See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261833577

Pollution prevention in offshore oil and gas

operations: Opportunities and implementation

Conference Paper · January 2012

CITATIONS READS

0 326

2 authors:

Ming Yang Faisal Khan

Nazarbayev University Memorial University of Newfoundland
44 PUBLICATIONS 186 CITATIONS 479 PUBLICATIONS 7,328 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

industrial safety View project

Retrospective Rosk Analysis and Control for Semabal Gran Storage Hybrid Mixture Explosion View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ming Yang on 25 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 th
12 International Environmental Specialty Conference
ième
12 conférence internationale spécialisée sur le génie de l’environnement

Edmonton, Alberta
June 6-9, 2012 / 6 au 9 juin 2012

Pollution Prevention in Offshore Oil and Gas Operations:

Opportunities and Implementation
a a
Ming Yang , Faisal I Khan
a
Process Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, Memorial University of
Newfoundland, St John’s, NL, Canada A1B 3X5

Abstract: Rapid development of offshore oil and gas (OOG) production, increasing
environmental awareness, and strict legislations support the need for pollution prevention (P2) in
OOG operations. However, the implementation of P2 has been impeded due to (1) the lack of
well-developed P2 technologies, and (2) the requirement of more re-development, training, and
disruption in current operations compared to pollution control technologies. In this regard, this
paper investigates the P2 opportunities in OOG operations. Future work is required for the
development of reliable and cost effective technologies or practices with respect to these P2
opportunities. Moreover, the integration of P2 and environmental management system (EMS) is
proposed for the effective and systematic implementation of P2 options.

1. Introduction

Global offshore oil and gas (OOG) production is rapidly expanding to fill the energy gap. Since
the offshore environment is sensitive, attention is increasingly given to environmental issues
associated with OOG operations. Until recently, conventional pollution control technologies have
been the major practice in OOG operations to remediate pollution after wastes has been
discharged (Fakhru’l-Razi et al., 2009; Shang et al., 2006). However, this is not sustainable due
to the requirement of large infrastructure and manpower (Hossain et al., 2008). Moreover, these
technologies usually generate another form of pollution while remediating one. Finally, recent
years have seen more strict environmental legislations with respect to OOG operations. All of the
above support the need for implementation of the more effective pollution prevention (P2) options
in OOG operations.

P2 is the use of any process, material, and practice that reduces or eliminates the creation of
pollutants (Environment Canada, 1999). It is a re-thinking of the source of pollution to examine
whether it is possible to optimize or redesign the process to reduce or eliminate the production of
pollutants, thus no or less control or mitigation activities will be needed. P2 addresses
environmental impacts more effectively through the following six common practices: (1) product
or process design, (2) equipment modification and process changes, (3) raw material substitution,
(4) improvement of operating efficiency, (5) on-site reuse and recycling, and (6) inventory
management. P2 encourages operators to have a holistic view of environmental issues, and
provide opportunities to improve their environmental performance instead beyond just regulatory
compliance. P2 is a preferred paradigm for environmental protection in many industries, because
it has numerous economic benefits (Zarker & Kerr, 2008).

ENV-1073-1
At present, more OOG operators have realized the benefits that P2 has over pollution control
technologies. These benefits include reduced cost, improved environmental performance,
workers’ health and safety, competitiveness, regulatory compliance, and better company
reputation (OCED, 1995). Nevertheless, P2 has not been infectious throughout the OOG industry
due to the following barriers:
(1) The availability of well-developed P2 technologies with respect to OOG operations is limited;
(2) Conventional pollution control technologies are more attractive to operators with limited
budget and funds because they require less re-development, training, and disruption.
To overcome the above barriers, studies on P2 in OOG operations are necessary. This paper
aims to provide an overview of P2 opportunities in OOG operations and propose a method for
implementation. The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents a summary of
environmental impacts caused by OOG operations. This is followed by discussions on P2
opportunities in Section 3. Section 4 proposes a method to systematically implement P2. Finally,
conclusions are made in Section 5.

2. Environmental Impacts

The life cycle of OOG operations (Figure 1) consists of four major stages: geological and
geophysical survey, exploration, development and production, and decommissioning. The OOG
operations generate large amounts of wastes that are usually discharged into the offshore
environment (Patin, 1999). Table 1 provides a summary of the environmental impacts that may
be caused by OOG operations. The most intense and diverse environmental impacts are faced
during the development and production stage. Generally, the environmental impacts of OOG
operations can be divided into two broad categories: (1) chronic impacts caused by regular waste
discharges and atmospheric emissions, and (2) acute impacts caused by large-scale accidental
blowouts or spills. Table 2 summarizes the types of wastes generated in OOG operations.

The increasing awareness of environmental issues has driven the establishment of stringent
regulations. In order to achieve regulatory compliance or even beyond-compliance, OOG
operators require more effective and holistic practices. Therefore, P2 opportunities in OOG
operations need to be investigated.

ENV-1073-2
Figure 1 Life cycle of OOG operations

ENV-1073-3
 Table 1 Environmental impacts and their sources (Patin, 1999)
Stage Activities Sources Type and Nature of Impacts

Geological and Aerial Survey Aircraft Noise caused by low-level flights,

geophysical short-term impacts on human and
survey marine livings

Seismic survey Seismic Acoustic source, short-term

equipment disturbance to marine organism and
fish population
Vessel Atmospheric and aquatic emissions
operations from vessels, short term

Test drilling Core and shallow Increase in turbidity, disturbance on

drilling, deep bottom, discharge of drilling mud and
drilling cuttings

Exploration Site selection and Operations Emissions and discharges of

exploratory drilling pollutants, disturbance to fisheries,
accidental blowouts

Plugging the well and Operations Long-term impacts on benthic and

abandonment pelagic habitats, biodiversity

Development and Platform Operations Construction discharges, long term

production emplacement, and chronic effects of discharges on
pipeline laying benthic and pelagic biota

Drilling for production Operations Drilling fluids and cuttings discharge,

and injection wells produced water, accidental spillage,
impacts on fisheries, physical
disturbance
Vessel traffic Vessel Operational emissions and
operations discharges, impacts on marine birds,
mammals and other organisms

Decommissioning Platform/facility Operations Operational emissions and

removal, plugging, discharges, impacts on fisheries,
use of explosive marine organisms if explosive
charges charges are used

ENV-1073-4
 Table 2 Wastes generated in OOG operations (Khan, 2006)
Seismic exploration Drilling Production Decommissioning

• Sounds • Drilling fluids • Produced water • Abandoned

structures
• Human • Drilling cuttings • Treatment and
generated completion fluids • Cut pieces of
• Produced sands
wastes: oil structures
• Deck drainage
sanitary • Storage displacement
• Scrap
wastes, kitchen water • Produced sand
materials
and food
• Ballast water • Ballast water
wastes, laundry
wastes, and • Deck drainage • Well treatment
sink and fluids
• Well treatment fluids
shower
• Naturally occurring
drainage, trash • Naturally occurring
radioactive
radioactive materials
materials
• Cooling water
• Cooling water
• Desalination brine
• Desalination brine
• Water for testing fire
• Water for testing
control
fire control
• Accidental discharges:
• Accidental
oil spills, chemical
discharge: oil
spills, blowouts
spills, chemical
• Human generated spills, blowouts
wastes: sanitary
• Human generated
wastes, kitchen and
wastes: sanitary
food wastes, laundry
wastes, kitchen
wastes, and sink and
and food wastes,
shower drainage,
laundry wastes,
trash
and sink and
• Other industrial shower drainage,
wastes: cardboard, trash
empty containers,
• Other industrial
scrap metal, wood
wastes: cardboard,
pallets, used
empty containers,
chemicals and paint,
scrap metal, wood
sandblasting grit and
pallets, used
paint, and cooling
chemicals and
water
paint, sandblasting
grit and paint, and
cooling water

3. Pollution Prevention Opportunities

In this section, P2 opportunities with respect to the major waste streams are discussed.

ENV-1073-5
3.1 Produced Water

Produced water is the water separated from oil or gas during production phase. It may include
formation water, injection water and solutions of chemicals used to separate oil-water mixtures.
Produced water cannot be avoided because it naturally occurs in sub-sea formations and comes
together with extracted oil and gas. It is usually discharged on-site after the treatment to reduce
the oil concentration to a regulated level (e.g., 30mg/L monthly average). These treatment
technologies include gravity separation, parallel plate separator, gas floatation, hydrocyclone,
skim plie, and biological treatment.

Produced water re-injection for pressure maintenance and oil recovery is a P2 option. Different
from re-injection for disposal (Ovalle et al., 2009), this option can lead to the following benefits:
(1) Reduced produced water treatment cost;
(2) Reduced flaring due to less need for depressurization for hydrate prevention;
(3) Increased oil recovery due to increased reservoir pressure.
Nevertheless, possibility of reservoirs plugging due to precipitation of dissolved solid is a problem
that needs to be solved in this option. Sulphate reduction plant is proposed to reduce sulphate
concentration in the seawater that is re-injected with produced water (Bedrikovetsky et al., 2009).

Another P2 option exists in the separation of produced water with the oil-body down the well
using sub-sea separation technologies. This will not only minimizes the impact of produced water
causes to topside facilities, but also reduces the amount of energy required to lift the produced
water and oil/gas mixtures prior to separation on the platform. The implementation of this option
requires reliable and energy efficient sub-sea separation technologies.

3.2 Drilling Wastes

Drilling wastes are composed of drilling cuttings and fluids. They may cause a number of physical
changes to the local marine environment near drilling rigs. Drilling cuttings are crushed rocks
generated by drilling bit when it goes through the formation. Drilling fluids are mixtures of
chemicals and inert materials in carrier fluids. They are applied for lubrication, well sealing, and
removal of drilling cuttings from a drill bit (Fraser & Ellis, 2009). Generally, based on different
carrier fluids, drilling fluids can be divided into three categories: water-based fluids (WBF), oil-
based fluids (OBF) and synthetic oil-based fluids (SBF).

Using SBF is one P2 practice compared to WBF and OBF because of its reduced cuttings, air
emissions and energy use (U.S. EPA, 2000). Additionally, SBF is environmental benign due to its
potential to biodegrade under aerobic condition (National Energy Board, 2002). A detailed study
on SBF as a P2 option can be found in Veil et al., (1995).

Advancement in special drilling tools, such as hydraulic mud motors, down-hole directional tool,
three-dimensional seismic data interpretation, brings another P2 opportunity. Because all these
tools enable drillings to penetrate precise targets, thus reduce the number of wells that are
needed to produce a field, and finally reduce the drilling wastes to be treated and discharged.

Efficient solids control system optimizes the size, type and amount of solids in drilling fluids. If
operated with perfect efficiency, mechanical solids control equipment would return 100% of the
drilling fluid to the circulating system. Equation 1 presents the relationship between the amount of
required drilling fluids and the solid remove efficiency (SRE). It shows that a higher SRE leads to
less requirement of drilling fluids. Therefore, there exists a P2 opportunity in developing
technologies to maximize SRE of solid control systems in offshore drilling.

ENV-1073-6
[1]
(Vol. of Cuttings, m3) × (1-SRE/100) × (1-Fraction drill solids in fluid)
3
Required fluid (m ) =
(Fraction drill solids in fluid)

(CAPP, 2001)

Another P2 opportunity is the substitution of well drilling. Substitution for well drilling implies
complete elimination of the environmentally unfriendly drilling fluids and cuttings. A potential
substitute for well drilling with unconsolidated rock cover is the use of the jetting technology. This
technology involves settling soil by injecting water under pressure into the soil mass through a
small diameter pipe (Bienen et al., 2009). As such, oil in the upper layer sediments (0 -100m) can
be extracted with clay suspended seawater instead of drilling fluids (Patin, 1999).

3.3 Storage Displacement Water

Storage displacement water is the water from oil storage cells used for displacing crude oil during
transfer to other containers. Its amount is directly proportional to the size of the storage tank. The
discharge rate complies with the production rate of crude oil.

As a P2 option, storage displacement water can be directed into the water injection system after
minor treatments with chemical additives such as inhibitors. This eliminates the discharge of
storage displacement water. However, studies are required to investigate how this integration can
be realized.

3.4 Deck Drainage

Deck drainage is the waste stream generated from natural precipitation, deck washing, tank and
facility cleaning. Deck drainage may contain various contaminants, including detergents and
dispersants used for washing, emulsified oil and some other chemicals. The volume of deck
drainage is proportional to the size of the platform and its discharge rate is dependent on the
frequency of wash-down operations and natural precipitation.

Since platform size and frequency of wash-down operations determine the volume of deck
drainage, an appropriate platform size design and/or efficient wash-down operations could reduce
deck drainage discharge. Wash-down operation plans should aim to achieve minimum frequency
of regular cleaning. Efficient facilities should be applied, such as an energy efficient pump.

3.5 Flaring Emissions

Flaring emission is the emission from combustion of waste gases in an open flame. It occurs
during well testing, waste gas disposal and emergencies. Flaring is a necessary practice in OOG
operations because it can prevent damages and convert toxic gas to less hazardous emissions.
Gas flaring may take place during various operations of OOG production. During processing,
waste emissions (e.g., hydrogen sulfide rich gases) are flared. Waste gases produced during well
testing are also flared. Generally, flaring emission is usually found at wells, dehydrators,
compressors and gathering pipelines.

Rather than flaring, a potential P2 option is to re-inject the waste gases into an appropriate
underground formation. Some operators (e.g., Hibernia project operator in Atlantic Canada) are

ENV-1073-7
currently exploring this possibility (Dillon Consulting, 2004). However, the design of re-injection
compressor is a major challenge in this regard.

Waste gases produced during well testing are disposed by flaring. In order to reduce flaring
emissions, the number of well testing should be minimized. Even though it is unreasonable to
limit testing during initial well exploration; however, the number of testing on discovered wells can
potentially be reduced. A foreseeable challenge lies in establishing a balance between the
number of testing and the accuracy of information used to make good production decisions.

One significant source of flaring emissions is flaring of natural gas (methane) and light
hydrocarbons, which are produced along with oil. If economically and technically viable, these
waste gases should be collected, compressed, and used for onsite power generation.

4. Proposed Method for Implementing Pollution Prevention

The implementation of P2 options needs systematic planning, integrated practice, evaluation and
corrective actions that are similar to an environmental management system (EMS) framework.
Therefore, the most effective way is to integrate P2 into the EMS’s continuous cycle of planning,
implementing and operating, evaluating, and improving environmental performance.

The EMS can be utilized to systematically manage all activities in OOG operations that give rise
to environmental impacts. Almost all EMS follows a Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle. The most well
accepted EMS framework (as shown in Figure 2) is based on ISO 14001, which is seen as an
effective tool to implement an organization’s environmental strategies (Lawrence et al., 2002).
This international standard framework is based on the above PDCA cycle. It starts from an
organization’s commitment to an environmental policy. Then, the organization should establish an
environmental management program to develop, implement, review and maintain the
environmental policy.

On one side, through an EMS, P2 options can be routinely considered at the start through to the
end of an environmental management process and will help minimize environmental impacts
within the organization. On the other side, P2 shall be integrated with the EMS due to the
following reasons:
(1) Less effort and investment are needed to develop and operate waste treatment systems
when wastes are eliminated or minimized through P2 strategies;
(2) P2 can be the key for effective EMS because it can help to identify environmental problems
and opportunities for improvements; and
(3) P2 can easily integrated with EMS because it is also based on a similar cycle of continuous
improvements.

ENV-1073-8
 Figure 2 A standard EMS framework (ISO, 2004)

Based on the above thoughts, the framework for implementing P2 was proposed and given in
Figure 3. As shown in this figure, the starting point is defining the system boundary of the EMS.
Will it consider all of the four stages of OOG operations (i.e., geological and geophysical survey,
exploration, development and production, and decommissioning) or only a specific stage? This
decision influences the subsequent identification of environmental issues and P2 options. Having
prioritized the environmental issues, all applicable legal requirements need to be identified. This
is important, as regulatory compliance is the bottom line that an EMS aims to achieve. The
visions, values, and goals of stakeholders and other decision makers constitute the basis for
establishing pollution prevention and control strategies, lists of attributes that will be evaluated in
decision-making, and a procedure for how to perform decision-making processes.

ENV-1073-9
The next step is to identify P2 opportunities applicable to the identified significant environmental
issues and generate a list of alternative pollution protection options. A risk informed decision-
making (RIDM) method could be used to select the suitable alternatives. Because it can provide a
mechanism of quantifying environmental impacts and evaluating various solutions by reporting
associated risks. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) defines RIDM as an approach
to decision-making in which insights from probabilistic risk analyses are considered with other
engineering insights. RIDM is mostly applied in areas such as establishing maintenance
programs, optimizing inspection policies, justifying plant modifications, and revising technical
specifications (Christou & Mattarelli, 2000; Simola & Pulkkinen, 2004). Figure 4 shows a standard
RIDM process. RIDM has been employed in recent years for the management of environmental
issues such as the redevelopment of Brownfield sites, restoration of chemically affected soil and
groundwater, and decision-making related to wetlands and surface waters impacted by pollutants
(Arulanantham & Feldman, 2003). RIDM has been the subject of great interest in environmental
management because it is able to encode and incorporate the uncertainties of environmental
risks inherent along with other useful information. Moreover, RIDM allows environmental
management to address the uncertainties associated with the process and identify areas that
may be over/under designed. Therefore, RIDM paradigm has the potential to be used as a tool in
properly managing environmental risks and improving overall environmental management within
an organization.

Implementation of the selected alternatives requires the proper assignment of responsibility and
good communications during operations. Moreover, emergency planning is also required to help
to achieve short and long term responses and recovery during an unexpected emergency event.
Finally, the environmental performance of the current operation shall be evaluated. Based on the
results of environmental performance evaluation, decision makers need to identify opportunities
for improvements and update their current environmental management strategies.

ENV-1073-10
Figure 3 Proposed method to implement pollution prevention

ENV-1073-11
 Figure 4 The risk-informed decision-making (RIDM) process (NRC, 2004)

5. Conclusions

This paper has provided an overview of pollution prevention (P2) in OOG operations. Various
environmental impacts and strict regulations make P2 imperative in OOG operations. However,
technologic and economic barriers have prevented the implementation of P2 in current operations.
P2 opportunities seen in relation to major waste streams in OOG operations have been discussed
in this study. These P2 options require numerous future researches to become scientifically and
economically feasible. Additionally, the implementation of P2 options needs systematic planning,
integrated practice, evaluation and corrective actions that are similar to an EMS framework.
Therefore, an effective way to implement P2 is through the EMS’s continuous cycle of planning,
implementing, evaluating, and improving environmental performance. A RIDM method could be

ENV-1073-12
used to select the suitable P2 alternatives within the EMS framework. The risk-based approach is
able to encode and incorporate the environmental risks inherent along with other useful
information in decision-making.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the financial support for this research from the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada through the Strategic Grant Program.

References

Arulanantham, R. & Feldman, L. (2003). Sustaining risk-informed decision-making (RIDM)

measures. Ecosystem and Sustainable Development, I, 539-547.
Bedrikovetsky, P.G., Mackay, E., Silva, R., Patricio, F., Rosário, F. (2009). Produced
water re-injection with seawater treated by sulphate reduction plant: Injectivity decline,
analytical model. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 68 (1-2), 19-28.
Bienen, B., Gaudin, C., Cassidy, M. (2009). The influence of pull-out load on the
efficiency of jetting during spudcan extraction. Applied Ocean Research, 31(3), 202-211.
CAPP. (2001). Offshore drilling waste management review. Retrieved May 2009 from
http://eps.mcgill.ca/~courses/c550/Environmental-impact-of-drilling/Offshore Drilling Waste
Management Review.pdf.
Christou, M. D. & Mattarelli, M. (2000). Land-use planning in the vicinity of chemical sites: Risk-
informed decision making at a local community level. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 78 (1-3),
191-222.
Dillion Consulting. (2004). Pollution prevention opportunities in offshore oil and gas sector: final
report. Calgary, Canada: Environmental Studies Research Funds.
Environment Canada. (1999). Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA). Retrieved April,
2011 from: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-15.31/
Fakhru’l-Razi, A., Pendashteh, A., Abdullah, L.C., Biak, D.R.A., Madaeni, S. S., Abidin, Z.Z.
(2009). Review of technologies for oil and gas produced water treatment. Journal of
Hazardous Material, 170 (2-3), 530-551.
Fraser, G. S. & Ellis, J. (2009). The Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act:
Transparency of the environmental management of offshore oil and gas industry. Marine
Policy, 33(2), 312-316.
Hossain, K., Khan, F., Hawbolt, K. (2009). Sustainable development of process facilities: state-of-
the-art review of pollution prevention frameworks. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 150(1), 4-
20.
ISO. (2004). Environmental management systems – requirements with guidance for
use (ISO 14001:2004). Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization.
Khan, M. I. (2006). Towards sustainability in offshore oil and gas operations. PhD
thesis. Dalhousie University. Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com. AAT NR42713.
Lawrence, L., D. Andrews, B. Ralph, C. F. (2002). Identifying and assessing
environmental impacts: investigating ISO14001 approaches. The TQM Magazine, 14(1), 43-
50.
OECD. (1995), Technologies for cleaner production and products—towards
technological transformation for sustainable development, Paris: OECD publication service.
Ovalle, A., Ronderos, J., Simmons, S. (2009). Waste injection: The environmentally safe and
cost-effective solution for ultimate waste disposal. Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum
Engineering Conference, 31 May-3 June 2009, Cartagena de Indias, Colombia.
National Energy Board. (2002). Offshore waste treatment guidelines (OWTG). Retrieved
Sep., 2008 from: http://www.cnlopb.nl.ca/leg_guidelines.shtml

ENV-1073-13
 NRC (National Regulatory Commission). (2004). Overview of a framework for risk-
informed decision-making in NMSS. Retrieved May, 2009, from
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/secys/2004/secy2004-
0182/attachment1.pdf.
Patin S. (1999). Environmental impact of the offshore oil and gas industry. New York:
EcoMonitor Publishing.
Shang, H., Snape, C.E., Kingman, S.W., Robinson, J.P. (2006). Microwave treatment of oil-
contaminated North Sea drill cuttings in a high power multimode cavity. Separation and
Purification Technology, 49 (1), 84-90.
Simola, K. & Pulkkinen, U. (2004). Risk-informed decision- making, a pre-study.
Retrieved Jun 6, 2009, from http://www.risoe.dk/rispubl/nks/nks-93.pdf.
U.S. EPA. (2000). Environmental assessment of final effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for synthetic-based drilling fluids and other non-aqueous drilling fluids in oil and gas
extraction point source category. Washington, DC: United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water.
Veil, J. A., Burke, C., Moses, D. (1995). Synthetic drilling fluids-a pollution prevention
opportunity for the oil and gas industry. Retrieved July, 2008 from:
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/184270zuPM9/webviewable/184270.pdf
Zarker, K. A. & Kerr, R. L. (2008). Pollution prevention through performance-based
initiatives and regulation in the United States. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16
(6), 673-685.

ENV-1073-14

View publication stats