Society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE 27162

Drilling Waste Controls

J.T. Cline and WA Piper, Amoco Production Co.
SPE Members

Copyright 1994, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Second International Conference on Health, Safety & Environment in Oil & Gas Exploration & Production held in Jakarta, Indonesia,
25-27 January 1994.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Commi1tee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented: does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to pubhcal10n revIew by EdItOrial Committees of the Society
of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contam conspicuous acknOWledgment
of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083·3836, U.S.A. Telex, 163245 SPEUT.

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION

Drilling wastes are about 75% of the solid wastes
generated by Amoco Production Company operations.
This paper discusses the current status of controlling
wastes generated during drilling, applying new technology
and tracking the wastes with an Amoco developed
Environmental Data Management System (EDMS). Case
studies include field data, designs, economics and
optimization. Advances in waste control technologies are
currently being made: to treat low toxicity, high volume
cuttings to be usable soil; to minimize mud and cuttings
wastes with effective solids control equipment; to use
down hole injection to eliminate cuttings and mud
discharged to the sea; and to use synthetic muds for
reducing environmental effects (Le., tOXicity). The EDMS
database being used to monitor drilling wastes has
benefits such as tracking and quantifying wastes to final
disposal, helping to focus on the technological needs for
the impacted environment, and helping to identify cost
benefits of various drill waste controls. But, measurement
(estimation) of drill waste characteristics and quantities
can be seriously in error. Industry focus on common
terms and techniques is needed.
References and illustrations at end of paper.
Today, the world-wide trend in environmental regulation is
a rapid change toward much stricter limits and improved
enforcement. Protocols now are quickly being adopted
throughout the world, and environmental ministries are
becoming established that may aggressively set local
laws, regUlations and permit limits. Additionally, Amoco
has established its own World-Wide Standards of
Environmental Care, which sets forth goals of
environmental protection and environmentalleadership2.
Drilling operations personnel are responding with
environmental management systems to control their
wastes, often of large quantity. In the USA alone, nearly
30,000 wells were drilled by the Industry in 1991,
generating 157 MM bbl of waste 1. At Amoco, the drilling
wastes account for about 3% of the total domestic waste,
with the weight of waste averaging about 700 kg/m of hole
drilled. These drilling wastes include drilling muds,
cuttings, and other reserve pit fluids. The concerns in
drilling waste management typically depends on whether
the drilling fluid is oil or water based when offshore, and
whether it is brine or fresh water based when onshore. In
the USA, the Environmental Protection Agency has
evaluated E&P wastes and concluded that "These wastes
should retain their exemption from regulation as
hazardous under RCRA Subtitle C (53CFR25446; July 6,
1988) 1. Some E&P wastes exempted were drilling fluids,
drill cuttings, rig wash, well completion and stimulation
fluids, and workover wastes. In general, these wastes are
of low toxicity, but precautions are necessary with oil

573
2 DRILLING WASTE CONTROLS
discharges to the sea and soils, and salt discharges in
freshwater environments (surface and ground waters).
In Amoco world-wide drilling operations, environmental
management systems in drilling involve the use of more
environmentally benign mud systems; waste minimization
injection; alternative uses of wastes as products; more
efficient treatment and control systems; reduced potential
environmental impacts from waste disposal; and waste
tracking to evaluate environmental and cost efficiencies.
In summary, in order to protect the environment,
economically comply with regulations, and limit future
liability with drill wastes, it is important to consider
numerous source reduction and recycling opportunities as
listed in Table 11.
Table 1
Source Reduction and Recycling In Drilling
Source Reduction
a) Product substitution
eliminate/minimize usage of hazardous materials
eliminate chemicals resulting in hazardous waste
substitute for chemicals that become hazardous
when disposed
b) Inventory control
c) Reduce water use
d) Good housekeeping and routine inspection
e) Maintain or replace equipment
f) Recycle or reuse muds in a "closed loop" system
g) Segregate wastes
h) Carefully select contractors
(base on environmental record)
i) Other:
-Eliminate the waste (i.e., injection)
-Use metals that eliminate need for hazardous chemicals
like corrosion inhibitors
-Maintain equipment to minimize spills
-Train personnel in emergency response
Recycling
a) Use "closed loop" solids control
b) Recover oil based mud and minimize oil on cuttings
c) Use rig wash water in water-based mud
d) Send oils to a recycler
e) Return empty drums to chemical vendor
or change to bulk tanks
f) Reuse mud from end of one well to spud the next
g) Recycle special wastes (acids, oil, solvents, etc.)
Four case studies, with totally different scenarios are used
in this paper to describe the application of four types of
improved technologies in drilling operations to cost
effectively reduce environmental impacts from drilling
wastes world-wide.
Drilling fluids and drilled cuttings separation methods that
minimize total waste are essential for cost effective,
environmentally sound drilling, especially when there is
potential toxicity in the waste 4 . Such systems are
generally termed "closed-loop", but the term is much
misused. When the drill waste is benign though, solids
control can be simple (inexpensive) and the high volume
574
SPE 27162
wastes inexpensively land farmed without negative
environmental impact (Case 1) Methods and costs of
"closed loop" solids separation and offsite disposal will
also be discussed (Case 2).
It is presently necessary to limit oil discharge to the sea
world-wide. North Sea Protocols3 currently limit oil on
cuttings discharged to sea to 1% versus the previously
allowed 15%. New, low toxicity water based polymer
muds and synthetic muds are being tested which both
inhibit reactive shales, yet are more environmentally
friendly than oil-based muds. These "third generation"
muds are normally very expensive, necessitating close
monitoring of solids control technology for cost effective
drilling. Application of a synthetic invert mud system will
be described in Case 4.
Disposal methodology is quickly evolving and costs can
rapidly escalate. The reserve pits, which previously were
simply a set of large holes excavated to contain reserve
drilling fluid and allow settling of drilled solids, are now
often lined pits or steel tanks in order to contain drilling
wastes (especially those with high salt or oil content)
pending final disposal. The wastes are disposed by such
methods as downhole injection, annular injection, land
spreading, land farming, burial, clarified water discharge
and commercial waste site disposal 1. Thus, treatment and
disposal of the high volume, but low toxicity drilling wastes
is an ever increasing challenge, necessitating cost
effective technology development and application.
Injection disposal technology is described in Case 3.
Tracking the drill wastes is critically important to establish
short and long term costs (and liabilities), and to optimize
treatment and disposal methods. An Environmental Data
Management System (EDMS) was developed at Amoco to
track all types of generated wastes s. The power of this
system will be demonstrated with examples, and is used
to develop the case study waste data.
Theory of Drilling Waste Generation
Drilling fluid is pumped into the well bore for a variety of
reasons including removal of the drilled solids. At the
surface, an attempt to remove drilled solids from the
drilling fluid is made. This is called solids control. Not all
of the drilled solids can be removed from the drilling fluid.
The amount removed divided by the amount generated is
considered the efficiency of the solids control system.
Those drilled solids left in the mud are considered
contamination. Various amounts of contamination by
drilled solids can be tolerated, but if the contamination
level begins to affect the mud properties, then whole fluid
must be discarded and replaced by clean fluid. This is
called dumping and diluting. It should be remembered
that the discard stream is the drilled solids. Just as the
removal of drilled solids from the drilling fluid is
SPE 27162 J. T. CLINE & W. A. PIPER
incomplete, not all of the drilling fluid can be removed
from the drilled solids. The amount of drilling fluid
removed with the drilled solids is the wetness factor.
Thus, one can estimate the amount of drilling waste
generated from the well bore by estimating the amount of
drilled solids being generated, the removal efficiency, the
wetness factor, and the tolerance of the drilling fluid for
solids contamination.
The term "Closed Loop" seems to imply no waste
generation, but this is not the case. In fact, there are
widely differing definitions of closed loop with the goal of
good solids control. One should try to minimize the
contamination rate in the drilling fluid while also
minimizing the wetness factor associated with the drilled
solids. This should minimize the waste generated per
volume of hole drilled.
Another source of waste generated while drilling a well is
wash water and cooling water. Copious amounts of water
are used which generally are susceptible to low levels of
contamination from soaps and oils. In the case of land
well drilling where reserve pits are being used, this waste
water is diverted to the reserve pit to be mixed with the
waste drilling fluid and drilled solids. The reserve pit is
viewed as a component of solids control. Solids are
allowed to settle and relatively clean fluid can be returned
as make-up fluid for the drilling fluid. The reserve pit also
acts as the collection point for the drilling wastes. Since
the liquid components and solid components of the
reserve pit are handled differently, Amoco attempts to
distinguish between them. Amoco refers to the
unpumpable sludge component left in the pit as drilled
solids. It is recognized that this component may have a
high amount of associated liquid with it. The liquid
component is termed reserve pit fluid.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Monitoring Methods (EDMS)
EDMS has been developed to document, organize and
track wastes generated with Amoco's E&P activitiess.
This method is being applied to reduce costs related to
waste disposal and handling and to meet regulatory
requirements. The program consists of four modules, as
shown in Figure 1: Waste, Water Permits, Events and Air
Permits. The modules are designed to record the
collection, monitoring and reporting of large amounts of
emissions, discharge and disposal data.
Of concern for drilling wastes is the waste module,
designed to track drilling wastes from "cradle to grave".
The Module is composed of three sub-modules:
575
3
Waste Disposal Facilities Records information
concerning all Amoco operated, private, and commercial
waste disposal facilities used by Amoco.
Inventory Tracking - Provides "cradle-to-grave" tracking
for all disposed wastes.
Waste Testing and Analysis ~ Records information
concerning laboratory analysis of waste streams.
The EDMS Waste Module is a PC and PC-LAN based
applications. The System will operate in a Client/Server
environment, as well as in a PC stand alone environment,
thereby allowing field data entry on a laptop PC. The
software requirements depend on the type of environment.
For a PC LAN environment, the software requirements
include: Powerbuilder, Sybase, and Novell. For a stand
alone PC environment, only Powerbuilder is required.
Minimum hardware requirements include a 386, 20 MHz
processor with 8MB RAM, and 100 MB Hard Drive. But,
for good system performance, a 486, 33 MHz, 16MB
RAM, and 250 MB Hard Drive is recommended.
The data requested is fairly straight forward. The
origination site of the waste is requested. This is tied to a
well identifier, such as the API number. The amount and
type of the waste are identified. The newest version
allows the waste characterization data to be linked to the
amount and type of waste. Transportation and disposal
method information are also requested, as applicable.
Some of the information is required in order to preserve
the validity of the data base:
The data base can be queried from a number of view
points. In one instance, data can be obtained from each
Business Unit (BU) on the total waste generated (Table 2).
Another type of query might be to cross reference the
waste amount with type of disposal (Table 3). Yet another
might be to analyze the waste disposal costs by length of
hole drilled, as in Table 4.
There are many tangible and intangible benefits of
applying EDMS to drilling wastes. The tracking and
quantifying of drill wastes to final disposal is the primary
goal of the EDMS system. But, many other benefits of
this system are now recognized. The system is being
used to help focus on the most important technological
needs for each Business Unit (BU), to satisfy reduction in
environmental impact and to lower costs. It's been used
as a quick data gathering tool to respond to and measure
impacts of developing/new regUlations. Additionally, it is
used for an internal environmental program to establish
progress in waste control.
The Drilling Waste Program using EDMS is not without
problems. Correct data entry is key to the success of the
waste module. Some of the monitoring and reporting may
4 DRILLING WASTE CONTROLS
be gross estimates at best (Le., mud volume in a drill pit).
Field personnel must be delegated the responsibility to
use the system, trained how to use it properly, and must
use similar data collection methods. Finally, the data from
different business units can be difficult to compare if
different definitions or measurement techniques are used.
Case Studies
Case Study #1: Reserve Pit System
On a deep onshore well in Louisiana, oil-based mud was
required to drill the lower, hotter intervals. Of the various
systems considered to control drilling wastes, the least
expensive was a typical shale shaker and reserve pit
system. The solids control consisted of two scalping shale
shakers followed by three fine screen shakers (Figure 2).
In the intervals where water-based mud was used
desanders and desilters were also used. A mUlti~
compartment pit system was also used to separate oily
wastes from water based wastes and provide recycled
make-up water for the water based drilling fluid.
The well was drilled to 6,860 meters in 190 days. During
this time 62 cm of rain was recorded. The total amount of
liquid recorded as injected or treated and discharged was
16,935 tonnes (2569 kg/m). Two liquid disposal methods
were used. Low contamination liquids were clarified and
discharged in accordance with treated waste water
guidelines in Louisiana. Annular injection of dirty liquids
and flocculated solids was also used. The total amount of
solids remaining to be land spread was 28,103 tonnes
(4097 kg/m) , of which 24,088 tonnes were the low
contamination water-based cuttings and the rest were oil-
based cuttings with varying contamination. The mixture of
the two, plus levee wall dirt met Louisiana 29-b regulation
requirements for land spreading. But, some washing of
oily solids was required. About one-half of the oily solids
were washed to reduce the oil content on them. The wash
liquid was injected in the annulus. The final land
spreading of the cuttings resulted in a usable soil.
These waste generation amounts are extremely high,
compared to the business unit averages. They are due to
the nature of the waste control system, as well as the hole
depth, size, and length of drill time. Importantly, the cost
of disposal on a unit basis is low. The total estimated cost
associated with liquids disposal is $67,858 ($4.00 per
tonne) and the cost associated with solids disposal is
$148,896 ($5.30 per tonne). Liquids disposal costs
averaged $4.60 per tonne in this business unit during
1992. Solids disposal costs averaged $10.35 per tonne
for the same period. Thus, the costs for liquids disposal
and solids disposal are very low for this type of system.
In summary, more efficient solids control equipment could
have been added to this well to reduce the amount of
576
SPE 27162
waste generated. This would have had the effect of
raising the per unit disposal cost without benefiting the
environment.
Case Study #2: "Closed Loop" System
On a west Texas well, brine drilling fluid was required from
surface casing to total depth. A large earthen reserve pit
was not desired due to the environmental principles
applied to the well. These principles were:
1. Eliminate salt contamination of the soils,
2. Eliminate salt contamination of any subsurface water
tables,
3. Minimize the cost to achieve these results,
4. Minimize any long term liability associated with
disposal.
The disposal methods selected for the salty liquids were
downhole injection in an Amoco operated disposal well
and downhole injection in a commercial disposal well.
The Amoco-operated well was preferred due to cost, but
could not handle all of the fluid. The drilled solids were to
be collected in transportable containers and taken to a
large commercial oil field waste handling facility.
In order to minimize dilution and thus, liquid waste
generation, efficient solids control was desired. The solids
control schematic is shown in Figure 3. Primary solids
control is achieved with efficient, double screen shale
shakers. Hydrocyclones discharging over shale shakers
were used in the upper hole sections. One centrifuge
operated to remove fine solids from the mud, while
another, chemically enhanced centrifuge was used to add
efficiency. The chemical enhancement is simply the
polymer flocculation of fines such that the centrifuge mud
liquids discharge is nearly clear. Therefore, during the
drilling of the well, only drill solids and associated
adsorbed mud are collected and disposed as waste.
The well took 32 days to drill to 3864 meters. The waste
was easy to measure since it was all transported offsite.
The total drilled solids transported was 993 tonnes and the
total liquids taken to disposal was 737 tonnes. The total
amount identified as environmental cost was $68,000
(Table 5).
The liquids waste generation rate of 191 kg/m was
somewhat higher than the average rate for the business
unit (137 kg/m in 1992). This was expected, however, as
this was a much larger and deeper well than average.
The cost of disposal of the liquids was the same as the
average for the business unit at $24/tonne. Again, this is
expected since the disposal of all liquids is essentially the
same.
SPE 27162
The solids waste generation rate of 256 Kg/m was 80% of
the business unit average. The greater depth, larger hole
size, and better solids control should have resulted in
greater than average solids waste generation. The cost
for solids disposal on this well, $46/tonne, was almost
double the 1992 business unit average. This is apparently
due to higher than average number of days on the well,
well depth, casing size and increased distance to the
disposal site. With half of the disposal cost related to day
rates, an increase in days could increase the apparent unit
cost of disposal.
Table 5
Drill Waste Disposal Costs for a Single
West Texas Well
Cost Category Amount Cost Category
Solids Liquids
Containers $12,000 Solids Control
Transport $14,000 Transport & Inject.
Disposal $13,000
Solids Control $11,000
Total $50,000 Total
Tracking and quantifying the salty drilling wastes to final
disposal showed a huge reduction in waste quantity
generation (relative to standard solids control systems
described in case #1) by using a "closed loop" solids
control system. Since Amoco was trying to protect the
soil and ground water from potential salt contamination by
hauling all wastes to a commercial facility, the unit waste
costs were high. Thus, waste minimization by "closed
loop" solids control was a cost effective method to reduce
potential environmental impacts.
Case Study #3: Waste Injection
In 1988 the drilling department of Amoco's Norway
business unit, established a team to find alternative
methods for reducing or eliminating oily cuttings «1 % oil)
discharges to the North Sea. Since the drilling conditions
in the Valhall field were known to be very demanding (high
angles in very dispersive shales), it was recognized that
new technology would be necessary to continue to drill
economically, yet with more environmentally friendly
results. The technology development strategy was to
evaluate four areas: cuttings cleaning processes,
alternative offshore disposal methods, alternative mud
systems and onshore disposal of oily cuttings. After
considerable development and testing, Amoco Norway Oil
Company decided that, for the Valhall platform, downhole
injection of cuttings was the most viable solution to cost
effectively drill and dispose of wastes in an
environmentally friendly manner.
J. T. CLINE & W. A. PIPER 5
In 1990, injection began with oily "slop" fluids. These are
waste fluids from drilling that contain 5 to 20% oil as well
as up to 15% solids. injection of oily drill solids, as slurry,
began in May of 1992, with 46,500 tonnes of slurry waste
injected to September, 1993. Each well drilled (sidetracks
not included) generates about 1,600 tonnes (344 kg/m) of
cuttings and associated wastes. The costs to inject
(environmental costs) include; rental of a slurrification
unit, chemicals, manpower, cement pump (used for
injection) charges and injection well preparation. The
average injection cost per well is $321,000 and the
average cost per meter of drilled hole are $69/m
($200/tonne). Relative to the past cuttings treatment
(washing) and disposal, the cost to inject cuttings
averages a savings of $550,OOO/well drilled 6 (partly due to
reduced drilling down time).
Amount The system for cuttings separation, transport and injection
is shown in Figure 4. The cuttings are first received
11,000 downstream of three, double screen cascading shakers,
7,000 one decanting barite recovery centrifuge and one high
speed centrifuge for low gravity solids removal.
Optimized recovery of oil mud and barite is cost effective
even though all wastes are injected. Screw conveyors
$18,000 move the cuttings to slurrification equipment. For the 41
cm and 31 cm hole sections, the maximum rate of cuttings
handling is between 10 and 16 tonnes/hr with oil content
between 10 and 20% by dry weight. To slurrify the
cuttings, water is added (about 7 to 1) that is oily drain
water from the drilling platform and/or sea water. The
cuttings are simultaneously ground and pumped with
turbulence (jet nozzle) to generate a fine particle size, less
than 40u. The slurry properties sought are a funnel
viscosity of 45 to 60 seconds and a specific gravity of
about 10 to 12. From the slurrification unit, the slurry is
pumped to storage tanks (unused fracturing tanks)
equipped with agitators. When the stored slurry volume
reaches 1000 bbl, a batch injection is performed using
stimulation pumps.
The cuttings slurry is injected just above the producing
formation in a collapsed production well. The wellhead
pressure has slowly risen from about 3790 psi to about
3980 psi in the single injection well. The pressure
response curves, indicate that the slurry is deposited
within a complex system of fractures which grow into the
producing formation, having a depleted pressure due to
production. It is hypothesized that the solids are deposited
in fractures in a spherical disposal domain of about 100 to
200 m radius 6 .
The results to date shows that the slurrification of oily
cuttings on the Valhall platform and their disposal by
downhole injection is acceptable to the Norwegian
regulatory agencies, technically feasible, environmentally
safe and cost effective versus cuttings washing and sea
577
6 DRILLING WASTE CONTROLS
disposal6 . The E&P Forum Injection Guidelines specify
which factors to consider7.
In summary, the new, cuttings injection technology was
developed and is being applied as an environmentally
friendly, least costly method to handle the oily cuttings and
associated drill wastes. This disposal method, of zero
environmental impact to the sea, is also less expensive
than previous and potential, alternative methods of
cuttings treatment or disposal; such as cuttings washing
and sea disposal and hauling and landfill disposal.
Case Study #4: Synthetic Drilling Fluids
Synthetic invert drilling fluids are being tested by Amoco
UK as alternate muds for exploration drilling to eliminate
oil discharges on cuttings8 . The case study presented is
the drilling of an exploratory well (during the spring of
1993) in the United Kingdom sector of the North Sea. To
date, Amoco UK has drilled eight exploratory wells with
the synthetic muds, optimizing the process continually to
drill cost effectively while minimizing environmental
impacts from cuttings discharges.
The reasons for testing synthetic invert emulsion mud
alternatives are the positive environmental and health
properties, the prohibition of sea discharge of oily cuttings,
the higher drilling efficiency with invert muds versus
water-based muds in this sector of the North Sea (30%
cost savings in drilling time), the inefficiencies of tertiary
treatment of cuttings, and the expense and practicality of
injection technologies for exploration wells.
The mud system in all cases has been an ether-based
invert emulsion system (Table 6). Note that the
ether/water ratio is 60/40. The mud system was chosen
for its stability, drilling fluid characteristics (same as
OBM), low environmental toxicity, and its low vapor and
non-irritating health characteristics. According to the
supplier, the ether is derived from natural sources, is low
in marine toxicity (passes the SFT requirements for mud
toxicity), and is highly biodegradable 9 .
Since the price for the synthetic mud used was
approximately $1260/tonne (versus $300/tonne for oil
based mUd), optimization of the solids control system
(Figure 5) to minimize fluid lost with the solids discard was
essential. Use of specific, high quality shakers and
centrifuges is necessary. The critical optimization
techniques are:
1. two "mud cops": Are dedicated to continuously
monitoring equipment and discharges, maintaining
equipment, keeping records and generally minimizing
losses of mud.
2. Flow line and header box: Reduce spillage with
shallow boxes and even mud distribution.
578
SPE 27162
3. Shale shakers: Use four good shakers that optimally
separate oil from cuttings. Proper screen hole size is
dictated by the cuttings size and wetness with 20 over
120 mesh being typical.
4. Centrifuges: Use variable speed, two stage
centrifuges to remove low gravity solids, return barite,
or centrifuge oil from fine shaker cuttings.
5. Sacrificial spacers: Use a water/gel/barite slurry to
displace all synthetics from hole.
6. Casing depths: Set surface casing (51 cm) 320 meters
deeper to reduce the amount of hole drilled with
synthetic mud.
7. Mud properties: Decrease the ether/water ratio and
balance the activity of the mud to the activity of the
formation to reduce the ether losses.
8. Rheology: The low end rheology is enhanced with
modifiers in order that the hole will be adequately
cleaned, but the viscosity and yield strengths are
minimized to improve ether removal from the cutting.
The ether based synthetic mud was used while drilling the
31 cm hole from 919 to 3115 meters and 21.6 cm hole to
3639 meters with mud specific gravity's of 1.20 to 1.25.
The total mud loss was 72 kg/m in the 31 cm section of
hole and 125 kg/m in the 22 cm section of hole. This
compares to an average of 282 kg/m of oil based mud lost
in previous exploratory wells. The total synthetic mud lost
on the surface was 224 tonnes. The quantity of cuttings
discharged while drilling with the synthetic mud was 490
tonnes. Thus, total waste generation was 264 kg/m.
The environmental costs to drill this well are defined as all
of those costs incurred above those costs normally
associated with drilling a similar well by Amoco UK. The
mud loss costs of $300,000 for the synthetic mud
compared with $270,000 for typical, previous use of an oil
base mud are nearly the same, since the mud retention
(recycling) efficiency is so much greater in this case. The
total additional environmental costs for two mud cops,
centrifuge rental, sacrificial spacers, rig modifications, and
the extra casing setting depth was approximately
$300,000. If multiple wells are being drilled with the same
rig, the installation costs can be shared by all wells. The
environmental cost for the entire well then is $110 per
meter drilled or $418/tonne of waste disposed.
In summary, an ether-based synthetic drill mud was
successfully used to replace OBM, but at an additional
cost of approximately $300,000. A much lower
environmental impact should result (currently being
evaluated). This method of drilling where discharge of oily
cuttings is prohibited, meets the Amoco UK goals of
efficient drilling, onsite cuttings disposal and
environmental care at a low relative cost.
SPE 27162 J. T. CLINE & W. A. PIPER
CONCLUSIONS
There are many options available today and many more
options developing for drilling waste handling and
disposal. The drilling requirements and environments
establish the waste makeup. The local environmental
laws and Company principles establish the disposal
boundaries and, therefore, the potential cuttings handling
and disposal technologies applicable. The EDMS waste
tracking system helps to identify "environmental costs" of
the drilling wastes disposal. This includes the solid control
equipment, treatment methods, any transportation and
final disposal. Through detailed waste monitoring, the
environmentally sound, most cost effective drill waste
handling and disposal technologies are applied.
The costs of drill waste disposal are usually not
comparable in different locations, since measurement
techniques differ,. cost analyses vary and the potential
applicable technologies differ.
New technologies, in drilling waste handling and land
disposal, liquids injection, "closed loop" solids control,
drilling solids injection and application of synthetic mud
systems, have been developed to minimize drilling
environmental costs while protecting the environment.
Thus, effectively protecting our environment while
minimizing costs can be achieved through appropriately
applied technology combined with careful analysis and
documentation of waste volumes and characterization.
NOMENCLATURE
m (meter) = 3.28 feet
kg (kilogram) = 2.20 pound;
m3 (meters cubed) = 6.3 barrel
t (metric tonne) cuttings = 2.5 barrel cuttings
m3/m (volume of hole/meter) = 2.03 barrel/foot
cm (centimeter) =2.54 in
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank Amoco Production Company for
permission to publish this work. We are especially
grateful to the Amoco Production Company Business Unit
personnel who provided the data to make this publication
possible: Garry Hanni and Roddy Munro from Amoco UK;
Rasmus Forde, Inge Maeland and Gerhard Sund from
Amoco Norway Oil Co.; Ray Webb, Phil Broussard, Carl
Butler, Len Crame, John Warner and Jim Treece from US
operations.
579
7
REFERENCES
1. ICF Resources Inc., "Oil and Gas Exploration and
Production Waste Management: A 17-State Study",
Contract DE-AC01-91FE62017, Task 10 prepared for the
US Dept. of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy and Interstate
Oil and Gas Compact Commission, June 1993.
2. Cline, J. T. and R. Forde, "Environmental Program with
Operational Cases to Significantly Reduce Risk to the
Marine Environment", SPE paper 23329 presented at the
First International Conference on Health, Safety and
Environment in Den Hague, Netherlands, 10 - 14 Nov.
1991.
3. Oslo and Paris Commissions. Ministerial Meeting of
the Oslo and Paris Commissions, Paris, 21 - 22
September 1992, pp 133 - 135.
4. Thurber, N. E., "Waste Minimization for Land Based
Drilling Operations", SPE paper 23375 presented at the
First International Conference on Health, Safety and
Environment in Den Hague, Netherlands, 10 - 14 Nov.
1991.
5. Wamer, J. W., "Environmental Data Management
System", Paper 93-TP-30B.03 presented at the 86th
Annual Meeting & Exhibition of the Air & Waste
Management Association in Denver, CO, June 13 - 18
1993.
6. Moschovidis, Z., D. C. Gardner and G. V. Sund,
"Disposal of Oily Cuttings by Downhole Periodic
Fracturing Sections in Valhall-North Sea: A Case Study
and Modelling Concepts". SPElIADC 25757 presented at
the 1993 SPElIADC Drilling Conference in Amsterdam, 23
- 25 Feb.
7. The E&P Forum, "Interim Guidelines for the Planning
of Downhole Injection Programmes for Oil Based Mud
Wastes and Associated Cuttings From Offshore Wells",
Report No. 2.56/187, September 1992.
8. Hanni, G., "Synthetic Drilling Fluids", presented at the
Amoco World-Wide Drilling Conference in Houston, Texas
during September 1993.
9. Anchor Drilling Fluids LTD, "The Aquamul II System,
Description & Ecotoxicological Data", intemal publication
presented to Amoco UK in 1991.
8 DRILLING WASTE CONTROLS SPE 27162

Table 6
Table 2
Synthetic Mud Formulation (AquamullI)
1992 Drilling Wastes by Business Unit
Amoco U.K.
(Tonnes)

Mudweiqht 10.0000·
Business Unit Fluids Drilled Solids Etherlwater ratio 60/40
MC 64,063 16,466 Fresh water 0.350ob·
CaCI2 15wt'll.
NW 30,917 11,795
CaCI2 26.2oob
SR 2,073 1,966 Lime 8.0 DDb
NPB 496 10,232 Barite 98.4oob
Aquamul B 0.51oob
SPB 4,386 12,488
Aquamul P 5.0 DPb
S 158,172 36,328 Aquamul S 4.0 ppb
AquamulVIS 5.0 Dcb
Aquamul M 1.0 DPb
.ppq = pounds per qallon
"ppb = pounds per barrel

Table 3
Disposal Methods for Reserve Pit Fluids
(Tonnes)

Business Pit Injection Commercial Solidify or Landfarm

Unit Evaporation Disposal Treatment or
Discharge EDMS
MC 62,214 210 1,639
NW 30,908 9
I
SR
NPB
2,073
488 8 ! !.
SPB 1,011 3,375
Water Air
S 76,453 2,313 79,406 Waste Events
Permits Permits
Module Module
Module Modu Ie

! !
Tracking, Spills, NPDES, E.I.'s
Sites, & Visits, & ACE, & &
Testing Fines Wells Permits
Table 4
1992 Drilled Solids Waste
Normalized by Length Drilled

Business Unit Drilled Solids Length Drilled Normalized

(Tonnes) (Meters) (Kq/m) Fig. 1: EDMS: The Sub-modules
MC 16,466 73,412 224
NW 11,795 31,048 380
SR 1,966 59,182 33
NPB 10232 84,418 121
SPB 12488 38,454 325
S 36,328 289,197 126

580
 SOLIDS CONTROL SYSTEMS

L..J L..J L..J

Shale Shakersh--=~~~~-~--r--------.,. Recycle

a;;;;;:;;;';"-=1=~=~='==~==~--,._"T""_" Recycle Clear

Water
Dilute
Mud
Dump
Cuttings
& Water Based
Mud Pump
Mud Only

Coarse Fine Fine

Solids Solids Solids
Desanders/
Desilters Offs~e +{ ! ! ! ISteel
Disposal Tanks
Solids
Reserve Pit

Fig. 2: Typical Shale Shaker/Reserve Fig. 3: "Closed Loop" Solids Control System (Case #2)
Pit System (Case #1)

..bJ..bJ..b:rl...!::::TI
Coarse
4 Dual Deck Shale Shakers
1'===":;:;;~j:::::,:r..
Fine
__~M!!!!Ud!.!S!!!tr~ea!!!m!l.!FE!!IO~W!r- -+ReCYCled
Cuttings Cuttings Mud
Discharge Fine Solids
Centrifuging

Sea Disposal Dry Cuttings Sea Disposal

Discharge

Fig.4: Cuttings injection facilities (Case #3) Fig. 5: Solids control for efficient synthetic mud
removal from cuttings (Case #4)

581