Popular Oil Recovery Method Comes Under Fire for Heavy Water Use

Secondary oil recovery via water flooding requires an average of 8 gallons of water for every gallon of crude that's recovered

By Jeff Kart, Midwest Energy News

A common method of extracting oil by injecting large amounts of water into old wells is coming under scrutiny by Michigan environmental groups.

The technique, known as water flooding, has been around for decades. But like many non-conventional means of oil recovery, it is becoming more economically viable as prices rise, and there is little information on exactly how much water is being traded for the oil that's produced.

Energy extraction is placing increasing pressure on the nation's water supply, according to a new report by the nonprofit New America Foundation.

The report, "The Water-Energy Nexus," explains how traditional and alternative energy technologies are consuming a rising amount of water per unit of energy. While agriculture is responsible for 80 percent of water consumption in the United States, energy production consumes most of the remaining 20 percent.

"The competition between water and energy needs represents a critical business, security and environmental issue, but it has not yet received the attention that it deserves," Diana Glassman, one of the report's authors, said in a statement.

A Michigan Example

Near Bay City, Michigan, Terry Miller heads up an environmental group called the Lone Tree Council, and also holds the elected position of Monitor Township trustee.

In the township, the Muskegon Development Co. is proposing a project to recover additional oil by flooding old wells with up to 42,000 gallons of water per day. The water usage would last for up to eight years, according to state records, for a total of more than 122 million gallons over the life of the project.

Muskegon Development has asked local officials to pay to extend a water line 2,300 feet for the work, to take place in what's known as the Kawkawlin Field. The request has been tabled by township trustees, according to Miller, because it would cost the township an estimated $245,000.