logo
Oil companies want protection as Texas considers allowing treated fracking water released into rivers

Oil companies want protection as Texas considers allowing treated fracking water released into rivers

Yahoo19-05-2025
ODESSA — Oil and gas companies are seeking legal shelter as Texas comes closer to using waste brine once considered too toxic for anything other than fracking to replenish Texas' water shortages.
Legislation filed by state Rep. Drew Darby, R-San Angelo, could give them, transportation companies and landowners such protection.
Darby told a Texas House panel in March his bill will give industries the certainty they need to ramp up treatment of the industrial waste, known as produced water. The full House approved the legislation earlier this year and it is awaiting a Senate debate.
Gov. Greg Abbott and other Republican leaders have made water a priority issue this session. Several proposals aim to increase the state's water supply, which is under duress from a growing population, climate change and leaking infrastructure. Cleaning produced water is one of several ways lawmakers hope to boost supply.
There is an extraordinary amount of backwash from oil production, which continues to break records, especially in West Texas. For every barrel of oil produced, as many as five barrels of water are captured, Darby told lawmakers on the committee on natural resources, where he introduced the bill.
That water is either reused for fracking or stored underground.
[Can Texas clean up fracking water enough to use for farming? One company thinks so.]
However, industry and legislators have put millions of dollars toward researching treatment methods.
And now, some companies say they have scrubbed out the toxic contaminants to help refill drying bodies of water in West Texas. But the oil and gas industry is hesitating to expand this effort unless it can be sure it is shielded from liability after it hands off the water.
If legislators fail to assure the industry, companies might not want to treat the water and sell it, said Michael Lozano, who leads government affairs at the Permian Basin Petroleum Association.
'Without developing this field with legal certainty, Texas will miss out on millions of barrels of day of treated produced water that could benefit industrial and land application of water uses, which could continue to decrease reliance on fresh water in these sectors,' Lozano said.
Darby's bill, House Bill 49, says that after an oil company agrees to sell the water for beneficial use by someone else, it is generally not liable if there are consequences later on. Neither are the companies treating the water. The bill also protects landowners who pay to treat the water and sell it, including in cases of personal injury, death, or property damage.
Companies can be liable in some cases, including gross negligence, intentional, wrongful acts of omission, breaking state and federal treatment laws, or failing to meet standards under the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the state's environmental regulator.
It also directs the commission to write more rules outlining how the water should be treated and used.
In a statement to The Texas Tribune, Darby called liability a 'key barrier' to expanding produced water treatment, adding the bill 'does not shield bad actors — anyone who violates the law or their permit remains fully liable.'
It's unclear when the state might begin allowing treated produced water into nature. Four treatment companies have applied for permits with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to discharge or dispose of produced water into the state's bodies of water.
Darby's proposal has set off alarms among environmental policy experts who say that regulators authorizing companies to discharge produced water are not working with enough data to support their decisions.
The commission, which oversees all discharges, including those from oil and gas, has said the agency follows state and federal guidelines. Regulators are also gathering information supplied by the Texas Produced Water Consortium, a research initiative consisting of five pilot projects established by lawmakers in 2021 to study treatment methods of produced water.
The amount of chemicals in produced water varies by sample. Some estimates have detected hundreds, establishing the liquid as one of the most complicated to treat.
Nichole Saunders, senior attorney at the Environmental Defense Fund, said she does not trust the permits to account for every chemical and toxic contaminant. She said the water could still contain dangerous contaminants that the permit does not account for. Regulators and scientists should continue to improve testing before issuing permits, she said.
'We're basing the responsibility for outcomes on the safety net of our regulatory system with this bill,' she said. 'Not on what outcomes might be possible in a best-case scenario.'
Dan Mueller, an engineer and a produced water expert, agreed that there is not enough data to issue permits. Mueller raised concerns about the capability of the treatment technologies, saying the five pilot projects have not been running long enough to ensure they clean the water reliably.
And if the treated water causes environmental or human harm, he said, there are no assurances that the companies that discharge the water can afford to remediate all issues. He says the bill and permits should include financial mechanisms that can cover environmental problems, should they occur.
Without these assurances, 'the responsibility to clean up any contamination that might occur is going to fall to the state, and ultimately that falls to the taxpayer, who will have to foot the bill,' he said. 'That's just not right.'
Lozano, with the industry trade group, said there are no existing protections for oil and gas companies that treat and sell the water, adding that treatment gives them another alternative for the excess.
'If this segment of the industry cannot develop and mature, it could impact the record production that has occurred in the Permian Basin,' he said.
Disclosure: Environmental Defense Fund and Permian Basin Petroleum Association have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.
First round of TribFest speakers announced! Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Maureen Dowd; U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-San Antonio; Fort Worth Mayor Mattie Parker; U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California; and U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Dallas are taking the stage Nov. 13–15 in Austin. Get your tickets today!
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Slotkin says she would have voted to block arms sales to Israel
Slotkin says she would have voted to block arms sales to Israel

The Hill

time7 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Slotkin says she would have voted to block arms sales to Israel

Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) said Thursday that she would have voted to block arms sales to Israel over hunger in Gaza after missing a series of Senate votes Wednesday night to appear on Stephen Colbert's show. The Michigan senator said she was worried about the lack of food and medicine entering Gaza, and that 'images of emaciated children are hard to turn away from.' 'Should similar votes on offensive weapons come up in the future, I will take them on a case-by-case basis, with the hope of important humanitarian course corrections,' she wrote in a lengthy statement on X. 'While the leaders of Hamas deserve what they're getting in response to October 7, and Israel — like any other country in the world — has the right to defend itself, that doesn't include letting children go hungry.' The resolutions, sponsored by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), would have blocked more than $675 million in weapons sales to Israel, and barred another transfer of tens of thousands of assault rifles. They were resoundingly defeated in the Senate, although a record number of Democrats — more than half the caucus — voted in favor. The votes came amidst growing worry in the Democratic caucus over what the United Nations termed 'mounting evidence of famine and widespread starvation' in Gaza, where Israel's war is nearing its two-year mark. President Trump has also expressed concern with the situation, acknowledging earlier this week that there was 'real starvation' in the territory. Slotkin, who is Jewish, served three tours in Iraq as a CIA analyst in the early 2000s. She said in her statement that her experience in the Middle East showed her that aid could be safely distributed in complex war zones. '[E]ven in the most violent years of the war, the U.S. still had the responsibility to facilitate humanitarian supplies into places like Fallujah,' she wrote. 'And militaries that can pull off dangerous and complex operations overseas can also ensure aid is safely distributed in occupied areas.' Slotkin also said that the conduct of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had significantly undermined the country's standing among American lawmakers, writing that he had threatened 'the longstanding bipartisan consensus that have helped keep Israel safe since its inception.' Still, Slotkin appeared to garner criticism from fellow Michigander Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D), the only Palestinian-American in Congress. 'Shame on every senator who voted to continue arming the Israeli apartheid regime or didn't even have the courage to show up and vote,' the representative wrote on X. Michigan is home to one of the largest populations of Arab Americans in the country and was the epicenter of backlash during the 2024 election against the Biden administration's support of Israel.

Trump isn't done with the judiciary
Trump isn't done with the judiciary

Boston Globe

time7 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

Trump isn't done with the judiciary

But now that he is a part of a conservative supermajority, he seems pleased as punch. He is the first (due to deference given to him by his colleagues) to ask questions during each argument and is generally much more engaged. I'd say he's even less likely to retire than he was a decade ago. Advertisement Same for Justice Samuel Alito, 75, who hasn't shown any sign of wanting to slow down after authoring his career-defining decision overturning Roe v. Wade. Still, it should come as no surprise that Trump is making a list and checking it twice in the event he has an opportunity to add more justices to the high court. One-third of the court is already made up of Trump appointees. But according to a Advertisement Of course he is, as any president would be. But while the Time piece focuses on those in Trump's circle seeking a conservative's conservative to add to the court, I suspect another qualification is top of mind for Trump: loyalty. Many within MAGA — including Trump, reportedly — have become disillusioned with Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Even though she is a reliably conservative vote on the court, the few times she broke with her fellow GOP-appointed colleagues have reportedly Which is where people like Bove might come in. Having served as Trump's personal criminal defense attorney and then helped shape the Department of Justice in Trump's image, he's the Roy Cohn-type Trump will find hard to resist, especially now that he's been confirmed to a seat on the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Other names mentioned in the Time piece include conservative federal appellate Judges Raymond Kethledge, Amul Thapar, and Andrew Oldham. There is also Judge Aileen Cannon, who drew attention for seemingly placing a thumb on Trump's side of the scale in the criminal case against him for mishandling classified documents — a case she ultimately dismissed. Though Cannon hasn't been on the bench long, I don't count her out given Trump's loyalty requirement. And adding Trump's fondness (like many presidents) for making historic news, I also place high on the list Judges Neomi Rao and James Ho, which would allow Trump to install the first ever Asian American justice. Advertisement But Trump, most of all, wishes for a court full of Cohns to do his bidding. And I can't think of anyone who fits that bill more than the Senate-confirmed Bove. Watch this space. This is an excerpt from , a newsletter about the Supreme Court from columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Kimberly Atkins Stohr is a columnist for the Globe. She may be reached at

Larry Fink's BlackRock loses bid to dismiss Texas climate collusion claims
Larry Fink's BlackRock loses bid to dismiss Texas climate collusion claims

New York Post

time7 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Larry Fink's BlackRock loses bid to dismiss Texas climate collusion claims

A US judge on Friday largely rejected a request by top asset managers including BlackRock to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Texas and 12 other Republican-led states that said the companies violated antitrust law through climate activism that reduced coal production and boosted energy prices. US District Judge Jeremy Kernodle in Tyler, Texas, agreed to dismiss just three of the 21 counts in the states' lawsuit, that also names institutional investors State Street and Vanguard. The lawsuit is among the highest-profile cases targeting efforts to promote environmental, social and governance goals. Advertisement Texas and 12 other Republican-led states accused BlackRock, State Street and Vanguard of violating antitrust law through climate activism that reduced coal production and boosted energy prices. BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, above. AP Representatives for the companies did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The ruling by Kernodle, who was appointed by President Trump, means the states can move forward with their claims that the asset managers violated US antitrust law by joining Climate Action 100+, an investor initiative to take action to combat climate change, and used their shareholder advocacy in furtherance of its goals. Advertisement The companies have denied wrongdoing and called the case 'half-baked.' But the states' theories garnered support from Trump-appointed antitrust enforcers at the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission. The outcome of the lawsuit could have major implications for how the companies, which together manage some $27 trillion, approach their holdings and passive funds. AP The outcome of the lawsuit could have major implications for how the companies, which together manage some $27 trillion, approach their holdings and passive funds. One possible remedy sought by the plaintiffs would be for the fund firms to divest holdings in coal companies, which BlackRock has said would harm the companies' access to capital and likely raise energy prices.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store