Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55 (2011) 1222–1231

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec

Life-Cycle Impact Assessment of oil drilling mud system in Algerian arid area
Malika Ghazi a , Gaetana Quaranta a,∗ , Joelle Duplay a , Raja Hadjamor a , Mohamed Khodja b ,
Hamid Ait Amar c , Zoubir Kessaissia c
a
EOST, Laboratoire d’Hydrologie et de Géochimie de Strasbourg, UMR 7517, 1 Rue Blessig, 67084 Strasbourg Cedex, France
b
Sonatrach/Cellule Recherche Amont-Direction Engineering et Développement, Boumerdès, Algeria
c
Université de Sciences et Techniques Houari Boumediene USTHB, Alger, Algeria

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The objective of this work is to assess the environmental impacts of the drilling mud system in Algeria’s
Received 5 February 2010 arid region. Water-based mud (WBM) and oil-based mud (OBM) are used during well drilling in Hassi
Received in revised form 30 August 2010 Messaoud petroleum field, and have a considerable pollution potential particularly on the aquifer system
Accepted 14 May 2011
which constitutes the single resource of drinking water in the Sahara. The Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA)
approach is applied to evaluate the impacts of several drilling mud systems across all stages of their life
Keywords:
cycle, e.g. use, treatment and disposal. Environmental impacts of five treatments scenarios corresponding
Oil drilling mud
to the drilling waste management applied in Hassi Messaoud are compared: reserve pit without treatment
Toxicity
Arid area
(burial option), secondary high centrifugation (vertical cuttings dryer), stabilisation/solidification online,
Groundwater stabilisation/solidification off line and thermal desorption. The impact assessment is carried on using the
Life Cycle Impact Assessment LCIA models of Impact 2002+ method in SIMAPRO7 software. This assessment identifies human toxicity
and terrestrial eco-toxicity as the major impact categories in this specific arid context and quantifies the
emissions contributions. The local environmental impact is the most important of the drilling mud life
cycle and is mainly linked to emissions from reserve pits, treated cuttings, and drilling phase 16 through
the Turonian and Albian aquifer. The main contributing substances are aromatic hydrocarbons fraction
and metals in particular barium, zinc, antimony, arsenic, and aluminium. Concerning the comparison of
the treatment scenarios, it appears that stabilisation/solidification online is the best one; it has the lowest
impact score in the two dominating categories because of the waste minimisation: mud storage avoided
in the reserve pit. The second best scenario is the thermal desorption which obtains the lowest impact
score in carcinogen effects due to hydrocarbons reduction (<1%) and avoided impacts of recovered oil.
The toxic substances fate modeling will be improved by taking into account their site-specific impact.
© 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction In the Hassi Messaoud oil field the first hundred meters of the
well are often drilled with WBM, whereas the deeper parts require
The oil field of Hassi Messaoud, located in the South-East of Alge- the use of OBM until 3500–4000 m depth. The diesel OBM consti-
ria, extends over a surface of 25 × 108 m2 . The resources in gas and tutes 90% of used fluids because of the difficult drillings conditions,
oil were exploited there for more than 50 years, with a total of 1100 in particular the unstable clay-rich formations (Kherfellah et al.,
wells drilled until nowadays, and 800,000 extracted barrels/day. 2002; Moulla, 2005; Benayada et al., 2003; Khodja et al., 2007).
During oil well drilling, mud provides several important func- The generated drilling waste can reach several thousands of m3
tions such as lubrication of drilling bits, maintenance of subsurface per well, in which there are mainly residual fluids and cuttings.
pressures, and carrying the cuttings to the surface. It is a com- The storage of drilling waste in the reserve pit can be definitive or
plex system of water-based (WBM) or oil-based (OBM) fluids with temporary before the application of the treatment processes. The
several chemical and mineral additives. The formulations of these potential environmental impacts can occur at several steps of the
muds are adjusted with precision according to the physicochemical drilling mud cycle, in particular during well drillings when mud is
conditions of geological formations which change with the drilled lost and infiltrates groundwater, during storage in the reserve pit
depth. and during treatment processes. This is due to the fact that dur-
ing these steps the emissions of hydrocarbons and several toxic
substances will directly impact soils and groundwater.
In this region, there are two important cities: Ouargla with
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 3 68 85 03 79; fax: +33 3 68 85 04 02. 445,619 inhabitants and Hassi Messaoud with 60,000 inhabitants.
E-mail address: [email protected] (G. Quaranta). Ouargla is built around an oasis and has palm groves and agricul-

0921-3449/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.05.016
 M. Ghazi et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55 (2011) 1222–1231 1223

Fig. 1. Drilling mud flow during well phases (after US EPA, 2000).

tural industries that rely on the irrigation from underground water stored in the reserve pits. Drilling waste can be treated later on by
catchments. The second is a recent city which is situated inside the thermal desorption, or solidification/stabilisation (Fig. 2).
oil field. It will however be delocalized as important industrial risks
exist from the potential pollution of the underlying aquifer system 3. LCA methodology
(Dhina and Aroun, 2004) which is the only drinking water resource
in the arid area. “Life Cycle Assessment is a standard analytical tool (ISO 14040,
The main goal of this paper is to present an environmental 2006) which in its complete version, addresses the environmental
impact analysis of drilling mud system in an arid region, taking aspects and potential environmental impacts (i.e. use of resources
into account the steps of use, treatment and disposal. This analysis and environmental consequences of releases related to the func-
is carried out by Life-Cycle Assessment methodology. tional unit of a product system) throughout a product’s life cycle
from raw material acquisition through production, use, end-of-
2. General description of drilling mud system life treatment, recycling and final disposal”. So, the drilling mud’s
LCA was performed according to the framework established by
In the oil drilling process, mud is pumped from the mud pit ISO standards which includes four steps: goal and scope defini-
and injected down the well through the drill bit. The mud returns tion, inventory analysis, impact assessment and interpretation (ISO,
through the well carrying cuttings and emerges back to the sur- 2006a,b).
face. The fluids return to the mud pit after separating from cuttings The application of this methodology on a drilling mud system
by sifting and centrifuging in mechanical processing of the solids constitutes an innovation given that it was especially applied to
control (Fig. 1). During several months, the drilling progresses by wastewater and other industrial wastes (Finnveden, 1999; Suh and
phases corresponding to the borehole diameter which decreases Rousseaux, 2002; Renou, 2006; Kohler, 2006).
more and more with the depth. The first phase 26 (66.04 cm) The impact assessment of drilling mud was carried out using Life
is often drilled with water-based mud (WBM), whereas the next Cycle Impact Assessment models (LCIA) integrated in SIMAPRO7
phases 16 , 121/4 , 83/8 , 6 (40.64 cm, 31.11 cm, 21.27 cm and software (Pré Consultants, 2007). Several authors have contributed
15.24 cm respectively) require the use of oil-based mud (OBM). The to the development and improvement of those models within vari-
muds are readjusted periodically with several additives in order to ous LCA methods like EDIP (Wenzel et al., 2000); Ecoindicator99
optimize and improve drilling efficiency. (Goedkoop and Spriensma, 2000; Hauschild and Potting, 2004);
Each phase generates important quantities of drilling waste EPS 2000 (Ryding and Steen, 1991; Steen, 1999); CML (Guinee
which is composed of separated cuttings and residual fluids and et al., 2001); IMPACT 2002+ (Jolliet et al., 2003). Human and
1224 M. Ghazi et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55 (2011) 1222–1231

Mud return

Well drilling
Mud eject
First separaon
Fluids/cungs
Shale Shakers+ Phase 26’’

Phase 16’’

Phase 12’’

Storage in High centrifugaon Solidificaon/ Phase 8’’

reserve pit Vercal dryer Stabilizaon online Phase 6’’

Thermal Solidificaon/ Final disposal of

desorpon Stabilizaon of line treated cungs

Fig. 2. Description and limits of the system.

eco-toxicological impacts are characterized by multimedia mod- compare the environmental advantages of treatment scenarios and
els that combine effect information of a toxic substance with its to identify their possible improvements.
fate modeling. This one is used to calculate steady-state concentra- The main function of the mud system is the well drilling for
tions using the data linked to the physico-chemical properties of the which mud is used. The functional unit is one well drilled on 4100 m
emitted substances and its transport into different environmental deep, with reference flow of 800 tons of WBM, and 1500 tons of
compartments. The LCIA models commonly used are CalTOX, USES- OBM. The system is subdivided into process units and modelled by
LCA, Impact 2002+, and USETox which is a recent model based on taking into account the whole mud life cycle, from its use in the well
scientific consensus for Life Cycle Impact Assessment of chemicals to its treatments and final disposal as waste. The stages considered
commissioned by the UNEP-SETAC (Rosenbaum et al., 2008). The are (Fig. 3):
main differences between these models are spatial resolution and
considered environmental compartments. For example, USES-LCA • Drilling well (phases 26 , 16 , 121/4 , 83/8 , 6 )
is based on Simplebox 2.0 model which takes into account three • Mechanical processing (shale shakers, centrifuges, mud cleaner)
spatial scales (regional, continental and global) and three climate • Additional mechanical processing (vertical cuttings dryer)
zones of the Northern hemisphere (arctic, moderate and tropic • Storage in the reserve pit
zones) (Brandes et al., 1996). • Treatments by thermal desorption (thermal phase separation),
In this study, LCIA Impact 2002+ has been chosen on one hand or stabilisation/solidification online or stabilisation/solidification
because its semi-empirical model which is more adapted to eval- off line.
uate the human and eco-toxic potential impact of drilling mud by • Final disposal in the reserve pit.
fate modeling of toxic substances, only in soils and water as final
compartment receptors. Five scenarios of mud treatment have been defined, correspond-
On the other hand its toxic substances database is more ing to the drilling waste management applied to five wells (A, B, C,
adapted to oil drilling mud characterized by a strong toxicity. D, and E) in the site (Fig. 4):
In LCIA Impact 2002+, the characterization of human toxicity Scenario 1: After a series of mechanical treatments, the mud
takes into account the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic sub- is stored untreated in a reserve pit, which is isolated from the soil
stances, both being in high content in drilling mud. Also, the by a geomembrane and bentonite, and it remains there until it is
terrestrial eco-toxicity is better characterized with an effect fac- buried naturally by sand. This scenario is the reference considering
tor which takes into account the concentration affecting 50% of it has a maximum level of pollution. It will be compared to other
the ecosystem species instead of the most significant species as treatments.
in the EDIP method (Payet, 2004). Thus, this evaluation method is Scenario 2: Mud undergoes a first series of mechanical treat-
more adapted to the Saharan context which is characterized by a ments then a secondary treatment with a vertical cutting dryer
weak biodiversity where there are only 1000 species/2 × 1012 m2 where high centrifugation allows recovering of oil and reduces oil
while more than 1000 species/106 m2 exist in Europe (moderate content in cuttings to 5%.
zone). Scenario 3: After mechanical treatment, mud is treated directly
on site by stabilisation/solidification (on line), without remaining
3.1. Goal and scope of the study in the reserve pit. This treatment consists in adding materials like
cement and silicates to solidify and stabilise drilling waste.
The main goal of this study was to assess the environmental Scenario 4: Mud is treated mechanically, stored temporarily in
impacts of the various steps of mud’s life cycle taking into account reserve pit, and taken again later on for a treatment by stabilisa-
the fluid losses during the phases 26 and 16 , the energy and mate- tion/solidification off line. At the end of this treatment, cuttings are
rial consumptions, and the pollutants emissions from the reserve solidified, and discharged in the reserve pit. The transport process
pit and the treatment processes. The secondary objectives were to is linked to the moving of the vehicles and machines.
 M. Ghazi et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55 (2011) 1222–1231 1225

Well
drilling

Scenario 1 (Well A) Scenario 2 (Well B) Scenario 3 (Well C) Scenario 4 (Well D) Scenario 5 (Well E)
First separaon First separaon First separaon First separaon First separaon
(Shale Shaker+)

Untreated reserve High centrifugaon Stabilizaon/ Reserve pit Reserve pit

pit (Burial opon) (Vercal Cungs Solidificaon (Temporary (Temporary
Dryer on-line storage) storage)

Stabilizaon/ Thermal
Solidificaon off line Desorpon

Transport Transport

Final disposal of Final disposal of

solidified cungs solid residues

Fig. 3. Treatment scenarios of drilling mud.

Scenario 5: After mechanical treatments, the mud is stored volatile components without incinerating the soil. Gases are
in the reserve pit, and later on transported towards the ther- condensed and separated to recover heavier hydrocarbons. At
mal desorption unit (thermal phase separation). In this treatment, the end of this treatment, cuttings have less than 1% oil
the cuttings are heated indirectly to remove volatile and semi- content.

Fig. 4. Diagram of pollutants transfer from well and reserve pit in the site.
1226 M. Ghazi et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55 (2011) 1222–1231

Table 1
Reference flow of drilling mud.

Drilling phases Phase 26 (WBM) Phase 16 (OBM) Phase 12 1/4 (OBM) Phase 8 3/8 (OBM) Phase 6 (OBM)
3
Volume handled (m ) 900 736 537 360 570
Water (t) 873 161.92 59.07 32.4 22.8
Gazoil (t) 373.76 219.09 195.84 466.48
BaSO4 (t) 85 12 657.69 225.92 0.72
Bentonite (t) 6
NaOH (t) 1.05
Ca (OH)2 (t) 15.6 19.1 6.34 4.54
NaCL (t) 10.87 9.25 3.07 0.29
Organic chemicals (t) 2.56 6.5 4.86 1.83 35.58
Formation losses (m3 ) 225 166.5 67 1.42 40
Residual fluids (t) 722 475 380 140 215.6
Cuttings (t) 256.46 312 105 6 21.12
Drilling waste (t) 978.5 787 485 146 236.72

3.2. Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) estimated from literature data and expert judgements when avail-
able (Weidema, 1998).
LCI consists in input and output data acquisition of the whole Table 1 gives the drilling mud flow averages of the five well
system. Data are related to the selected functional unit. The data drilling phases, and the volume of drilling waste stored in the
sources are calculated from SIMAPRO database, measured from reserve pit. These flow averages were calculated from the well
cuttings in reserve pits, and collected from literature references. drilling data of the site and taken as reference values.
There was a lack of data concerning atmospheric outputs of treat- Table 2 gives for each treatment scenario the matrix of some
ment processes and a need of precision concerning some chemical emissions and extractions calculated by SIMAPRO. The negative
compositions of the additives. For example, the additive known values in scenarios 2 and 3 correspond to emissions and extrac-
under the trademark D-D is a lubricant, among which only 1% of tions avoided by recovering oil during vertical centrifugation and
its composition is known (isopropyl alcohol), while the remaining thermal desorption.
99% is confidential. Thus, for some additives we have used formu-
las provided by the SIMAPRO data base as ESU-ETH, where several 3.3. Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)
types of organic additives containing at least an atom of carbon are
included. The LCI results were converted into potential impacts within
Major and trace elements concentrations in the material from corresponding mid-point categories, which were aggregated into
reserve pits were chemically analysed by absorption (ICP-AES) and corresponding damage categories since impact 2002+ is an end-
mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) methods (Samuel et al., 1985). More- point method oriented damage. For this study, eight impact
over, sequential extractions were performed following a simplified categories were selected: carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic
procedure inspired by the literature (Tessier et al., 1979) to quan- effects, respiratory effects by inorganic and organic substances, ter-
tify the pollutant fractions potentially emitted towards the sandy restrial ecotoxicity, global warming, non-renewable energy, and
ground and aquifer. mineral extraction. These intermediate categories were then aggre-
A qualitative uncertainty analysis was undertaken by esti- gated in four damage categories: human health, ecosystem quality,
mating the error margins of some extractions and emissions climate change, and resources. This choice of categories was made
based on uncertainty factors. Some factors were calculated from by taking into account the arid context of the site and the lack in
chemical data errors obtained after local sampling, others were surface waters characterizing the Sahara, the toxicity of drilling

Table 2
Emissions and extractions matrix part related to treatment scenarios.

Unit Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5

Extracted resources
Water kg 5.11E+06 3.77E+05 2.33E+06 5.86E+06 3.11E+06
Energy MJ 1.38E+05 −1.13E+07 1.32E+05 2.23E+05 −8.14E+05
Barite kg 6.13E+02 1.52E+02 4.35E+01 6.59E+01 4.24E+01
Bentonite kg 4.18E+06 9.98E+00 3.78E+00 3.89E+03 2.82E+03
Carbon kg 1.30E+04 −3.14E+04 8.20E+04 1.10E+05 −2.00E+03
Natural Gas m3 1.76E+03 −1.41E+04 6.80E+03 9.67E+03 −4.38E+03
Iron kg 7.86E+00 1.11E−02 9.61E+01 1.29E+02 1.67E−01
Air emissions
CO2 kg 4.75E+05 −4.82E+05 4.64E+05 6.26E+05 −3.71E+04
CO kg 1.85E+02 −9.23E+02 5.54E+02 7.49E+02 −6.47E+01
CH4 kg 6.58E+02 −6.34E+03 6.20E+02 8.69E+02 −4.23E+02
VOC kg 2.03E+05 x x 1.89E+05 1.37E+05
Soil emissions
Al kg 7.60E+04 5.69E+04 7.71E+04 1.68E+05 1.37E+05
As kg 2.90E+00 2.17E+00 4.71E−01 6.29E−01 1.34E+00
Ba kg 2.29E+05 1.71E+05 1.17E+05 1.86E+05 1.61E+05
Pb kg 1.06E+03 7.97E+02 2.06E+03 3.47E+03 1.43E+03
Ni kg 4.84E+01 3.62E+01 3.26E+01 5.71E+01 5.20E+01
Zn kg 7.26E+03 5.43E+03 2.09E+03 3.06E+03 1.17E+03
Aromatic hydrocarbon kg 3.87E+05 7.99E+04 3.62E+04 5.81E+04 1.02E+04
 M. Ghazi et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55 (2011) 1222–1231 1227

mud, and the energy and material consumption of industrial the HC50, the mean hazardous concentration affecting 50% of the
activity. species present in the ecosystem (Payet, 2004) (Eq. (8)).
The following equation is the numerical expression of LCI results
0.50
conversion (Eq. (1)) (Huijbregts et al., 2000): ˇx = (8)
HC50

e=m x=n
The concentration HC50 is calculated as the geometric mean of
Si = CFi,x,e × Mx,e (1) available EC50 which is the effect concentration on individual
e=1 x=1 species. Thus, because of limited availability of terrestrial species
where Si is the impact score for category i, Mx,e the substance data, the terrestrial HC50sx is extrapolated from aquatic HC50w x as
mass (LCI results); and CFi,x,e the characterization factor of impact follows (Eq. (9)):
category i for substance x due to an emission to compartment e HC50sx = HC50w
x (Kdx s + fw) (9)
(dimensionless). In most methods, and according to the level of
impact calculation models, one obtains the characterization fac- where Kdx is the adsorption substance coefficient (m3 /kg), s is the
tors by the product of the fate and effect factors of the emitted soil density (kg/m3 ) and fw is the dimensionless volumetric water
substances (Eq. (2)). content of the soil.
In our case, the local toxicity potential was evaluated for heavy
CF = FF × EF (2) metals and aromatic hydrocarbons contained in drilling mud. For
the human toxicity potential, we considered their emissions to
where FF is the fate factor describing the fraction of substance
soil from reserve pit and to groundwater from mud losses during
transferred from the emission compartment to the reception com-
the well drilling. The potential impact on groundwater is caused
partment, and its residence time in it; and EF is the effect factor of
by the phases 26 and 16 which are drilled through four aquifer
the substance on organisms per concentration of exposure.
levels: the Mio-Pliocene and Senonian carbonate aquifers in the
In the selected Impact 2002+ method, the characterization fac-
“Complexe Terminal”, and the Turonian and Albian aquifers in the
tor of human toxicity is called Human Toxicity Potential (HTP). It
“Continental Intercalaire” (Fig. 1). For the terrestrial ecotoxicity, we
is expressed in kg-equivalent of a reference substance (chloroethy-
considered emissions of hydrocarbons and metals substances from
lene), and corresponds to the ratio between the human damage
reserve pits to soil only because of the absence of surface waters in
factor of the emitted substance x, and that of the reference sub-
the Sahara. The fractions of metals potentially emitted towards the
stance (Eq. (3)):
sandy ground are calculated from sequential extraction data and
HDFx that of aromatic hydrocarbons fraction are estimated 30% of total
HTP = (3)
HDFchloroethylene hydrocarbon in Algerian gasoil. The fate of toxic substances emit-
ted from mud losses during well phases and from reserve pit was
where HDFx is the human damage factor of the toxic substance
modelled according to the following diagram (Fig. 4).
expressed in DALY (Disability Adjusted Life Years) per kg emitted
and calculated as follows (Eq. (4)):
4. Results and discussion
HDFx = IFx × EFx = IFx × ˇx × Dx (4)
In LCIA methods, impacts are calculated using impact scores
where IFx [kg intake/kg emitted] is the mass fraction of chemical which are expressed in percentage of total impact. A specific
released into the environment which is ultimately taken in by the impact category such as human toxicity or terrestrial ecotoxicity
human population via drinking water, food, inhalation, and dermal is expressed in kg equivalent of reference substance (kg eq C2 H3 Cl
exposure; Dx is the severity scale (DALY per incidence) and ˇx is the in Impact 2002+ method). The impact scores expressed in kg eq
dose–response slope factor [risk of an incidence per kg cumulative of reference substance are not the real values of the carcinogenic
intake] calculated following the formula (Crettaz, 2000) (Eq. (5)): effects or terrestrial eco-toxicity, but they are just a rough estimate
0.1 1 of a potential impact. This allows the comparison of the potential
ˇx = × (5) environmental impacts related to the steps of the system life cycle
ED10 Bw × LTh × N365
as well as the chosen scenarios.
where ED10 is the benchmark dose resulting in 10% effect over
background [mg/kg/day]; Bw is the average body weight in consid- 4.1. Impact assessment of drilling phases
ered population [kg/pers]; LTh is the average lifetime of humans in
considered population [year]; and N365 is the number of days per The drilling phases of the well were analysed separately and
year [days/year]. compared according to eight selected impact categories. Table 3
In the same way, the characterization factor of the terrestrial gives the impact scores of the different phases expressed in equiv-
ecotoxicity is called Terrestrial Ecotoxicity Potential (TEP), and cal- alent units and Fig. 5 shows the scores comparison expressed in
culated compared to a reference substance which is triethylene percentages of total impact which correspond to the impact scores
glycol (TEG) and expressed in equivalent kg TEG (Eq. (6)): aggregation of the phases in each impact category (Fig. 5 and
TPAFsx Table 3).
TEP = (6) The 16 phase has the highest score in the human toxicity
TPAFTEG
category because of oil-based mud losses inducing local emis-
where TPAFsx is the fraction of terrestrial species potentially affected sions of aromatic hydrocarbon and metals to Turonian and Albian
in the terrestrial compartment s by the toxic effect of the substance groundwater. The human toxicity impact is lower on Mio-Pliocene
x according to this formula (Eq. (7)): groundwater because the 26 phase is mainly composed of water
TPAFsx = Fxms × xs × ˇx (7) (>90%). The scores for the other impact categories of the 26 phase
are also low and it thus appears that 26 phase is the least polluting,
where Fxms is the dimensionless fraction of substance x emitted in in spite of strong energy consumption during drilling.
compartment m and transferred in compartment s; xs is the time Mud losses were not taken into account in the other phases
residence of substance x in compartment s; and ˇx is the risk-based drilled with OBM considering the fact that there are no ground-
effect factor which assesses the mean impact on species, using water on these levels of drilling. However, the mud chemical
1228 M. Ghazi et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55 (2011) 1222–1231

Table 3
Impact scores of the drilling phases expressed in corresponding units.

Impact categories Unit Phase 26 Phase 16 Phase 12 1/4 Phase 8 3/8 Phase 6

Carcinogens CAN kg C2 H3 Cl 3.90E+02 8.26E+06 2.08E+04 1.62E+04 4.44E+04

Non-Carcinogens NCAN kg C2 H3 Cl 1.48E+03 1.43E+04 3.87E+03 2.20E+03 5.10E+03
Respiratory inorganics RNOG kg PM2.5 5.29E+01 3.45E+02 2.58E+02 1.59E+02 4.21E+02
Respiratory organics NROG kg ethylene 2.25E+02 3.47E+03 1.77E+03 1.70E+03 3.08E+03
Terrestrial ecotoxicity TEC kg TEG sol 7.85E+05 1.84E+06 1.78E+06 1.02E+06 3.47E+06
Global warming GLW kg CO2 7.80E+04 3.52E+05 3.01E+05 1.95E+05 4.65E+05
Non-renewable energy NRE MJ primary 1.26E+06 3.08E+07 1.72E+07 1.23E+07 3.38E+07
Mineral extraction MEX MJ surplus 6.66E−01 2.72E−01 3.06E+00 1.04E+00 1.11E+00

Fig. 5. Impact scores comparison of the 5 drilling phases. CAR: carcinogenic effect; Fig. 7. Percentages of impact scores in scenario 2.
NCAR: non carcinogenic effect; RNOG: respiratory effect by inorganic substances;
ROG: respiratory effect by organic substances; TEC: terrestrial ecotoxicity; GLW:
global warming; NRE: non-renewable energy; MEX: mineral extraction.
impermeable, it has the greatest contribution in other categories
because of its production processes whereas consumed energy and
composition impact is the highest in these phases. Also, it was the geomembrane have a lower contribution.
6 phase made up of 94% oil which records high scores in all impact In scenario 2 (Fig. 7), cuttings stemming from vertical dryer have
categories because of the contribution of diesel as mud base. In a major contribution in human and terrestrial toxicity because of 5%
phase 12 , the great volume of OBM injected which contains more of oil and metal pollutants remaining after the high centrifugation,
important quantities of mineral additives like barite and bentonite while the recovered oil by this scenario allows avoided impacts in
(Table 1), leads to the highest score in mineral extraction. Concern- respiratory effects, global warming, and non-renewable energy.
ing the 8 phase, the scores in all the categories are reduced because In scenario 3 (Fig. 8), online treated cuttings contribute mainly
of a low OBM mud volume (551 tons) compared to other phases. to human toxicity and terrestrial eco-toxicity, while cement used
in stabilisation/solidification process has the major contribution in
4.2. Impact assessment of treatment scenarios respiratory effect by inorganic substances, global warming, non-
renewable energy and mineral extraction. The contribution of
The environmental impacts of the five treatment scenarios of diesel consumed during the treatment process is greater in res-
drilling mud were studied separately and compared to analyse their piratory organics but secondary in non-renewable energy.
environmental advantages and define improvements. Figs. 6–10 In scenario 4 where stabilisation/solidification is off line (Fig. 9),
show the contribution of the different processes in each scenario. the treated cuttings and used cement increase the contribution of
In scenario 1 (Fig. 6), the drilling mud definitively stored in the treatment process in all categories except in respiratory organ-
the reserve pit without treatment (burial option) has the major ics where COV emissions from the temporary reserve pit increase
contribution in human toxicity, terrestrial ecotoxicity because of the score. Transport contributes only weakly to all the categories.
emissions to soil of hydrocarbons and heavy metals; also the
organic respiratory effect has a high contribution because of COV
emissions to air. As for bentonite used to make the reserve pit

Fig. 6. Percentages of impact scores in scenario 1. Fig. 8. Percentages of impact scores in scenario 3.
 M. Ghazi et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55 (2011) 1222–1231 1229

Fig. 9. Percentages of impact scores in scenario 5.

Fig. 12. Impact scores of the 5 scenarios in terrestrial ecotoxicity (kg TEG soil).

scenario 1 (4.45E+08 kg C2 H3 Cl) is maximal by comparison to the

other scenarios. It is followed by scenario 2 because of 5% remain-
ing oil in dried cuttings, while scenario 5 is the most favourable as
thermal desorption allows to reduce hydrocarbons to less than 1%
in cuttings. Concerning non-carcinogenic effects, the metals con-
tributing to this category in all scenarios, are mainly Ba, Zn, Sb and
As. These results show that Ba impact is more reduced in scenario 3,
but it remains high in all scenarios. Also, Zn impact is more reduced
in scenario 5, while Sb and As impacts are more reduced in scenario
4.
In the same way, the metals mainly contributing to terrestrial
eco-toxicity are Al, Zn, Cu, Pb, Ba, Cr, and Ni. Treatments for Zn and
Cu are more efficient especially in scenarios 5, 3, and 4. On the con-
Fig. 10. Percentages of impact scores in scenario 5. trary, both Al and Pb have higher impact scores in scenarios 5, 4 and
3; this could be explained by their presence in the materials used in
the treatment processes by stabilisation/solidification and thermal
In scenario 5 (Fig. 10), the remaining hydrocarbons and heavy desorption. The impact score of Cr and Ni, is lower in scenarios 2
metals in cuttings treated by thermal desorption contribute mainly and 3 where the mud storage in the reserve pit was avoided. For
in carcinogenic effects and moderately in terrestrial eco-toxicity. Ba, there is not a great difference between all the scenarios which
Organic and inorganic pollutants and used bentonite increase the shows a low efficiency of the treatments to reduce this pollutant in
impact scores of the temporary reserve pit in all categories except in muds.
respiratory inorganic, global warming and non-renewable energy.
In this scenario, recovered oil by thermal desorption allows avoided
4.3. Damage analysis of drilling mud life cycle
impacts and the transport contribution to environmental impacts
is also low.
The damage analysis concerning the entire life cycle of drilling
The comparison between treatment scenarios concerning local
mud takes into account both the drilling phases for each well and
impacts of hydrocarbons and metal emissions is shown in
the corresponding treatment scenario. Thus, five wells (A, B, C, D,
Figs. 11 and 12. In each figure, the error bars linked to the uncer-
and E) were compared at the level of damage categories (Table 4).
tainty factors resulting from an uncertainty analysis described
Their score results were normalized by reference to the European
above, represent the 95%confidence interval of impact scores.
normalized impacts according to Impact 2002+ method (Fig. 13).
In all scenarios, the aromatic hydrocarbons emitted to the soil
The comparison between the wells is based on their differenti-
from treated cuttings and reserve pits are mainly responsible for
carcinogenic effects. Due to the untreated reserve pit, their score in

Fig. 11. Impact scores (kg C2 H3 Cl) of the 5 scenarios in carcinogens (hydrocarbons)
and non-carcinogens (metals) effects. Fig. 13. Normalized damage scores of the 5 wells.
1230 M. Ghazi et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55 (2011) 1222–1231

Table 4
Damage scores expressed in the corresponding units of the 5 wells.

Damage categories Unit Well A Well B Well C Well D Well E

Human Health DALY 1.32E+03 3.18E+02 1.86E+02 2.48E+02 8.51E+01

Ecosystem Quality PDF × m2 × year 8.66E+08 6.48E+08 5.83E+08 1.19E+09 9.08E+08
Climate Change kg CO2 1.87E+06 8.90E+05 1.89E+06 2.46E+06 1.67E+06
Resources MJ primary 1.03E+08 1.04E+07 9.81E+07 1.06E+08 9.38E+07

ation by the treatment scenarios because the drilling phases are effects and terrestrial ecotoxicity categories. Thus, the recom-
the same. The analysis shows two dominating damage categories mendations are to improve the storage conditions especially
of drilling mud life cycle concerning the five wells: human health a complete excavation of the contaminated cuttings and
which includes the carcinogen and non-carcinogen effects; and the the geomembrane integrity. This should resist the extreme
ecosystem quality which includes only terrestrial eco-toxicity. This temperature in an arid climate better.
is mainly due to the local impact of emissions from the reserve pits (iii) The volume minimization of drilling waste was important for
and treated cuttings. The aggregation of these normalized scores the reduction of the potential environmental impacts of sce-
for both damage categories allows classifying the scenarios from narios 1 and 2. It would also be advantageous to the other
the worst to the more advantageous: scenario 1 (well A) > scenario scenarios, where the mud storage cannot be avoided to build
2 (well D) > scenario 3 (well B) > scenario 4 (well E) > scenario (well two reserve pits so as to separate the drilling waste of the phase
C). 26, which is voluminous but less polluting, from the other well
phases containing a lot of hydrocarbons.
4.4. Industrial implications and recommendations

The preliminary results obtained by life cycle assessment of 5. Conclusion

drilling mud system allow to underline the steps which present the
major impact and to compare environmental impacts of different Life Cycle Assessment is a relevant methodology to evaluate the
treatments scenarios. environmental impacts of drilling mud. The local impact of hydro-
Thus, for each drilling well, the phase 16 has the highest impact carbon and metal emissions to groundwater during drilling and to
score in carcinogen effects because of local hydrocarbons emissions the soil during mud storage in reserve pit has been dominant in
from mud losses presenting a potential impact on Turonian and drilling mud life cycle. The contribution of identified substances to
Albian aquifer. For the phase 26 which crosses the Mio-Pliocene human toxicity and terrestrial toxicity was characterized accord-
aquifer, the impact score in the same category is lower because it ing to the semi-empirical model of impact 2002+ method by taking
contains more than 90% of water. However the toxic impact highly into account the sandy soil and the weak density of population
depends on the chemical additives quantity and the potential emis- in this arid area. However, the conclusions cannot be final at this
sion of metal pollutants from mud losses which can be important state of modeling. There are still uncertainties firstly due to a lack
during this phase. Moreover, the mud storage stage presents also of data in the life cycle inventory concerning especially some mud
a strong impact due to hydrocarbons and metals emission to the additives composition and atmospheric emissions of the treatment
soil, especially in scenario 1 (reserve pit without treatment) and in processes; and secondarily to the fact that other important ways
scenarios 4 and 5 (temporary reserve pit). So, some improvements of pollutants transfer and population exposition were not anal-
can be proposed: ysed. This concerns respiratory effect by inhalation of organic and
non organic substances which are spread by frequent sandy winds
(i) The chemical formulation of drilling mud has a determining from the Sahara. It is necessary to undertake atmospheric measures
influence on the mud life cycle since the substances result- to estimate the transferred fraction of pollutant by sandy winds
ing from the major components were identified as making on cultivated areas and palm groves, then to analyse the popula-
the greatest contribution to the dominating impact categories tion’s exposition to toxic substances by ingestion of contaminated
which are human toxicity and terrestrial eco-toxicity. Thus, agricultural products.
the environmental improvement can be a formulation of mud Moreover, terrestrial eco-toxicity was characterized in this
containing fewer components with high pollution potential method by effect factors which are calculated with the concen-
like diesel, and substitution of the chemical additives contain- trations HC50 extrapolated from EC50 of the species in temperate
ing the identified substances. The substitution of diesel could zones. So, these effect factors must be adapted to desert species by
be synthetic fluids with biodegradable polymers which are undertaking toxicity tests to calculate their EC50 and extrapolate
already applied to other sites in the world and which can be their HC50.
at the same time interesting on the economic and technical These questions are a part of current developments of LCA
aspects. Another improvement can be the tracking of mud’s research where several authors confirm that space-specific equiv-
chemical additives to avoid those containing the most metallic alence factors must be established (Hauschild and Potting, 2004;
elements identified as substances with high toxic potential. Bjorklund, 2002; Yellishetty et al., 2009). The evaluation of the local
(ii) The temporary mud storage in off line stabilisa- impact categories such as human toxicity or terrestrial eco-toxicity
tion/solidification and thermal desorption scenarios, largely with generic characterization factors can lead to erroneous estima-
contributes to decreasing the environmental advantages of tions given that they were established in temperate zone (Western
these processes because of the high metals contents in there Europe and North America). Those characterization factors do not
temporary reserve pits. This appears clearly in the case of take into account the spatial variability of the pollutants trans-
the scenario THERM where the contents of hydrocarbons fer mechanisms, and the geochemical processes which control the
were decreased to less than 1% in cuttings. Thus the THERM substances fate and their bioavailability in a specific medium.
scenario becomes the most advantageous in the category of It would be relevant therefore to improve analysis of the sub-
carcinogenic effects. However, the high metals contents in the stances fate and effects in arid medium with the aim of calculating
temporary reserve pit increased its scores in non-carcinogenic specific factors to better characterize human toxicity and terres-
 M. Ghazi et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55 (2011) 1222–1231 1231

trial ecotoxicity on a local scale. This will constitute the future Kherfellah N, Ait Salem H, Bekkour K, Benhadid S. A sedimentological approach for
orientations for this research. an optimal resolution of drilling mud losses. Oil & Gas Science and Technology
2002;6:631–5.
Khodja M, Canselier JP, Dali C, Hafid S, Ouahab R. A comparison of the various treat-
Acknowledgments ments of oil well drilling waste in Algerian fields. Toulouse: GPE; April 2007.
Kohler A. Environmental assessment of industrial wastewater treatment processes
and waterborne organic contaminant emissions. Ph.D. thesis. Swiss Federal
This work was supported by bilateral project TASSILI (Partenar- Institute of Technology, Zurich; 2006. 181 p.
iat Hubert Curien) and CNRS-DPGRF project no. 19852. We thank Moulla A. Un aperçu de quelques résultats d’hydrologie isotopique importants
the technical staff of CGS-LHYGES (UMR 7517, Strasbourg, France), obtenus au Sahara algérien. Ouargla, Algérie: Colloque international sur les
ressources en eau souterraines au Sahara (CIRESS); 2005.
and the technical staff of CRD/Sonatrach, Boumerdess, Algeria. We Payet J. Assessing toxic impacts on aquatic ecosystems in Life Cycle Assess-
thank Vanessa Briant for her help translating this text. ment (LCA). Ph.D. thesis. Ecole polytechnique Federale de Lausanne; 2004.
190 p.
Pré Consultants. Database manual – SimaPro 7.1. Amersfoort, Netherlands: Pré Con-
References sultants; 2007, http://www.pre.nl.
Renou S. Analyse de cycle de vie appliquée aux systèmes de traitement des eaux
Benayada B, Habchi KN, Khodja M. Stabilisation of clay walls during drilling in usées. Thèse de doctorat. Institut National Polytechnique de Lorraine; 2006. 259
southern Algeria. Applied Energy 2003;2:51–9. p.
Brandes LJ, den Hollander H, van de Meent D. SimpleBox 2.0: a nested multime- Rosenbaum RK, Bachmann TM, Hauschild MZ, Huijbregts MAJ, Jolliet O, Juraske
dia fate model for evaluating the environmental fate of chemicals, Rep. No. R, et al. USEtoxs The UNEPSETAC toxicity model: recommended characterisa-
719101029. RIVM; 1996. 155 p. tion factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in Life Cycle Impact
Bjorklund AE. Survey of approaches to improve reliability in LCA. The International Assessment. Int J LCA; 2008, doi:10.10007/s11367-008-0038-4.
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2002;7(2):62–72. Ryding SO, Steen B. A PC-based system for development and application of environ-
Crettaz P. From toxic release to damage on human health: a method of Life Cycle mental priority strategies in product design – from cradle to grave. Report nr B
Impact Assessment, with a case study on domestic rainwater use. Ph.D. thesis. 1022, Gothenburg; 1991.
Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne; 2000. 290 p. Samuel J, Rouault R, Besnus Y. Analyse multiélémentaire standardisée des matéri-
Dhina O, Aroun MC. Environmental preservation in oil and gas stream activities aux géologiques en spectrométrie d’émission par plasma à couplage inductif.
in Algeria. Difficulties and sustainable development challenge. In: 19th World Analysis 1985;13:312–7.
Energy Congress; 2004. Steen B. A systematic approach to environmental priority strategies in product
Finnveden G. Methodological aspects of Life Cycle Assessment of integrated development (EPS). Version 2000 – Models and data of the default method.
solid waste management systems. Resources, Conservation and Recycling Gothenburg: Chalmers University of Technology, Environmental Systems Anal-
1999;26:173–87. ysis; 1999, CPM report, 5: 312 p.
Goedkoop M, Spriensma R. The Eco-indicator 99: a damage oriented method for Life Suh YJ, Rousseaux P. An LCA of alternative wastewater sludge treatment scenarios.
Cycle Impact Assessment – methodology report. PRé Consultants; 2000, 111 p. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2002;35(3):191–200.
Guinee JB, Gorrée M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, deKoning A, et al. Life Cycle Tessier A, Campbell PGC, Bisson M. Sequential extraction procedure for speciation
Assessment, an operational guide to ISO Standard. University of Amsterdam; of particulate traces metals. Analytical Chemistry 1979;51(7):844–51.
2001, http://www.leidenuniv.nl/cml/ssp/projects/lca2/lca2.html. US EPA. Development document for final effluent limitations guidelines and stan-
Hauschild M, Potting J. Spatial differentiation in life cycle impact assessment. The dards for synthetic-based drilling fluids and other non-aqueous drilling fluids in
EDIP2003 methodology. Copenhagen: Guidelines from the Danish Environmen- the oil and gas extraction. Environmental Protection Agency; 2000, 821-B-00-
tal Protection Agency; 2004. 013.
Huijbregts MAJ, Thissen U, Guinee JB, Jager T, Kalf D, Van De Meent D, et al. Priority Weidema BP. Multi-user test of the data quality matrix for product life cycle
assessment of toxic substances in life cycle assessment. Part I: Calculation of inventory. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 1998;3(5):
toxicity potentials for 181 substances with the nested multi media fate, exposure 259–65.
and effects model USES-LCA. Chemosphere 2000;41:541–73. Wenzel H, Hauschild M, Alting L. Environmental assessment of products, methodol-
International Standardisation Organisation. Environmental management-life cycle ogy, tools and case studies in product development, vol. 1. Netherlands: Kluwer
assessment-principles and framework. Geneva: ISO; 2006a, ISO 14040. Academic Publishers; 2000, 543 p.
International Standardisation Organisation. Environmental management-life cycle Yellishetty M, Ranjith PG, Tharumarajah A, Bhosale S. Life cycle assessment
assessment requirements and guidelines. Geneva: ISO; 2006b, ISO 14044. in the minerals and metals sector: a critical review of selected issues
Jolliet O, Margni M, Charles R, Humbert S, Payet J, Rebitzer G, et al. IMPACT 2002+: and challenges. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2009;14:
a new Life Cycle Impact Assessment methodology. The International Journal of 257–67.
Life Cycle Assessment 2003;8(6):324–30.