E&P Industry Makes Demonstrable Progress In Protecting Environment

(Tech Connections Column, December 2002, American Oil and Gas Reporter)

Society and industry today focus on achieving consensus. When achieving consensus, we must still consider individual input and innovative thinking. Nowhere is this more important than in the environmental arena where perception creates a sense that any project implemented near “my” backyard is unacceptable. It is vital that strides made by oil and natural gas producers in applying technologies that address environmental issues be recognized.

Petroleum Technology Transfer Council staff attended the International Petroleum Environmental Conference (IPEC) in Albuquerque, N.M. Much of the conference focused on exploration and production issues. A PTTC paper presented there focused on notable examples of small independents in California that had navigated through a tough regulatory environment to set positive examples.

In the quest for domestic production in mature U.S. fields, water management is a key concern, since the United States produces 30 billion barrels of water each year. Two-thirds of the water is injected in waterflooding or enhanced oil recovery projects, but a third is strictly a disposal expense. Costs to treat and dispose of this water range from $0.25 to more than $3.00 a barrel.

Within the Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory, the National Petroleum Technology Office administers 26 water-related projects grouped under water management approaches and analysis, water management technologies, and coalbed methane and produced water (See DOE’s Eye on Environment newsletter, summer 2002 issue, for information about these projects.).

Produced water issues are being investigated by PTTC in a DOE-funded Preferred Upstream Management Practices project focused in California, Oklahoma and Arkansas. PTTC’s South Mid-Continent Region is developing a guidebook titled Produced Water & Issues Associated With It.

In California, strong forces to reduce electric power consumption make water reduction strategies high priority. Early work by PTTC’s West Coast Region with the Electric Power Research Institute identified affordable technologies for reducing power consumption. This led to funding made available through Global Energy Partners for operators to implement power-saving technologies. PTTC is involved with technology transfer from that effort. PTTC is also exploring avenues that would provide funding to develop templates that would show California operators how to apply water reduction strategies that reduce power consumption. Some field demonstrations are envisioned in this project.

During IPEC, Donald Davis of Louisiana State University shared information about oil spill R&D in Louisiana, including in-situ burning of wetlands. A study conducted by LSU for the American Petroleum Institute summarizes information on 32 spill incidents for which in-situ burning was documented as a response tool. A second phase of the study included follow-up visits to four of the sites. Key lessons learned include:

• Burning most effectively reduces damage to vegetation and the areal extent of impact when it is used quickly.
• The optimal window of opportunity for in-situ burning can be days to months.
• Burning will not reduce the toxic effects of spilled oil prior to the burn, but it can reduce the extent and degree of additional impact.
• Responders should consider whether the fire will spread to un-oiled areas.
• It is important to record observations on the site conditions both prior to the burn and post-burn. For in-situ burning to be successful, there must be a thin layer of water on the marsh surface.

ChevronTexaco has been investigating bioremediation for treating E&P wastes and remediation of site spills since 1992. Successful bioremediation projects have been implemented in diverse climates around the world. During IPEC, Sara McMillen of ChevronTexaco Energy Research & Technology Company shared her company’s top 10 bioremediation lessons learned. Key points are:

• Special bug products are not needed.
• Not all crude oils are amenable to bioremediation.
• Select the best bio-treatment method for a particular site.
•  Use locally-available equipment and additives.
•  Use risk-based end points to determine how clean is clean.
• Nutrients should be water soluble.
•  Field tests can be used for monitoring.
• Training personnel is critical.
• Evaluate re-use options for bio-treated wastes.
• Consider cost.

Costs for treating small oil spills can be as low as $5,000. Full-scale land-farming costs can range from $4 to $21 a ton, depending on volumes treated. An earlier case study by Patina Oil and Gas demonstrates that small independents, too, can profitably apply land farming.