E&P Waste E&P Waste Management Management

Technologies – One Size Technologies – One Size Does Not Fit AllDoes Not Fit All

John VeilJohn Veil Argonne National LaboratoryArgonne National Laboratory

Washington, DCWashington, DC

Acknowledgements

Office of Fossil EnergyOffice of Fossil Energy

Where Do Oil and Gas Wastes Come From?

Drilling Production Surface

handling (associated wastes)

Most Exploration and Production (E&P) Wastes Are Nonhazardous Wastes

EPA decisions in 1988 and 1993 States have regulatory authority

over E&P wastes Some generic industrial wastes

are hazardous Solvents, paint wastes, etc.

Drilling Wastes Drilling muds Drill cuttings

Production Wastes Produced water Produced sand Treatment,

workover, and completion fluids

Associated Wastes Tank bottoms Contaminated soil NORM scale and sludges

Volume of Drilling Waste Generated

Liquid Wastes (mud, completion fluid. Pit water, formation testing fluid, other liquids)

Solid Wastes (cuttings, circulated cement, other solids)

Note: The API surveys did not include most offshore wastes

1985 API Survey 1995 API SurveyVolume (bbl) Volume (bbl)

324 million (90%) 109 million (74%)

38 million (10%) 39 million (26%)

How Are Wastes Managed? Different options for

different wastes Different options for

different states Onsite vs. offsite

Methods for Disposing Solid E&P Wastes

landspreading and landfarming evaporation and burial onsite incineration and other thermal

treatment bioremediation and composting discharge to the ocean reuse and recycling, and underground injection

Offsite Commercial Disposal of Oil Field Wastes Most oil field wastes are disposed onsite but

large volumes of oil field wastes are disposed offsite

Type of Waste % Disposed Offsite Vol. Disposed Offsitedrilling wastes 28% 102 million bblproduced water <2% <400 million bblassociated wastes 52% 6 million bblNORM >90% > 250,000 tons

1997 Survey of Offsite Disposal Practices

oil and gas states with few or no commercial disposal companiesoil and gas states with a network of commercial disposal companies

Method $/bbl $/yd $/tonlandspread 5.50-57 14-40 20 - 95landfill/pit 0.50-36 6.50-37.50

17- 150evaporation 2.50-2.75 4.20-18.90 --treat/reuse 0-12 12.50-28.50 12-45

incineration 10.50-38 -- 20-100injection 8.50-11.50 -- --salt cavern 1.95-8.50 -- --

1997 Disposal Costs for Oily and Solid Wastes from Interviews with Disposal

Companies(does not include transportation costs)

Estimates of Offshore Drilling Waste Disposal Costs from

Operators 1997 estimate was about $10/bbl plus

transportation and cleanup costs ~$20-30/bbl

1998 data shows wide range of costs most companies - $10-$50/bbl several companies from $100-$418/bbl

Disposal Cost Estimates - continued

during the recent SBM rulemaking, several operators submitted current cost data to EPA

most extreme was Unocal that cited actual data from 1997-1998 average cost of onshore disposal for 10

wells = $710/bbl average cost of injection for 11 wells =

$318/bbl overall average cost for 21 wells = $430/bbl

Basis for Unocal Estimate ratio of disposed

volume to cuttings volume for 5 wells 1,741 bbl cuttings

generated 15,223 bbl muds and

cuttings disposed 17,447 bbl washwater 19:1 cuttings to total

disposed volume

Basis for Unocal Estimate - continued

cost components considered rental of equipment and cuttings boxes rental of work boat and fuel cost clean up of cuttings boxes and vessels disposal of cuttings and washwater labor extra rig time for slowing down drilling

to accommodate solids handlingSource: Nelson Emery, Unocal

Waste Management Hierarchy

Waste minimization Product substitution

Reuse/recycle Reinjection of produced water for enhanced recovery Pretreatment, then reuse for landfill cover

Treatment/disposal Burial Landspread Injection Discharge to surface water body Evaporation Incineration

Examples of Argonne Analysis of Oil Field Waste Management Technologies Waste minimization

Synthetic-based muds (SBMs) Downhole oil/water separators (DOWS)

Reuse/recycle Restoration of wetlands

Treatment/disposal Salt cavern disposal Slurry fracture injection

Synthetic-Based Muds Offer Strong Drilling Performance and Low Environmental Impacts

Types of Drilling Fluids water-based muds

(WBMs)

oil-based muds (OBMs)

synthetic-based muds (SBMs)

Advantages of SBMs performance

comparable to or better than OBMs

low toxicity muds are recycled some deepwater

wells cannot be drilled without SBMs

Disadvantages of SBMs

high cost

uncertainty about discharging cuttings

Efforts to Resolve the Regulatory Barrier

1995 - DOE funded study to identify and clarify the problem

DOE established informal synthetic fluids discussion group EPA DOE MMS oil and gas operators drilling service companies

EPA used the group to present information needs for modifying ELGs

EPA’s Decision to Modify Offshore ELGs for SBMs [12/97] Normally need 4-6 years to develop ELG EPA recognized environmental benefits from

SBMs decided to use “expedited rulemaking”

approach proposed rule in 1 year final rule in 3 years

industry provided data to EPA iteratively EPA and other stakeholders met throughout the

process to discuss progress and exchange information and comments

What Has EPA Done?

Final rule 1/22/01 zero discharge of

fluids not attached to cuttings

cuttings discharges allowed with restrictions

Summary SBMs represent an

innovative, cost-effective, and environmentally friendly technology

EPA used expedited rulemaking process to develop new regulations for SBM cuttings discharges

This is a win/win/win situation

Downhole Oil/Water Separators (DOWS) Offer

Reduced Operating Costs and Enhanced Environmental

Protection

What Is A Downhole Oil/Water Separator (DOWS)?

tool that mounts in bottom of well and separates oil from water

oil is pumped to the surface

water is pumped to injection zone without coming to surface

Advantages of DOWS

reduces produced water handling costs

may increase oil production from individual wells or from a field

reduces opportunity for contamination of drinking water supplies

Types of DOWS

hydrocyclone type electric submersible pump progressing cavity pump rod pump

gravity separator type rod pump

HydroSep Configuration #2

PRODUCTION TUBING

BOOSTER PUMP

HIGH PRESS. SEAL

UPPER SEAL

MOTOR

THRUST CHAMBER

OIL BYPASS TUBES

INJECTION PUMP

CASING

OIL-WATER SEPARATOR

INJECTION TUBING

SEAL BORE ASM.

PACKER

INJECTION ZONE

PRODUCTION ZONE

Diagram of Hydrocyclone-Type DOWS (Hydrosep)

Source: Centrilift

Configuration of TAPS Source: Texaco

Problems Experienced

injection zone too close to production zone

electrical problems

damage during installation

erosion of pump materials and clogging of valves

corrosion and scaling

poor well selection

Summary Statistics - Performance

oil to surface increased in 19 trials; decreased in 12 trials top 3 hydrocyclone DOWS increased from 457% to

1,162%; 1 lost all oil production top three gravity-type DOWS increased from 106% to

233%; 1 lost all oil production

water to surface decreased in all trials hydrocyclone DOWS ranged from 29% to 97%; most

over 75% gravity-type DOWS ranged from 14% to 97%; most

over 75%

Feasibility Evaluation of Downhole Oil/Water Separator (DOWS)

Technology

Prepared for:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Fossil Energy

National Petroleum Technology Office

under Contract W-31-109-Eng-38

Prepared by:

John A. Veil - Argonne National Laboratory

Bruce G. Langhus - CH2M Hill

Stan Belieu - Nebraska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission

January 1999

To download a full copy of the report, go to:

www.ead.anl.gov

Wetlands Restoration Using Treated Drilling Waste –

A Beneficial Reuse of a Waste Product

Wetlands Loss

greatest environmental problem facing coastal Louisiana is the loss of wetlands

oil and gas industry has contributed to the loss

What Can Be Done?

restore damaged wetlands

use solid waste product from oil and gas exploration (treated drill cuttings) as a substrate for restoring wetlands

Background DOE funded Greenhill Petroleum to

conduct studies on using treated drill cuttings to restore wetlands1) laboratory mesocosm studies to assess

growth success Southeastern Louisiana University (SLU)

2) field pilot study near Venice, LA create berm out of dredged material fill inside of berm with treated cuttings plant with wetlands vegetation

SLU Mesocosm Studies 144 200-liter

growth vessels 4 3,000-liter

water supply reservoirs

3 hydrological regimes

four substrates 6 types of

wetlands plants 2 replicates of

each set of conditions

Results of Freshwater Mesocosm Studies

cuttings treated by process A (cuttings separated from drilling fluids) low toxicity supported plant growth

comparable to dredged material

cuttings treated by process B (cuttings separated and stabilized in a silica matrix) poor plant growth suspected problem was high pH

Site Location

Site Plan

Problems with Permits for Field Pilot Study Greenhill applied for 404

permit EPA wetlands office

generally agreed, but EPA discharge permit office objected disposal of drill cuttings is

subject to NPDES permit NPDES general permit

prohibits discharge of drill cuttings to coastal waters

Argonne Asked to Get Involved formed project team

DOE Argonne SLU SWACO XPLOR Energy

looked for other regulatory mechanisms that would lead to a permit

Project XL Was Only Viable Alternative

EPA Office of Reinvention program allows circumvention of existing environmental rules when applicant can show superior environmental benefits from project

Conclusions the concept of using treated

drill cuttings for wetlands restoration is sound

properly treated cuttings can support good growth

the process reuses a waste product for a beneficial purpose

additional work is needed to get U.S. and foreign regulators comfortable with the concept

Salt Caverns Represent a Cost-Effective and Safe Alternative for Disposal of Oil Field Wastes

The Waste Disposal Process

salt caverns are initially filled with brine

wastes are injected as a slurry of waste and water or brine

the incoming waste displaces the brine which is brought to the surface and either sold or injected into a disposal well

incoming waste

brine

Caverns Act Like Giant Oil/Water/Solids Separators

solids sink to the bottom and oil floats to the top

as wastes fill the cavern, the end of the tubing is raised so that filling can continue.

Cavern Failure Is Most Likely to Occur after Closure

creeping action of salt geothermal heat modeling of liquid-filled caverns

indicates: elevated pressures low likelihood of leaks and failures

solids-filled caverns will be equally or less likely to fail

Results of Risk Analysis carcinogens [goal: excess cancer risk 10-4 - 10-6]

Chemical Risk best-estimate 10-9 - 10-18

worst-case 10-8 - 10-17

100% release 10-7 - 10-16

noncarcinogens [goal: hazard index <1.0]Chemical Risk

best-estimate 10-5 - 10-8

worst-case 10-5 - 10-7

100% release 10-3 - 10-7

Disposal Caverns Are Safe for E&P and NORM Waste Disposal even when all caverns

leak, the modeled risks are within or below the acceptable risk ranges

human health risks from cavern disposal of oil field wastes are very low

Conclusions cavern disposal of E&P and NORM

waste is technically feasible cavern disposal poses very low

human health risks

Activity on Salt Cavern Information Web Site

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000Ju

l-99

Aug-

99Se

p-99

Oct-9

9No

v-99

Dec-

99Ja

n-00

Feb-

00Ma

r-00

Apr-0

0Ma

y-00

Jun-

00Ju

l-00

Aug-

00Se

p-00

Oct-0

0No

v-00

Dec-

00Ja

n-01

Feb-

01Ma

r-01

Apr-0

1Ma

y-01

Jun-

01Ju

l-01

Aug-

01Se

p-01

Oct-0

1No

v-01

Dec-

01Ja

n-02

Date

Slurry Fracture Injection Can Represent a Cost-Effective and Safe Alternative for Disposal of Oil Field Wastes

Types of Underground Injection of Solid or Semisolid Wastes

Salt caverns Sub-fracture

injection Newpark

Annular injection Slurry fracture

injection (SFI)

What Is Slurry Fracture Injection (SFI)?

Solid material is ground into small particles Pumped into a formation at high pressure

Formation fractures allowing slurry to move into rock

Layout of Equipment

Photos courtesy of Terralog Technologies

Many Names for the Process

SFI (trademarked) FSI Cuttings reinjection Grind and inject Others?

Examples of SFI

Single-well annular injection Several offshore Gulf of Mexico contractors Occasional onshore wells

Large scale injection projects Alaska – ARCO & BP Louisiana – Chevron California - Terralog Canada – Terralog

Photo courtesy of Terralog Technologies

Project Scope1. Identify and describe existing

injection technologies (SFI and other)

2. Identify commercial disposal companies that use SFI

3. Develop database of sites/facilities where SFI of oil field

wastes has occurred

Scope – continued4. Compile directory of state, federal, and

international (where applicable) requirements for SFI Laws, regulations, policies Identify areas where SFI is prohibited

5. Develop information on actual and avoided costs of SFI

6. Prepare report7. Disseminate information through

publications, conference presentations, and workshops (if necessary)

International Perspective

Many developing countries do not have well-established E&P waste requirements or infrastructure

U.S. companies operating there may face limited and costly disposal options Ex: oil-based muds in Mexico must be

managed by thermal desorption Efforts to develop a risked-based framework

for waste management

Opciones para el Manejo de Recortes de Emulsion Inversa

prueba para TPH>xxx ppm

Opciones

Disorpion termicapozo de inyecciondomo salinootras tecnologias

< xxx ppm

prueba para cloruros

< 3000 ppmOpciones

Disorpion termicapozo de inyecciondomo salino

tratamiento y reutilizacion

relleno o confinamiento

dispersion en caminos

dispersion en sitio

otras tecnologias

Opciones> 3000 ppm

Disorpion termicapozo de inyecciondomo salino

tratamiento y reutilizacion

relleno o confinamiento

otras tecnologias

Limites aceptables TPH cloruros

requerimientos de los sitios distancia de las corrientes profundidad del manto freatico

requerimientos de construccion contenedores pared de los contenedores

requerimientos de operacion agregar nutrientes y disces dentro del suelo tratar los residuos conociendo los objectivos para reutilizacion

requerimientos regulatorios monitoreo informes

Ejemplos de Criterios de Manejo