The document discusses the management of hazardous waste drilling mud and various remediation technologies presented in a seminar. It covers drilling mud fundamentals, waste disposal regulations, and compares treatment technologies such as chemical, biological, thermal, and physical methods. The findings indicate the need for combined treatment processes to meet strict environmental regulations on drilling mud disposal.

1. www.mun.ca
HAZARDOUS WASTE DRILLING
MUD MANAGEMENT – A CASE
STUDY ON REMEDIATION
TECHNOLOGIES
Presented at:
Oil Industry and the Environment Seminar
(NOTES 2015)
April 27, 2015
Hesam Hassan Nejad
Ph.D. Candidate, Oil & Gas Engineering
Supervisors: Dr. Kelly Hawboldt and Dr. Lesley James

2. www.mun.ca2
Outline
 Drilling Mud Fundamentals
 Regulations on Waste Drilling Mud
 Remediation Technologies
• Chemical techniques
• Biological techniques
• Thermal techniques
• Physical techniques
 Technical Comparison of Individual Technologies

3. www.mun.ca3
Waste Drilling Mud Production
Purpose of Drilling Mud:
• Prevent blowouts
• Balance & control pressure
• Minimize corrosion
• Lubricate and cool
• Remove drill cuttings
[1]

4. www.mun.ca4
Drilling Mud Composition
Drilling mud:
• A solid-liquid slurry
• Very high viscosity
• High content of oil and heavy metals
• Bentonite, barite, and other polymers
The composition of the drilling mud depends on the:
• Type of drilling fluid in use
• Composition of the formation

5. www.mun.ca5
Non-Aqueous vs Water Based
Drilling Fluids
5
Non-Aqueous Based Drilling Fluids
Diesel-based fluids
Aromatic content 25%, 2% ≤ PAH ≤ 4 %)
Low toxicity mineral oil-based fluids
0.001% ≤ PAH ≤ 0.35%
Synthetic-based fluids (SBFs)
PAH ≤ 0.001%
[2]
Water Based
Drilling Fluids

6. www.mun.ca6
Waste Drilling Mud Disposal
 Depending on the regulation, the treatment may vary
 Local authorities may have their own regulations
 Inject waste drilling mud into a formation with high porosity
and high permeability
 In the absence of overboard disposal, another option is to
bring it to shore for land disposal
EPA Regulations
 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Oslo and Paris
Commission (OSPAR) regulations [3]:
• Oil on solid particles should not exceed 1% (wt./wt.)
 Hazardous metal concentrations should be less than specific
amounts
• Toxicity characteristics leaching procedure (TCLP)

7. www.mun.ca7
Waste Drilling Mud Disposal -
Newfoundland Regulations
Oil Based Drilling Fluids
• At no time can be discharged to sea
Synthetic Based Drilling Fluids
• Required to have a PAH concentration of < 10 mg/kg and be
able to biodegrade under aerobic conditions
• Oil on cuttings retention limit of 6.9% wet weight
Water Based Drilling Fluids
• Discharge of drill cuttings associated with water based
drilling muds is permitted
[4]

8. www.mun.ca8
Current Treatment Technologies
 Waste drilling mud treatment technologies are categorized
into four main groups:
• Chemical treatment
• Biological Treatment
• Thermal Treatment
• Physical Treatment

9. www.mun.ca9
Current Technologies
Chemical Treatment
 Destroys the contaminants or converts them to harmless
compounds.
 The most common chemical methods involve oxidants such as
hydrogen peroxide and ozone
 Disadvantages:
• High cost
• Ineffective at higher pH
[5]

10. www.mun.ca10
 Another chemical treatment option is to solidify/stabilize the
hazardous waste to convert them into less toxic materials.
 Many reports have been published regarding adding some
chemicals for drilling mud solidification such as lime, cement,
and aluminum sulphate
 Advantages:
• Relatively short processing time
• Effective
 Disadvantages:
• Increase in waste volume
• Difficult to implement
• Need for other chemical compounds increases cost
Current Technologies
Chemical Treatment

11. www.mun.ca11
 Biotechnologies involve the use of micro–organisms to
degrade or mineralize the organic components of drill waste
 Advantages:
• Cost effective
• Green process
Current Technologies
Biological Treatment
 Disadvantages:
• Slow reaction times
• Long processing times
• Temperature sensitivity
[6]

12. www.mun.ca12
 Removes or destroys hydrocarbon pollutants in the drilling
waste by desorption, incineration, gasification, volatilization,
and pyrolysis (or a combination thereof)
 Advantages:
• Very effective
• High volume reduction
Current Technologies
Thermal Treatment
 Disadvantages:
• Toxic gas production
• High energy requirement
• Very expensive
• No oil recovery
[7]

13. www.mun.ca13
 Surfactants (detergent) reduce the interfacial tension (IFT)
between the water and oil phases
 Surfactants liberate the oil from the solid surface
 Surfactants can be used in mixtures with/without additives [8]
[9]
Current Technologies
Physical Treatment:
Surfactant Enhanced Washing

14. www.mun.ca14
 Advantages:
• Cost-effective
• Easy to implement
 Disadvantages:
• Usually ineffective in hydrocarbon removal
• May increase waste volume
Current Technologies
Physical Treatment:
Surfactant Enhanced Washing

15. www.mun.ca15
 Cationic Surfactants:
• Hazardous nature to humans and nature
• Very high soil sorption
 Anionic Surfactants:
• Lower toxicity than cationic surfactants
• CMC values greater than cationic and non-ionic surfactants
• Least adsorption to soil (significant advantage)
 Non-ionic Surfactants:
• Intermediate sorption
• Low biotoxicity
• CMC values much less than anionic and cationic
surfactants
Current Technologies
Physical Treatment:
Surfactant Enhanced Washing

16. www.mun.ca16
 Supercritical Fluids posses:
• Temperature above the critical temperature
• Pressure above the critical pressure
• Liquid-like densities
• Gas-like viscosities
• Zero surface tension
 Carbon dioxide is the most widely used supercritical fluid:
• Non-flammability
• Chemically inert
• Low toxicity
• Low environmental impacts
• Low critical temperature and pressure (31oC and 74 bar)
Current Technologies
Physical Treatment:
Supercritical Fluid Extraction

17. www.mun.ca17
 Advantages:
• Efficient
• No/less solvent required
• Short extraction times
• Easy to separate pollutants from the solvent
 Disadvantages:
• High cost
• More safety issues
Current Technologies
Physical Treatment:
Supercritical Fluid Extraction

18. www.mun.ca18
Technical Comparison
Factor
Weighting
Treatment Method
Chemical Thermal Physical Biological
Removal Efficiency 30 20 28 18 20
Environmental Pollution
Volume of produced waste 10 6 6 9 9
Hazardous pollution caused 10 8 1 9 9
Cost
Capital cost 10 8 4 8 6
Operational cost 10 8 6 10 6
Energy requirements 10 7 4 9 6
Processing time 10 7 9 5 1
Particle size
(ability to treat very fine particles)
10 9 9 8 8
Total 100 73 67 76 65

19. www.mun.ca19
Recommendations
 According to the literature, no current technology, except the
thermal treatment processes, is capable of achieving the NL
or EPA’s regulations of 6.9% or 1% oil on cuttings,
respectively
 There is a need for a combined process with appropriate pre
and post treatment processes to treat the waste drilling mud
 As recommended, physical treatments are suitable
candidates for designing and developing a combined method
to treat the waste drilling mud to meet the strict regulations

20. www.mun.ca20
Future Work
 There is no sole technology, except thermal treatment,
capable of reaching disposal regulations, there is a need to
find alternative solutions including combination physical
technologies to treat the drilling mud for land disposal.
 Research is currently being conducted at Memorial
University to test the optimal removal efficiency using
• surfactant enhanced washing and
• supercritical fluid extraction processes.

21. www.mun.ca21
References
[1]. Growcock, F. and T. Harvey (2005). Drilling fluids. Drilling Fluids Processing Handbook.
ASME Shale Shaker Committee. Burlington, MA, Gulf Professional Publishing.
[2]. A. M. Shaikh, Environmental Management of Drilling Mud, Master’s thesis, Delft
University of Technology, January 2010
[3]. OSPAR convention for the protection of the marine environment of the north east
Atlantic, OSPAR Commission summary record OIC 2002, ANNEX 12, 2002
[4]. J. Whitford, Stantec Limited, Cuttings Treatment Technology, Evaluation Environmental
Studies Research Funds Report No. 166. St. John’s, NL, July 2009, ISBN 0-921652-85-2
[5]. Ozone secondary disinfection system, Public swimming venues under MAHC compiliance,
January 1st, 2013
[6]. Available at: https://www.sintef.no/projectweb/nomremove/water-treatment-
processes/biological-treatment/
[7]. Available at: http://www.eisenmann.com/en/products-and-services/environmental-
technology/waste-disposal/rotary-kiln.html
[8] P. Yan et al., Remediation of oil-based drill cuttings through a biosurfactant-based
washing followed by a biodegradation treatment, Bioresource Technology 102 (2011)
10252–10259
[9]. Thomkatt, Understanding Basic Chemicals, Available at:
http://www.janitorkatt.com/understanding-basic-chemicals

22. www.mun.ca22
Acknowledgements
 Dr. Lesley James and Dr. Kelly Hawboldt for developing this
project and their kindest help and support throughout the
whole project
 Leslie Harris Centre of Regional and Policy Development
for partially funding this project through their 2014-15
MMSB Waste Management Applied Research Fund
Supportedby

23. www.mun.ca23
Thank You for Your Attention