Economic Tensions in the Anadarko Basin Oil Patch: Managing the Crisis of Subsurface Saturation

Abstract

The State of Oklahoma currently faces an environmental and regulatory crisis born from the convergence of mature hydrocarbon extraction, high-volume wastewater disposal, and the finite capacity of subterranean geological reservoirs. Following a decade of induced seismicity linked to deep-well injection into the Arbuckle Group, the region is now experiencing a hydrologic phenomenon characterized as "purges"—the uncontrolled surfacing of toxic oilfield brines through compromised wellbores and natural fissures. This report provides an exhaustive examination of the 2026 legislative efforts, specifically Senate Bills 1419, 1474, and 1472, introduced to mitigate these surfacing events. Through an interdisciplinary lens combining petroleum geology, environmental law, and public policy analysis, this document explores the mechanics of subsurface pressure migration, the regulatory inertia of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, and the economic tensions inherent in regulating a sovereign state’s primary industry. It further evaluates the feasibility of proposed solutions, including wastewater recycling for critical mineral extraction and the imposition of volumetric disposal fees.

1. Introduction: The Saturation of the Mid-Continent in Anadarko Basin

For over a century, the identity of Oklahoma has been inextricably welded to the extraction of subsurface resources. The state’s economy, legal framework, and cultural narrative are defined by the pumpjack and the derrick. From the early gushers of the Glenn Pool to the sophisticated horizontal drilling of the SCOOP and STACK plays, the industry has provided the fiscal bedrock for the state. However, the byproduct of this extraction—produced water—has generated an environmental challenge that rivals, and perhaps exceeds, the primary output in volume, complexity, and long-term liability. In the mid-2020s, the state finds itself at a hydrogeological inflection point. The vast underground reservoirs used for decades as disposal sites for the industry's brine are exhibiting signs of total capacity failure. This failure is manifesting not just as the earthquakes of the previous decade, but as "purges"—geysers of toxic saline water erupting from the earth, sterilizing vegetation, and threatening the freshwater aquifers upon which the state's agriculture and rural population depend.¹

The investigative work of ProPublica and The Frontier has brought this issue to the forefront of public consciousness, documenting over 150 incidents where wastewater, initially injected thousands of feet deep underground, migrated upward to breach the surface.¹ These incidents are not merely isolated industrial accidents; they are symptoms of a systemic pressurization of the Arbuckle Group, a deep geological formation that has served as the state's primary wastewater sink for nearly a century. The surfacing of these fluids has prompted a sharp legislative confrontation in the 2026 session, led by State Senator Mary Boren, aiming to fundamentally alter how the state regulates, monitors, and monetizes oilfield waste.³

This report analyzes the collision of geology and policy. It details the physical mechanisms driving the pollution, the historical regulatory leniency that permitted the crisis to metastasize, and the specific legislative instruments proposed to arrest it. Furthermore, it examines the counter-arguments of the industry, represented by the Oklahoma Energy Producers Alliance, and the tantalizing but geologically uncertain prospect of turning this waste stream into a source of lithium for the green energy transition.³ By synthesizing data from regulatory filings, geological surveys, and legislative texts, this report aims to provide a definitive account of Oklahoma's struggle to manage the inevitable consequences of a century of extraction.

2. Geological Framework: The Arbuckle Group and the Infinite Sink

To understand the necessity and the controversy of the proposed legislation, one must first comprehend the subterranean architecture of the Anadarko Basin and the Northern Oklahoma Shelf. The petroleum industry does not merely produce oil and gas; it produces water. In many of Oklahoma’s mature fields, the "water cut"—the ratio of water to oil produced—can be exceptionally high, sometimes exceeding ten or twenty barrels of water for every single barrel of oil recovered.⁵

2.1 The Stratigraphy of Disposal

The Arbuckle Group, a thick sequence of Cambro-Ordovician dolomites and limestones, lies thousands of feet below the surface. Geologically, it sits directly atop the crystalline basement rock—the granitic crust of the continent. For decades, the Arbuckle was viewed by petroleum engineers and geologists as the ideal disposal zone. Its defining characteristics—high porosity (the percentage of empty space within the rock) and high permeability (the ability of fluids to flow through those spaces)—allowed it to accept billions of barrels of wastewater with little apparent resistance.⁶

The formation is often described as karstic, meaning it contains ancient, dissolved cave systems and fractures that facilitate the rapid intake of fluid. In the early days of conventional drilling, the volumes of water produced were manageable, and the Arbuckle absorbed them easily. The formation pressure was historically sub-hydrostatic, meaning the rock was effectively "thirsty," allowing water to be poured in often under gravity alone or with minimal pumping pressure.

2.2 The Shift to High-Volume Injection

The dynamic changed with the advent of the "dewatering" plays and the unconventional shale boom. In plays like the Mississippi Lime, operators target formations that are naturally water-rich. To harvest the oil, they must pump massive quantities of water out of the ground—essentially lowering the water table of the reservoir to allow oil to flow. This "produced water" is hyper-saline and toxic, requiring disposal.

Operators drilled thousands of Class II injection wells to pump this brine back into the deep Arbuckle. The assumption was that the Arbuckle was effectively infinite and isolated from the surface by thick layers of impermeable rock, known as seals. However, the sheer volume of injection—hundreds of millions of barrels annually—eventually altered the physics of the formation.⁸ The once "thirsty" sponge began to fill up.

2.3 The Connectivity to the Basement

The interface between the sedimentary Arbuckle Group and the underlying crystalline basement is not a solid barrier. It is a complex zone of faults and fractures. As fluid injection continued, the pressure within the Arbuckle rose. This pressure did not stay confined to the limestone; it propagated downward into the basement rock.

This pressure transmission reduced the effective normal stress on ancient, dormant faults. In simple terms, the injected water lubricated the faults, allowing them to slip under the tectonic stress already present in the crust. This mechanism was identified as the primary driver of the induced seismicity wave that shook Oklahoma from 2010 to 2016, including the damaging magnitude 5.8 earthquake near Pawnee in 2016.⁷ While regulatory actions to reduce injection volumes in seismic zones successfully mitigated the earthquake frequency, they did not remove the fluid from the ground. The reservoir remained pressurized, setting the stage for the current crisis.

3. The Physics of the "Purge": Mechanics of Failure

While earthquakes are a symptom of pressure interacting with faults, the "purges" are a symptom of pressure interacting with conduits. The legislative proposals of 2026 are a direct response to this hydraulic phenomenon.

3.1 The Pressure Bulb Effect

When fluid is injected into a confined space, a "bulb" of high pressure forms around the injection well and expands outward over time. In a single-well scenario, this pressure dissipates into the vastness of the formation. However, in areas like the Anadarko Basin, thousands of wells are injecting simultaneously. These pressure bulbs have coalesced, creating regional zones of super-pressurization.

Regulators and operators refer to this as the "reservoir pressure." When this pressure exceeds the hydrostatic pressure (the weight of the water column from the surface), the formation becomes artesian. If a pathway to the surface exists, the water will flow upward without the aid of a pump.

3.2 Vertical Migration Pathways

The pressure in the Arbuckle is now seeking outlets. In a state drilled as heavily as Oklahoma, these outlets often take the form of "orphan" or "abandoned" wells. These are old boreholes, some dating back to the 1930s or 1940s, that penetrate the Arbuckle or overlying formations.

• Compromised Integrity: Many of these old wells were plugged with materials that have degraded over decades—wood, mud, or primitive cement.

• Corroded Casing: The steel pipe (casing) lining these wells corrodes over time, especially when exposed to saline brines.

• The Path of Least Resistance: When the high-pressure Arbuckle fluid encounters an old wellbore with compromised integrity, it pushes up the column. It bypasses the geological seals that were supposed to protect the fresh groundwater and soil, erupting at the surface as a "purge".¹

3.3 The Role of Fracture Gradients

A critical concept in SB 1419 is the "fracture gradient." This is a measure of how much pressure per foot of depth the rock can withstand before it physically cracks.

• Hydraulic Fracturing: In production, operators intentionally exceed this gradient to break the rock and release oil.

• Injection Safety: In disposal, operators are supposed to stay below this gradient to ensure the fluid enters the rock's natural pores.

• The Violation: Investigating reporting suggests that injection pressures often exceeded the safe limits, effectively creating unintentional fractures. These man-made cracks can extend for miles, connecting the injection well to old abandoned wells or natural faults, creating a superhighway for pollution to travel to the surface.³

Table 1: Comparative Pressures and Gradients

Parameter	Description	Typical Value	Regulatory Implication
Hydrostatic Gradient	Pressure exerted by a column of fresh water.	0.433 psi/ft	Baseline pressure of a static water column.
Lithostatic Gradient	Pressure exerted by the weight of the overlying rock.	~1.0 psi/ft	The theoretical limit of containment.
Fracture Gradient	Pressure at which the rock formation cracks.	0.60 - 0.80 psi/ft	Critical Limit: Injection must stay below this.
Current Allowable Injection	Typical permitted maximum surface pressure.	0.50 psi/ft	Often allows injection pressures near fracture limits.
Proposed Legislative Limit	Reduced limit to prevent migration/fracturing.	0.25 - 0.325 psi/ft	SB 1419 aims to enforce this lower tier.

4. The Purge Phenomenon: Case Studies in Environmental Failure

The abstraction of "hydrogeology" solidifies in the visible, destructive reality of the purges. The incidents documented in Kingfisher and Blaine counties serve as the "Patient Zero" for this new phase of the crisis.

4.1 Kingfisher and Blaine Counties: The Geysers

In early 2019, and continuing through the mid-2020s, residents and regulators began observing water flowing out of the ground in areas with no active pumping. In Kingfisher County, toxic water poured out of the ground at rates of thousands of gallons per day for months. These were not minor seeps; they were geysers.

• Mechanism: The purging wells were often historical oil wells that had been plugged. The pressure from nearby disposal wells—injecting into the Arbuckle—had repressurized the formation to such an extent that the fluid forced its way up the old wellbores.

• Volume: The sheer volume of fluid surfacing overwhelmed local containment measures, spreading across acres of farmland.²

4.2 The Ledgerwood Family: A Human Cost

The experience of the Ledgerwood family in Garvin County humanizes the statistics. A nearby oil well, supposedly inactive, began leaking saltwater into their pecan grove.

• Agricultural Impact: The brine killed the pecan trees, creating a "salt scar"—a zone of sterilized soil where high chloride content prevents osmosis in plant roots, effectively desiccating vegetation.

• Groundwater Contamination: More insidiously, the brine infiltrated the shallow freshwater aquifer used by the family. Tests analyzed by Oklahoma State University showed chloride levels in their water well spiked to five times the EPA safety limit. Soil samples revealed chloride concentrations 12 times the state’s acceptable level for agriculture.¹²

• Regulatory Failure: The family’s struggle to obtain remediation highlights the gaps in the current system. The operator responsible often claimed insolvency or transferred the asset, leaving the Ledgerwoods with a destroyed grove and undrinkable water. This specific case exemplifies the "loophole" SB 1472 aims to close—preventing the transfer of such liabilities to shell entities.¹²

4.3 Environmental Chemistry of the Brine

The fluid erupting from these wells is a complex, hazardous mixture. To call it "saltwater" is a dangerous oversimplification.

• Salinity: The Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) can range from 150,000 to over 300,000 milligrams per liter (mg/L). For comparison, seawater is approximately 35,000 mg/L. This hypersalinity is instantly toxic to freshwater aquatic life and terrestrial vegetation.¹³

• Heavy Metals: The reducing environment of the deep Arbuckle mobilizes metals from the rock matrix. Arsenic, cadmium, and lead are frequently present in elevated concentrations.¹⁴

• Radionuclides (NORM): The brine is rich in Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials, specifically Radium-226 and Radium-228. These isotopes are soluble in chloride-rich water. When the water surfaces and evaporates, the radium precipitates into the soil or forms radioactive scale on equipment, posing long-term radiological risks.¹⁵

• Hydrocarbons: The fluid often carries entrained crude oil, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX), which are known carcinogens.²

5. The Regulatory Landscape: A Culture of "Handshakes"

The necessity of the 2026 legislative package is underscored by the perceived failure of the existing regulatory apparatus to contain these physical forces. The Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) is the agency with primacy over oil and gas operations, a status that gives it authority independent of, though monitored by, the federal EPA.

5.1 The "Handshake" Philosophy

The ProPublica investigation notably characterized the OCC’s enforcement style as preferring "a handshake instead of a hammer".² This philosophy is rooted in the historical interdependence of the state and the industry.

• Enforcement Data: Investigation revealed that the agency had not fined any company for wastewater leaks in the five years preceding the 2026 session.² Instead, the agency relies on "directives" or voluntary agreements with operators to address issues.

• Warnings from Within: Internal technical staff at the OCC, such as petroleum engineer Danny Ray, warned about the dangers of high-pressure injection for years. Ray advocated for system-wide pressure reductions (shut-ins) rather than piecemeal approaches, arguing that the reservoir pressure had to be bled off to stop the purges. These warnings were largely unheeded by the appointed commissioners, who must weigh the immediate economic impact of shutting down disposal wells against the long-term environmental risk.²

5.2 The Orphan Well Crisis and Funding

The regulatory challenge is compounded by the sheer number of "orphan" wells—wells with no solvent owner.

• The Inventory: Oklahoma has an estimated 260,000 unplugged wells.¹² While many are inactive, they represent potential conduits for pressurized fluid.

• The Funding Gap: The cost to plug and remediate these wells is estimated at nearly $7 billion. The state’s current funding mechanism, a voluntary 0.1% fee managed by the Oklahoma Energy Resources Board (OERB), has generated only a fraction of this amount ($156 million over three decades).¹²

• OERB Refunds: Critics point out that the OERB, which is industry-funded and industry-led, recently issued millions of dollars in refunds to contributors rather than using those funds to accelerate plugging. This decision has fueled the argument that the voluntary system is insufficient to address the scale of the crisis.¹¹

5.3 Federal vs. State Jurisdiction

The regulatory landscape is further complicated by tension between the state and the EPA. Oklahoma aggressively defends its "primacy"—its right to regulate Class II wells without direct federal intervention.

• The "Good Neighbor" Context: While primarily involving the Clean Air Act, the 2025 Supreme Court decision in Oklahoma v. EPA reinforces the state's litigious stance against federal overreach. The Court ruled in favor of Oklahoma regarding venue, a procedural victory that emboldens the state to resist federal mandates.¹⁶

• Implication for Water: This political climate makes it difficult for the EPA Region 6 office to intervene aggressively in the injection well crisis. The state prefers to handle the issue internally, but the internal mechanisms (OCC) are arguably under-resourced and legally constrained.

6. The 2026 Legislative Package: A Statutory Correction

In response to the escalating visibility of the purges and the investigative reporting highlighting regulatory gaps, State Senator Mary Boren introduced a suite of bills in the 2026 session. These bills—SB 1419, SB 1474, and SB 1472—represent a shift from voluntary industry best practices to statutory mandates.

6.1 Senate Bill 1419: The Pressure Regulation Act

Core Objective: SB 1419 addresses the root physical cause of the purges: excessive injection pressure.

Key Provisions:

• Mandatory Pressure Assessments: The bill mandates that operators assess whether their injection pressure is sufficient to fracture the rock layers deep underground. This moves beyond the standard Maximum Injection Pressure (MIP) formula to a site-specific analysis of rock mechanics.³

• Drinking Water Protection: It requires specific testing to verify that wastewater is not migrating laterally or vertically into drinking water sources. This shifts the burden of proof; operators must demonstrate containment, rather than the state proving contamination after the fact.³

• Investigatory Mandates: The bill compels state regulators to investigate "problematic" wells. The language is designed to remove the discretion that allowed the "handshake" culture to persist. If a well is flagged by data, the regulator must investigate and potentially lower the pressure.³

Technical Analysis - The Gradient Limit:

The central technical debate concerns the allowable pressure gradient.

• Current Standard: Often 0.5 psi/ft. For a 5,000-foot well, this allows 2,500 psi of surface pressure.

• Proposed Standard: A limit of 0.25 to 0.325 psi/ft.¹⁸ This would cap surface pressure at roughly 1,250 psi for the same well.

• Impact: This reduction effectively halves the capacity of a disposal well. To dispose of the same volume of water, an operator would need to drill twice as many wells or inject into different, shallower formations, which carries its own risks.

6.2 Senate Bill 1474: The Remediation Fee

Core Objective: SB 1474 addresses the financial shortfall in cleaning up the legacy of pollution.

Key Provisions:

• The Penny Fee: The bill proposes a fee of $0.01 per barrel of wastewater produced.

• Ring-fenced Funds: Revenue would be dedicated strictly to groundwater testing, land restoration, and the plugging of abandoned wells.³

• Recycling Incentive: A critical component is a deduction or exemption for companies that recycle wastewater. This is a behavioral tax designed to make disposal more expensive and reuse comparatively cheaper.³

Economic Analysis of the Fee:

• Revenue Potential: Oklahoma produces approximately 1.7 billion barrels of water annually.⁹ A one-cent fee could theoretically generate $17 million per year. While this is a fraction of the $7 billion liability, it is a significant increase over current OERB spending.

• The "Marginal Well" Calculus: The industry argues that for a "stripper well" producing 2 barrels of oil and 100 barrels of water a day, this fee adds $1.00 to daily operating costs. In a low-price environment, this marginal cost could be the difference between profit and loss, potentially forcing the premature abandonment of the well—ironically creating more orphan wells.

6.3 Senate Bill 1472: Transparency and Liability

Core Objective: Preventing the "dumping" of liabilities onto insolvent shell companies.

Key Provisions:

• Notification Rights: Requires companies to alert landowners before wells on their property are sold.³

• Solvency Checks: Calls on regulators to block sales when the buyer is "insolvent, financially distressed, or subject to foreclosure".¹

• Rationale: A common pattern in the industry is for major companies to sell low-producing, high-liability wells to smaller, undercapitalized companies. When the wells eventually fail, the small company declares bankruptcy, leaving the state and the landowner with the cleanup bill. SB 1472 attempts to anchor the liability to a solvent entity before it is severed.¹

Table 2: Summary of Key 2026 Legislation

Bill Number	Sponsor	Primary Mechanism	Industry Impact	Status/Goal
SB 1419	Sen. Boren	Mandates pressure assessments; protects drinking water; compels OCC investigation.	Potential 50% reduction in injection rates; increased compliance costs.	Aimed at stopping the physical cause of "purges."
SB 1474	Sen. Boren	Imposes $0.01/barrel fee on wastewater.	Direct cost increase for operators; funds remediation.	Creates dedicated revenue stream ($17M+/yr) for cleanup.
SB 1472	Sen. Boren	Regulates transfer of wells; blocks sales to insolvent buyers.	Limits ability to offload bad assets; increases transaction scrutiny.	Prevents "dumping" liabilities on the taxpayer.
SB 1418	Sen. Boren	Clarifies liability and ownership of produced water.	Establishes the operator as the owner of the waste (and potentially the minerals).	Attempts to resolve the "who owns the lithium" question.

7. Economic and Political Tensions

The resistance to Boren’s bills is stiff, rooted in the economic fragility of the state’s marginal well industry and the political power of the energy sector.

7.1 The Oklahoma Energy Producers Alliance (OEPA)

The OEPA, representing smaller, independent producers, argues that broad regulations punish the innocent for the sins of the guilty.

• The "Broad Brush" Argument: They contend that the "purges" are localized issues caused by specific bad actors or recent shallow injection practices in specific counties (like Blaine), not a systemic failure of the Arbuckle requiring statewide pressure cuts.¹⁸

• Economic Fatalism: They argue that a pressure reduction (to 0.25 psi/ft) effectively kills the disposal capacity of their wells. If they cannot dispose of water, they cannot produce oil. They frame SB 1419 not as environmental regulation, but as an existential threat to the small business owners of the oil patch.

7.2 The Petroleum Alliance of Oklahoma

Representing the larger players, this group generally opposes new fees (like the $0.01/barrel tax). Their legislative agenda focuses on protecting the industry from "subsidy-driven" energy competitors (renewables) and maintaining a favorable tax environment.¹⁹ They argue that the industry already pays significant severance taxes (Gross Production Tax) that fund the state government, and additional fees would drive investment to friendlier jurisdictions like Texas or North Dakota.

7.3 The Political Reality

In a legislature dominated by Republicans and in a state where the governor emphasizes "flat budgets" and deregulation ²⁰, bills sponsored by a Democrat (Sen. Boren) face an uphill battle. However, the populist nature of the issue—rural landowners having their property destroyed by "big oil" negligence—creates a unique political wedge that cuts across party lines.

8. The Critical Minerals Hypothesis: Lithium and Iodine

A major counter-narrative to the "pollution" story is the "resource" story. If produced water contains valuable minerals, can the market solve the cleanup problem by turning waste into wealth?

8.1 The Lithium Rush: Hype vs. Geology

With the global demand for lithium-ion batteries surging, there is intense interest in Direct Lithium Extraction (DLE) from oilfield brines.

• The Smackover Benchmark: In southern Arkansas, the Smackover Formation brines are rich in lithium, averaging 168 to nearly 500 mg/L, with some samples nearly 600 mg/L.²¹ This concentration makes commercial extraction viable, and pilot plants are already operating.

• The Oklahoma Reality: The Arbuckle Group does not share this richness. USGS and Oklahoma Geological Survey data indicate average lithium concentrations in Oklahoma brines are significantly lower, often less than 10 mg/L, or occasionally up to 50-100 mg/L in isolated hotspots.²³

• Viability Gap: DLE technology is sensitive to concentration. Processing 1,000 barrels of water to recover 1 kg of lithium (Smackover) is viable. Processing 10,000 barrels to recover that same 1 kg (Arbuckle) requires ten times the pumping energy, filtration media, and capital equipment. Currently, the Arbuckle brines are likely uneconomic for lithium extraction unless technology improves drastically or lithium prices spike.

8.2 Iodine: The Proven Exception

It is worth noting that Oklahoma is a successful mineral extractor from brine—specifically Iodine. The state is the leading US producer of iodine, extracted from brines in the Woodward area (Anadarko Shelf) with concentrations of 300-400 parts per million (ppm).²⁵ This proves that wastewater can be a resource, but iodine concentrations are uniquely high in specific locales, a geologic anomaly not yet replicated for lithium.

8.3 Ownership Uncertainties: The "Pore Space" War

Even if lithium were found, SB 1418 and other laws wrestle with ownership. Who owns the lithium dissolved in the water?

• The Surface Owner? Typically owns the groundwater.

• The Mineral Owner? Owns the oil and gas.

• The Operator? Creates the waste stream.

• Legislative Fix: SB 1418 attempts to clarify that the operator (waste generator) owns the wastewater and the right to process it.²⁷ This is intended to encourage recycling by giving the operator clear title to the profit. However, mineral owners may contest this, arguing that lithium is a mineral and they are owed a royalty. This legal ambiguity acts as a deterrent to investment in recycling infrastructure.²⁸

Table 3: Comparative Water Geochemistry

Region/Formation	Resource Target	Avg. Concentration	Economic Status
Southern Arkansas (Smackover)	Lithium	~160 - 500 mg/L	Pilot/Commercial Development Active
Oklahoma (Arbuckle/Anadarko)	Lithium	< 10 - 100 mg/L	Speculative/Uneconomic currently
Oklahoma (Woodward Trend)	Iodine	300 - 400 ppm	Major Commercial Production (Leading US Source)

9. Conclusion: The Inertia of Extraction

The 2026 legislative session in Oklahoma represents a critical test of the state’s willingness to regulate its most powerful industry in the face of incontrovertible environmental degradation. The physics of the Arbuckle Group are unforgiving; the formation is over-pressured, and the fluid is returning to the surface through the path of least resistance.

The proposed solutions—monitoring pressure (SB 1419), taxing waste to fund cleanup (SB 1474), and policing asset transfers (SB 1472)—are technocratic responses to a physical and economic imbalance. They attempt to internalize the external costs of disposal. However, the political economy of Oklahoma suggests a difficult path for these bills. The industry’s argument that higher costs will destroy marginal wells is economically valid, but it leaves unanswered the ethical and practical question of who pays for the "purges."

Currently, the cost is externalized: it is paid by the Ledgerwood family in lost pecan trees, by the residents of Kingfisher in toxic soil, and by the taxpayers who will eventually face the billion-dollar bill for orphan well plugging. The dream of a lithium bailout seems, for now, to be geologically optimistic but economically distant for Oklahoma. Therefore, the solution must be found in policy, not just technology.

Without the structural changes proposed in these bills, the "handshake" regulatory approach will likely continue until the geological failures become catastrophic enough to force the "hammer" to fall. The Arbuckle is sending a message through the geysers in Kingfisher: the sink is full. The question remains whether the legislature will listen.

Works cited

1. New Bills Seek to Rein In Oil Companies' Pollution of Oklahoma Groundwater - ProPublica, accessed February 1, 2026, https://www.propublica.org/article/oklahoma-legislation-oil-gas-injection-wells-water-pollution-cleanup

2. Toxic Wastewater From Oil Fields Keeps Pouring Out of the Ground. Oklahoma Regulators Failed to Stop It. - ProPublica, accessed February 1, 2026, https://www.propublica.org/article/oklahoma-oil-gas-wastewater-pollution

3. New bills seek to rein in oil companies' pollution of Oklahoma groundwater - The Frontier, accessed February 1, 2026, https://www.readfrontier.org/stories/new-bills-seek-to-rein-in-oil-companies-pollution-of-oklahoma-groundwater/

4. Evaluation of the lithium resource in the Smackover Formation brines of southern Arkansas using machine learning - PMC - PubMed Central, accessed February 1, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11430454/

5. State-Scale Perspective on Water Use and Production Associated with Oil and Gas Operations, Oklahoma, U.S. | Environmental Science & Technology - ACS Publications, accessed February 1, 2026, https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es4000593

6. Class II Underground Injection Control Well Data for 2010–2013 by Geologic Zones of Completion, Oklahoma Open-File Report (OF1-2014) Kyle E. Murray, accessed February 1, 2026, http://www.ogs.ou.edu/pubsscanned/openfile/OF1_2014_Murray.pdf

7. Earthquakes Induced by Underground Fluid Injection and the Federal Role in Mitigation | Congress.gov, accessed February 1, 2026, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47386

8. Oklahoma and Kansas Class II Injection Wells and Earthquakes - FracTracker Alliance, accessed February 1, 2026, https://www.fractracker.org/2016/12/oklahoma-kansas-injection-wells/

9. 2025 BLM Water Support Document for Oil and Gas Development in Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas - Bureau of Land Management, accessed February 1, 2026, https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2025-12/oil-and-gas-water-support-document-blm-nm-ofo-2025.pdf

10. Potential Induced Seismicity Guide - New Mexico Environment Department, accessed February 1, 2026, https://www.env.nm.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2024/05/NMOGA-Exhibit-100.pdf

11. Oklahoma's Oil Industry Touts a Voluntary Fund to Clean Up Oil Wells. Major Drillers Want Their Contributions Refunded. - ProPublica, accessed February 1, 2026, https://www.propublica.org/article/oklahoma-energy-resources-board-refunds

12. Oil Companies Contaminated a Family Farm. The Courts and Regulators Let the Drillers Walk Away. - ProPublica, accessed February 1, 2026, https://www.propublica.org/article/oklahoma-oil-cleanup

13. A White Paper Describing Produced Water from Production of Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Coal Bed Methane - Argonne Scientific Publications, accessed February 1, 2026, https://publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2004/02/49109.pdf

14. US Department of Energy National Petroleum Technology Office Prepared By: Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission and ALL Consulting In Cooperation with - Oklahoma.gov, accessed February 1, 2026, https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/iogcc/documents/publications/produced_water_guidebook2-2006.pdf

15. Effects of produced waters at oilfield production sites on the Osage Indian Reservation, northeastern Oklahoma - USGS Publications Warehouse, accessed February 1, 2026, https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/ofr9728

16. Oklahoma v. EPA's Venue Dispute at the Supreme Court Is Poised to Shape Future Clean Air Act Litigation | Georgetown Environmental Law Review, accessed February 1, 2026, https://www.law.georgetown.edu/environmental-law-review/blog/oklahoma-v-epas-venue-dispute-at-the-supreme-court-is-poised-to-shape-future-clean-air-act-litigation/

17. 23-1067 Oklahoma v. EPA (06/18/2025) - Supreme Court, accessed February 1, 2026, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1067_6j36.pdf

18. New OCC Proposed Rules Jan. 2020 – OEPA - Oklahoma Energy Producers Alliance, accessed February 1, 2026, https://okenergyproducers.org/new-occ-proposed-rules-jan-2020/

19. News Releases - Petroleum Alliance, accessed February 1, 2026, https://www.thepetroleumalliance.com/latest-news/news-releases/

20. What to watch for during Oklahoma's 2026 legislative session, accessed February 1, 2026, https://www.kgou.org/politics-and-government/2026-01-30/what-to-watch-for-during-oklahomas-2026-legislative-session

21. Smackover Lithium Reports Highest Lithium Brine Grade in SWA Project Area as FEED Studies Nearing Completion, accessed February 1, 2026, https://www.standardlithium.com/news/smackover-lithium-reports-highest-lithium-brine-grade-in-swa-project-area-as-feed-studies-nearing-completion

22. OPEN-FILE REPORT 2023-01 - Arkansas Geological Survey, accessed February 1, 2026, https://www.geology.arkansas.gov/docs/pdf/publication/open_file_reports/OFR%202023-01.pdf

23. It Is Easy To Find Lithium; Turning a Profit Is Hard - Bureau of Economic Geology, accessed February 1, 2026, https://www.beg.utexas.edu/files/content/beg/ext-aff/2023/11/It%20Is%20Easy%20to%20Find%20Lithium_%20Turning%20a%20Profit%20is%20Hard.pdf

24. Lithium - USGS Publications Warehouse, accessed February 1, 2026, https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1802/k/pp1802k.pdf

25. Iodine 2018 - AWS, accessed February 1, 2026, https://d9-wret.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets/palladium/production/atoms/files/myb1-2018-iodin.pdf

26. Iodine | 2019 Minerals Yearbook - USGS Publications Warehouse, accessed February 1, 2026, https://pubs.usgs.gov/myb/vol1/2019/myb1-2019-iodine.pdf

27. 2025 Oklahoma Statutes Title 52. Oil and Gas §52-86.7. Definitions – Purpose – Property rights – Operator rights and responsibilities – Liability - Justia Law, accessed February 1, 2026, https://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/title-52/section-52-86-7/

28. Ownership Rights to Produced Water in the New Age of Energy, accessed February 1, 2026, https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1513&context=onej

29. Practical and Legal Hurdles to Lithium: The Next Extraction Revolution? - Babst Calland, accessed February 1, 2026, https://www.babstcalland.com/news-article/practical-and-legal-hurdles-to-lithium-the-next-extraction-revolution/