1 / 42

Innovations in the Oilfield: Finding Savings in Solid Drilling Waste

Innovations in the Oilfield: Finding Savings in Solid Drilling Waste. API – Houston Chapter January 14, 2014. Presentation Overview. Saving money by properly managing solid drilling waste

dyllis
Télécharger la présentation

Innovations in the Oilfield: Finding Savings in Solid Drilling Waste

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Innovations in the Oilfield:Finding Savings in Solid Drilling Waste API – Houston Chapter January 14, 2014

  2. Presentation Overview Saving money by properly managing solid drilling waste • What are the issues associated with solid drilling waste and why it is an Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) issue • Why managing (or mismanaging) this material has a direct impact on the bottom line • How specialized, onsite Solidification/Stabilization technology increases a company’s ESG performance

  3. Financial Impact: Solid Drilling Waste • Both disposal and construction costs are on the rise • Environmental impact and other liabilities from the mismanagement of solid drilling waste is costly

  4. The E(nvironment) Issue: Solid Drilling Waste • According to you, the American Petroleum Institute, for every foot drilled in the U.S., 1.21 barrels of drilling waste are generated • Approximately 50 percent of this is soliddrilling waste

  5. The E(nvironment) Issue: Solid Drilling Waste • Solid drilling waste is comprised of drilling mud and cuttings that cannot be pumped which include contaminants such as:  • Salts • Hydrocarbons • Metals • pH

  6. The E(nvironment) Issue: Solid Drilling Waste • The various types of solid drilling waste are classified according to the mud that was used to drill the well. There are three basic types of solid drilling waste: • Water-Based Mud and Cuttings • Fresh-water mud and cuttings (FWMC) • Salt-water mud and cuttings (SWMC) • Oil-Based Drilled Cuttings (OBC) • Synthetic Oil-Based Cuttings

  7. Characteristics of Different Types of Solid Drilling Waste from Various Fields* *This data is not intended to be considered an average of the specified analytes from the mud types. ** This FWMC was used on the top section of the hole through the fresh-water zone. *** This FWMC was used during the entire hole depth.

  8. Amounts of Selected Characteristics of Solid Drilling Waste Generated Per Well

  9. Solid Drilling Waste How is solid drilling waste managed?

  10. The (G)overnance Issue: Solid Drilling Waste Regulation • The oil and gas industry must dispose of solid drilling waste in accordance with various laws and regulations of federal, state and local governments • Extreme variability in state laws • Need for producers to have consistent approach

  11. The (G)overnance Issue: Solid Drilling Waste Regulation • The U.S. enacted The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) in 1976 • RCRA was created to provide guidance for managing both hazardous and non-hazardous solid waste • Most E&P wastes were exempted as hazardous under RCRA

  12. Example: Texas • The Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC), through the Oil and Gas Division, administers oil and gas exploration, development and production operations • The RRC has jurisdiction over most oil field wastes generated including solid drilling waste

  13. Example: Louisiana • The Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (DNR) preserves and enhances the nonrenewable natural resources of the state, such as oil and gas, through conservation, regulation, management and development • The DNR manages most issues with solid drilling waste

  14. U.S. EPA Waste Hierarchy • Most states with closure criteria primacy over E&P waste have adopted the Federal waste hierarchy

  15. U.S. EPA Waste Hierarchy • The EPA, various state agencies, industry organizations and companies recognize that disposing of waste should NOT be the first line of defense for protecting the environment • Rather, waste minimization – pollution prevention – should dominate the strategy

  16. U.S. EPA Waste Hierarchy Four Steps: 4. Disposal: The discharge, deposition, injection, dumping, spilling, leaking, or placing of any waste into or on land, water, or air

  17. U.S. EPA Waste Hierarchy Four Steps: 3. Treatment: Any method, technique, or process that changes the physical, chemical, or biological character of a waste

  18. U.S. EPA Waste Hierarchy Four Steps: 2. Recycling/Reuse: Reclaiming useful constituents of a waste material or removing contaminants from a waste so that it can be reused

  19. U.S. EPA Waste Hierarchy Four Steps 1. Source Reduction: Avoiding waste generation, generating the least volume, or generating the least toxic waste possible

  20. Traditional Solid Drilling Waste Management Approaches • Exploration & production operators: • Bury waste after partial treatment • Land-spread it • Transport to commercial, centralized waste management facilities

  21. Traditional Approaches: Burial • Pros • Simplicity • Low cost • Limited surface area requirements • Most likely onsite, or nearby in pits or landfills

  22. Traditional Approaches: Burial • Cons • Potential for waste to migrate and contaminate groundwater, resulting in liability • Not a choice for wastes with high concentrations of oil, salt, metals and industrial chemicals without further treatment

  23. Traditional Approaches: Landspread • Pros • Simplicity • Low cost • Potential to improve soil conditions • Naturally occurring microbes assimilate waste constituents in place

  24. Traditional Approaches: Landspread • Cons • Salts and metals cannot biodegrade • Potentially large land requirements • Soil may be damaged, depending on amount of high-molecular weight compounds • Dust control may be required

  25. Traditional Approaches: Haul to a Commercial Facility • Pros • When a regulatory agency does not allow onsite disposal • When onsite techniques are problematic (e.g. in marshy, high water table environments) • For relatively small volumes of waste

  26. Traditional Approaches: Haul to a Commercial Facility • Cons • Less universal regulations • Large processing facilities could have impact on nearby populations or surrounding environment (including increased risks associated with airborne particulate emissions) • Drilling can be interrupted • Some states have few or no disposal sites (cost-prohibitive)

  27. Cutting-Edge Solutions • How can oil and gas operators follow the EPA Waste Hierarchy to optimize regulatory compliance while minimizing disturbances to land, vegetation, water, air, natural habitats and communities? • How can cost savings be achieved?

  28. Cutting-Edge Solutions: Solidification/Stabilization • Proven, field technology used to treat contaminated sediment, sludge and soils • Involves mixing contaminated solid waste materials with treatment reagents to cause physical or chemical changes that will reduce environmental impact • Solidification: encapsulates contaminants • Stabilization: adsorbs contaminants

  29. Solidification/Stabilization • Solidification • Entrap contaminants within a solid matrix • Coating of contaminant molecule • Organics are generally immobilized due to reduced hydraulic conductivity • Stabilization • Bind or complex contaminants • May involve chemical transformation • Metallic contaminants are stabilized by precipitation or by interaction (e.g. sorption) with cement matrix

  30. The Process • Identify constituents of the solid drilling waste • Determine/design the most appropriate reuse, treatment and/or disposal options • Build/close the site accordingly • Verify success or indicate additional treatment requirements

  31. The Benefits Why solidification and stabilization technology? • To meet and often exceed the requirements of state and federal exploration and production waste management laws • Limits offsite movement of drilling waste – the contaminants stay with you • Reduces the possibility of accidental spills • Evidence-supported results

  32. The Benefits Onsite S/S Saves the Industry Money • In areas with high disposal and high construction costs • Drilling is not potentially interrupted - the service is mobile

  33. The Benefits Why solidification and stabilization technology? • Provides a mechanism for the recycling of solid drilling waste in the construction of roads, drilling pads, and other such structures, thereby reducing costs associated with construction materials Cross section of a processed pad

  34. The Benefits Why solidification and stabilization technology? • Peace of mind in effectively controlling the waste produced from drilling – it’s never mixed or commingled with another company’s waste • Reduces long-term liability issues because the waste is separated in structures with low hydraulic conductivity • Reinforces the link between a company’s Environment, Social and Governance practices and economic stability

  35. The Results Source Zone Footprint Solidified Columns Contaminants Water Table Low Hydraulic Conductivity Soil Groundwater Flow Direction Bedrock After S/S Before S/S

  36. The Results • S/S Process Option: Treat for Pit Closure After: Solidified & covered Before: Partially treated cuttings

  37. The Results • S/S Process Option: Treat and Recycle Before: Partially treated cuttings After: Stabilized & recycled for a road

  38. The Results: Pecos Case Study • Near Pecos, TX, a successful application turned contaminated drilled cuttings into an earth-friendly road surface to address environmental concerns in areas of oil and gas development.

  39. The Results: Pecos Case Study Is this a way to also address increased traffic causing significant damage to surface lease roads?

  40. S(ocial) Issue: R&D and Partnerships At Scott, we not only work closely with customers but also partner with research and development groups, as well as academic associations through major universities: • Houston Advanced Research Center (Dr. Richard Haut) • Environmentally Friendly Drilling Group (Pecos partner) • Texas A&M University (Pecos partner) • Natural Resources Law Center (University of Colorado)

  41. In Conclusion • There are specialized, cost-effective solutions that reduce the oil and gas industry’s environmental footprint  • By applying these solutions to management practices, we can create a sustainable link between a company’s ESG practices and economic stability

  42. Thank you Questions? For more information: www.scottenv.com info@scottenv.com

More Related