The Well Is Plugged. Is the Water Protected?

BCE-Mach III Midstream Holdings LLC plugged the Flying Monkey disposal well near Enid, Oklahoma, on September 14. According to reporting by The Frontier and ProPublica, workers placed a cast iron plug and more than 200 sacks of cement into the well. A state representative witnessed the work. The well had injected oil field wastewater roughly a quarter-mile from two municipal groundwater supply sites serving Enid.

The risk involved underground wastewater injection near public water supplies. Oklahoma rules prohibit those operations within a half-mile of public water wells unless regulators hold a hearing to ensure that injection will not pollute groundwater. The Oklahoma Corporation Commission approved the Flying Monkey in 2018 without that hearing. The reporting establishes a failed protective procedure and a threatened water supply. It does not establish that contamination occurred.

Permanent closure deserves credit. The company’s attorney, Eric Huddleston, said the well was “underutilized and operationally unnecessary.” Whatever the business calculation, sealing the well removes it from continued wastewater disposal. Enid City Commissioner Frank Baker welcomed the closure. A protective result does not require an operator to describe its decision as public service.

But the plugging record answers a construction question: what workers put into the well, and whether a state representative attended. Water testing answers a different question: what is present in the water sampled. Closure paperwork cannot sample an aquifer. Neither the cement quantity nor the witness’s presence should carry a broader assurance than the evidence supports.

The account does not specify a post-closure groundwater monitoring schedule, testing results, or remaining monitoring obligations. That omission is not proof that no requirements exist. It means the public cannot establish those requirements from the reported closure alone. The commission should identify any applicable duties, explain what existing measurements show, and state whether additional testing is warranted. The distinction matters even if every sample ultimately shows no contamination.

The communication record also needs repair. Enid filed a complaint in 2025 seeking revocation of the permit, and that complaint remained active when the company plugged the well. Yet city officials learned about the closure from a reporter. Enid’s lawyers also said the original operator, Hinkle Oil & Gas, had incorrectly declared that the well was outside the half-mile boundary. The commission did not respond to the reporters’ questions. The agency’s hearing requirement was supposed to put public-water protection into the approval process, not leave the city to reconstruct that process afterward.

BCE-Mach III can provide Enid with the closure documentation and clarify any continuing company obligations. The commission can explain how plugging affects the pending complaint, disclose applicable monitoring requirements, and identify who will review any follow-up results. Those are decisions the company and regulator control now. The work is finished; the scope of the assurance still needs a public answer.