Biotreating E&P Wastes: Lessons Learned From 1992-2003

Biotreating E&P Wastes: Lessons Learned From 1992-2003 Sara J. McMillen; Sara J. McMillen ChevronTexaco Energy Research and Technology Company Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Ross Smart; Ross Smart ChevronTexaco Energy Research and Technology Company Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Rene Bernier; Rene Bernier ChevronTexaco Energy Research and Technology Company Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Robert E. Hoffmann Robert E. Hoffmann ChevronTexaco Overseas Petroleum Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Paper presented at the SPE International Conference on Health, Safety, and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, March 2004. Paper Number: SPE-86794-MS https://doi.org/10.2118/86794-MS Published: March 29 2004 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Get Permissions Search Site Citation McMillen, Sara J., Smart, Ross, Bernier, Rene, and Robert E. Hoffmann. "Biotreating E&P Wastes: Lessons Learned From 1992-2003." Paper presented at the SPE International Conference on Health, Safety, and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, March 2004. doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/86794-MS Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentAll ProceedingsSociety of Petroleum Engineers (SPE)SPE International Conference and Exhibition on Health, Safety, Environment, and Sustainability Search Advanced Search AbstractChevronTexaco began investigating bioremediation as an option for treating Exploration and Production (E&P) wastes and remediation of site spills in 1992. In 1993, ChevronTexaco began full-scale landfarming operations of E&P wastes in Colorado. Since then ChevronTexaco has initiated numerous site-specific cleanups using bioremediation technologies such as composting and in-situ remediation, and we continue to operate bioremediation facilities for the treatment of ongoing E&P wastes that are generated as part of our normal operations. ChevronTexaco has successfully implemented bioremediation in diverse climates and in remote international locations. In this paper our top ten "lessons learned" in successfully applying bioremediation will be reviewed. These include predicting bioremediation end-points, the use of commercial microbial products, how to monitor treatment effectiveness, field equipment needed, interfacing with regulators, reusing treated wastes, costs by waste type and technology, and training of personnel. We will also discuss how to determine when bioremediation is a good option, when it is not a good option, and how to select the best biotechnology for a specific site.IntroductionBiological treatment technologies are among the most practical and cost-effective methods for managing exploration and production (E&P) wastes such as tank bottoms, pit sludges, drilling muds, and oily soils from spill cleanups. Biological treatment methods depend on the ability of microorganisms to degrade oily waste into harmless products (carbon dioxide, water, and biomass) through biochemical reactions. The most common biological treatment technologies applied in the upstream petroleum industry include:composting (windrowing, forced aeration piles, and static/ passive aeration piles), andland treatment (landfarming, landspreading, and in-situ biotreatment).In biological treatment processes, microorganisms decompose hydrocarbons into water, carbon dioxide, and biomass. The bacteria and fungi responsible for biodegradation require oxygen, water, nutrients, and a source of carbon (such as the carbon in crude oils) to thrive. Biological treatment technologies commonly used in the upstream petroleum industry include composting and land-based treatment methods such as landfarming, landspreading, and in-situ biotreatment. In-vessel composting, bio-slurry systems, soil venting, and saturated zone bioremediation technologies are not commonly used due to high costs (typically >$100/ton) and/or their limited applicability to E&P wastes and site conditions.ChevronTexaco began investigating bioremediation as an option for treating E&P wastes and remediation of site spills in 1992, and has successfully implemented bioremediation technologies around the world. In this paper our top ten "lessons learned" in successfully applying bioremediation will be reviewed.Lesson #1 - Special "Bug" Products Are Not NeededThere are many commercial microbial products (commonly referred to as "bugs") on the market for enhancing soil bioremediation. Published results by independent researchers indicate that these products do not enhance biodegradation rates or end-points for hydrocarbons or other organic compounds.1,2,3 The reason that "bug" products are not needed for soil bioremediation is that most soils contain a sufficient population of microorganisms to biodegrade amenable contaminants. For example, soils contain up to 10 million bacteria per gram, and a significant portion of this indigenous population is capable of degrading hydrocarbons.4 This indigenous population of hydrocarbon-degrading organisms will "bloom," or increase within 24–48 hours of exposure to hydrocarbons. Tilling, watering, pH maintenance, and adding nutrients to the soil will ensure that optimal conditions are maintained for the microbes.Figure 1 illustrates typical results in that the population of microorganisms increased from 10 million to 1 billion per gram per gram of soil 5 days after crude oil addition and establishment of optimal soil environmental conditions. Keywords: test kit, fertilizer, biodegradability, endpoint, nutrient, nitrogen, operation, hydrocarbon, microorganism, composition Subjects: Environment, Remediation and land reclamation This content is only available via PDF. 2004. Society of Petroleum Engineers You can access this article if you purchase or spend a download.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.