regions:
−Gulf Coast Aquifer System
−Eagle Ford Region Aquifers
−Trans Pecos Aquifers
This assessment will look at
typical well completions
and their potential to cause
commingling

28. Schedule & Potential Impact
28
28
Potential Impact for Management of GW Resources –
Provide documentation to support further discussions
on the definition of commingling and what possibly
qualifies as comingling in a brackish groundwater
setting.

29. Stakeholder Outreach
29
 First Stakeholder Meeting will be held virtually on
February 5th
 Please feel free to contact me on any issues you
would like to discuss regarding this work order
Please provide input:
−Is commingling an issue in your District?
−Does the definition of commingling require
modification?
−If so, how? How would you define degradation?
−Do you have physical data to support the presence of
commingling in your aquifers?
−Do you have documented well completion practices in
your district causing commingling?

30. Contact
30
Van Kelley
vkelley@intera.com
512-569-0689
James Golab
james.golab@twdb.texas.gov
512-475-1540