Geology ReportsSearch

Geology topics

Jeremy S. McDowell

Publications and source records attributed to Jeremy S. McDowell.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

Estimates of water use associated with continuous oil and gas development in the Permian Basin, Texas and New Mexico, 2010–19, with comparisons to the Williston Basin, North Dakota and Montana

The Permian Basin, in west Texas and southeastern New Mexico is one of the largest conventional oil and gas reservoirs in the United States and is becoming one of the world’s largest continuous oil and gas (COG) reservoirs. Advances in technology have enabled oil and gas to be extracted from reservoirs that historically were developed using conventional, or vertical, well drilling techniques. Conventional oil and gas reservoirs have discrete deposits that are well defined and are typically trapped by an overlying geologic formation or caprock, whereas COG reservoirs contain deposits that are distributed evenly throughout the geologic formation, typically have much lower permeability (the capacity of a porous rock to transmit a fluid) than the con­ventional deposits, and require specialized horizontal extraction techniques. The methods to extract the oil from the two different reservoirs require differing amounts of water, and the horizontal extraction methods typically require substantially more water. In 2015, the U.S. Geological Survey started a topical study to quantify water used during COG development. The Permian Basin, which contains both types of reservoirs (continuous and conventional), was the second basin in the United States in the U.S. Geological Survey’s topical study to quantify water used during COG development.

Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Texas

Estimates of water use associated with continuous oil and gas development in the Permian Basin, Texas and New Mexico, 2010–19

In 2015, the U.S. Geological Survey started a topical study to quantify water use in areas of continuous oil and gas (COG) development. The first phase of the study was completed in 2019 and analyzed the Williston Basin. The second phase of the study analyzed the Permian Basin using the same techniques and approaches used for the Williston Basin analysis. The Permian Basin was selected for the second phase of water-use analysis for the following reasons: (1) the basin has the largest undiscovered technically recoverable oil and gas resource in the United States, (2) the basin has a continuous resource in tight shale that primarily produces oil, and (3) the basin is within the contiguous United States. This study used data from 60 counties in Texas and New Mexico with spatial coverage based on the Permian Basin extent defined by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, a representation of the geologically defined Permian Basin. Data from several sources were used in the analysis of direct, indirect, and ancillary water use associated with COG development in the Permian Basin and are available in an associated data release. Hydraulic fracturing water-use data were used to determine the start of the recent (before 2019) COG development boom in oil production in the Permian Basin in the same way that the data were used for the Williston Basin study. Water-use data were aggregated by county and year, which were the sampling units used in the analysis. The water-use analysis of the Permian Basin contained three elements: (1) estimates of water use, in million gallons, by county and year; (2) coefficients of water use from regression models, in million gallons per developed oil and gas well; and (3) performance (based on goodness-of-fit metrics) of the regression models in estimating the observed water use. Coefficients from the linear and quantile regression models of direct, indirect, and ancillary water use in the Permian Basin were produced as aggregate values for the counties and years. The mean estimate of direct water use had a 95-percent confidence interval of 4.13–5.45 million gallons (Mgal) per developed oil and gas well. The coefficient from the linear regression model of indirect water use was 0.111 Mgal per well, with a 95-percent confidence interval of 0.104–0.117 Mgal per well. The mean estimate of ancillary water use in the Permian Basin was 1.09 Mgal per well, with a 95-percent confidence interval of 1.05–1.13 Mgal per well. Model performance was evaluated with goodness-of-fit metrics including coefficient of determination ( R 2 ), root mean square error, and the ratio of root mean square error to standard deviation of observations computed from leave-one-out cross validation of the linear and quantile regression models of direct, indirect, and ancillary water use. Model performance for direct water use was acceptable, with an R 2 value of 0.91. The model performance of indirect water use was acceptable, with an R 2 value of 0.89. Values of R 2 for the ancillary water-use categories were at least 0.89. Annual mean estimates for hydraulic fracturing, cementing, drilling, indirect, and ancillary water use per well for the years 2010–17 were comparable between the Permian and Williston Basins. Hydraulic fracturing water use increased similarly from 2010 to 2015 in the Permian Basin and the Williston Basin, increasing from 0.6 Mgal per well in 2010 to 5.4 Mgal per well in 2015 in the Permian Basin and from 1.4 Mgal per well in 2010 to 4.7 Mgal per well in 2015 in the Williston Basin. By design, the Permian water-use assessment is a simplification of a complex and continually developing system and therefore has uncertainty and limitations in the interpretation of results. Despite the modeling limitations, the results summarized in the report, when compared to other studies, compare well with water-use estimations. The favorable comparison highlights the transferability of the water-use methodology to other areas of COG development.

New Mexico, Texas

Characterization of peak streamflows and flood inundation of selected areas in southeastern Texas and southwestern Louisiana from the August and September 2017 flood resulting from Hurricane Harvey

Hurricane Harvey made landfall near Rockport, Texas, on August 25, 2017, as a Category 4 hurricane with wind gusts exceeding 150 miles per hour. As Harvey moved inland, the forward motion of the storm slowed down and produced tremendous rainfall amounts over southeastern Texas, with 8-day rainfall amounts exceeding 60 inches in some locations, which is about 15 inches more than average annual amounts of rainfall for eastern Texas and the Texas coast. Historic flooding occurred in Texas as a result of the widespread, heavy rainfall; wind and flood damages were estimated to be $125 billion, and the storm resulted in at least 68 direct fatalities. In the immediate aftermath of the Harvey-related flood event, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency initiated a cooperative study to evaluate the magnitude of the flood, determine the probability of occurrence, and map the extent of the flood in Texas. Seventy-four USGS streamflow-gaging stations in Texas with at least 15 years of record and no large data gaps in the period of record had a 2017 annual peak streamflow related to Harvey ranking in the top five of all annual peaks for each given station. New peaks of record streamflow were recorded at 40 of the 74 USGS streamflow-gaging stations. The number of years of peak streamflow record for the 74 analyzed streamflow-gaging stations ranged from 18 to 105, with a mean number of 55 years. The annual exceedance probability estimates for the analyzed streamflow-gaging stations ranged from less than 0.2 to 14.0 percent. USGS field crews surveyed 2,123 high-water marks to obtain water-surface elevations, in feet above the North American Vertical Datum of 1988. In some locations, several water-surface elevations were averaged to obtain 1 water-surface elevation, resulting in 1,258 water-surface elevations. Some of these high-water marks were used, along with peak-stage data from USGS streamflow-gaging stations, to create 19 inundation maps to document the areal extent of the maximum depth of the flooding. Digital datasets of the inundation area, modeling boundary, water-depth rasters, and final map products are available from the USGS data release associated with this report ( https://doi.org/10.5066/F7VH5N3N ).

Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas