Efficiency of a Single-Stage Cuttings Washer With a Mineral Oil Invert Emulsion and Its Environmental Significance (1983)

Efficiency of a Single-Stage Cuttings Washer With a Mineral Oil Invert Emulsion and Its Environmental Significance Maurice Jones, Jr.; Maurice Jones, Jr. IMCO Services Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar J.A. Burgbacher; J.A. Burgbacher Shell Offshore Inc. Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Marc Churan Marc Churan IMCO Services Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Francisco, California, October 1983. Paper Number: SPE-12121-MS https://doi.org/10.2118/12121-MS Published: October 05 1983 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Get Permissions Search Site Citation Jones, Maurice, Burgbacher, J.A., and Marc Churan. "Efficiency of a Single-Stage Cuttings Washer With a Mineral Oil Invert Emulsion and Its Environmental Significance." Paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Francisco, California, October 1983. doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/12121-MS Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex Search Dropdown Menu nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All ContentAll ProceedingsSociety of Petroleum Engineers (SPE)SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition Search Advanced Search AbstractQuestions and concerns about the use of mineral oils to replace diesel in invert emulsion drilling fluids for offshore oil and gas wells have centered on the treatment and disposal of oil wet cuttings. This study, using a modified 20 ml retort procedure, measured the percent retention (w/w) of mineral oil based mud on cuttings from the shale shaker and a single-stage cuttings washer at one offshore Texas well. The modified retort procedure was demonstrated to be a highly repeatable procedure. Retort results were then correlated to more sophisticated laboratory techniques (gravimetric, gas chromatographic, and IR spectrophotometric procedures) with good agreement to two of the three procedures) with good agreement to two of the three methods. Solid phase bioassays with three marine invertebrates (clam, worm, and shrimp) suggested that seawater washed cuttings were the most environmentally acceptable method. Further considerations suggest that the use of mineral oil-based muds may be enhanced relative to diesel oil-based muds if regulatory relief is achieved.IntroductionA significant development in drilling fluids technology has been an increased interest in replacing diesel oil with various mineral oils in invert emulsion drilling fluids. The motivation for this change has been an increasingly stronger opposition to the discharge of diesel-containing materials into the marine environment. In some offshore areas, outright prohibitions exist against any oil discharges regardless of treatment (e.g., cuttings washer) and in several instances, regulatory action has been initiated against an operator. Likewise, the issuance of discharge permits and even drilling permits have been delayed permits and even drilling permits have been delayed if oil based muds are involved. These factors have motivated the industry to strongly consider diesel substitutes. Fortunately, mineral oil appears to be functionally equivalent to diesel oil in a drilling fluid, although certain adjustments or additional products may be required to tailor traditional products may be required to tailor traditional systems depending on the characteristics of the mineral oil. Mineral oils while exceedingly variable in quality and toxicity are fairly available throughout the market place from numerous suppliers, but not as ubiquitous as diesel oils. Unfortunately, mineral oils are generally more expensive by a significant amount (-30-50%). Under the existing regulatory framework in which diesel is treated the same as mineral oil, this added cost is often difficult to justify. These extra costs could be offset; however, if the regulations clearly favored mineral over diesel oil.Confusion on the use of mineral oils has been the result of multiple regulatory agencies (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Minerals Management Service (MMS), and U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)) having inconsistent or unstated positions, both between agencies (EPA, MMS, USCG) and within an agency (EPA Regional Office, MMS District Office). Largely, this situation exists because mineral oils represent a relatively new development and incomplete information was available for the agencies' review. Nevertheless, the inconsistency and uncertainty within the last 1–2 years have slowed the development and use of mineral oil-based fluids. It appears that several questions concerning mineral oils must be answered before a clear position can be developed. Recently, the EPA has requested information from the industry in order to make decisions for the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge permits and to use in developing New Source permits and to use in developing New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and Best Available Performance Standards (NSPS) and Best Available Technology (BAT) guidelines for the offshore oil and gas industry. Earlier questions on the relative toxicity of mineral oils to diesel oils was initially addressed by numerous bioassays on the mineral oils and invert systems. These results from acute bioassays clearly indicated a significant difference in toxicity between many mineral oils and diesel. However, while very useful, these data have not been adequate to answer many questions and concerns about the predominant waste material, oil-wet cuttings. Keywords: seawater, efficiency, drilling fluid selection and formulation, toxicity, composition, fraction, mineral oil-based mud, detergent, drilling fluid formulation, upstream oil & gas Subjects: Drilling Fluids and Materials, Drilling fluid selection and formulation (chemistry, properties) This content is only available via PDF. 1983. Society of Petroleum Engineers You can access this article if you purchase or spend a download.