Review Article

Waste Management & Research

30(5) 457–473

A review of the current options for the Ó The Author(s) 2012

Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
treatment and safe disposal of drill DOI: 10.1177/0734242X11419892
wmr.sagepub.com
cuttings

Andrew S Ball1, Richard J. Stewart2 and Kirsten Schliephake3

Abstract
Drilling for the exploration and extraction of oil requires the use of drilling fluids which are continuously pumped down and
returned carrying the rock phase that is extracted from the well. The potential environmental impacts of contaminated fluids
from drilling operations have attracted increasing community awareness and scrutiny. This review article highlights current
advances in the treatment of drill cuttings and compares the technologies in terms of cost, time and space requirements.
Traditionally, a range of non-biological methods have been employed for the disposal of drill cuttings including burial pits,
landfills and re-injection, chemical stabilization and solidification and thermal treatments such as incineration and thermal
desorption. More recently, bioremediation has been successfully applied as a treatment process for cuttings. This review pro-
vides a current comparison of bioremediation technologies and non-biological technologies for the treatment of contaminated
drill cuttings providing information on a number of factors that need to be taken into account when choosing the best tech-
nology for drilling waste management including the environmental risks associated with disposal of drilling wastes.

Keywords
Disposal of drill cuttings, drilling muds, bioremediation of drill cuttings, drilling wastes, oil extraction, treatment of drilling
wastes
Date received: 31 March 2011; accepted: 13 July 2011

Introduction
Drilling for the exploration and extraction of oil and natural
gas requires the use of drilling fluids, also known as ‘muds’ for
historical reasons (the first fluids consisted mainly of clay
mud) (Okpokwasili and Nnubia, 1995). Drilling fluids are
continuously pumped down the well through the hollow
drill string and return through the well annulus carrying the
rock phase that is extracted from the well. The main purpose
of the fluids is to supply the drill cuttings transport phase, but
they also cool and lubricate the drill bit, stabilize the well bore
and control subsurface (down-hole) pressures (Hamed and
Belhadri, 2009;Okpokwasili and Nnubia, 1995; Sadiq et al.,
2003; Schaanning et al., 2008). The latter of these tasks is
important in order to avoid blow-out of the well. Pressure is
achieved by controlling fluid density, balancing it with the
pressure that is experienced down-hole and by including
very heavy minerals such as barites to counteract the pressure
in the hole. As the drill bit grinds rocks into drill cuttings,
these cuttings become entrapped within the fluid flow and
are carried to the surface where the cuttings are separated
from the fluids and other contaminants so that the mud can
be re-employed in the operation (Figure 1). The fluids how-
ever, are continuously modified by the addition of compo-
nents according to loss of rheological properties down-hole
and changes in ambient well conditions. Solids removal is one
of the most important aspects of system control, since it has a
direct bearing on drilling efficiency and represents an oppor-
tunity to reduce overall drilling costs (Schaanning et al., 2008).
The first step of separation involves circulation of the mixture
of fluid and cuttings over vibrating screens (shale shakers).
The liquid fluid passes through the screens and is recirculated
1
School of Biological Sciences, Flinders University of South Australia,
Bedford Park, South Australia, Australia
2
Ziltek Pty Ltd, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
3
School of Applied Sciences and Engineering, Monash University,
Churchill, Victoria, Australia
Corresponding author:
Andrew S Ball, Flinders University, School of Biological Sciences, Sturt
Road, Bedford Park, GPO Box 2100, South Australia 5001, Australia
Email andy.ball@flinders.edu.au
458
Swivel
Shale shaker
Drill pipe
Annulus
Bit
Figure 1. Schematic illustration of the drilling process.
back to tanks (Bell et al., 1998). Drill cuttings are collected and
stored in a tank or pit for further treatment or management.
Additional mechanical processes such as hydrocycloning,
centrifugation and gravitational settling are often used to
further remove as many fine solids as possible as these parti-
cles tend to interfere with drilling performance. The separated
fine solids are combined with the larger drill cuttings removed
by the shale shakers (US EPA 2000). Limitations in separation
treatment technologies often result in a number of the base
fluids, mud constituents and possibly crude oil being ineffec-
tively removed from the cuttings and thus ending up as resid-
uals in the solid waste stream. Consequently, drilling waste
discharges comprise of drill cuttings to which drilling fluids,
muds and oils are adhered (Sadiq et al. 2003).
Drilling fluids can be broadly categorized into three main
groups depending on base liquid (Table 1) (OSPAR 2009;
Sadiq et al. 2003). The composition of drilling fluids can
vary widely and may include a plethora of different chemicals
(Table 2) (Patin 1999). Synthetic based fluids (SBFs) and oil-
based fluids (OBFs) drill a cleaner hole than water-based
fluids (WBFs), with less sloughing, and generate a lower
volume of drill cuttings (Growcock et al., 2002).
Consequently OBFs and SBFs are generally preferred over
WBFs in moist applications for their ability to drill a gauge
hole, minimizing drilling problems. However, the environ-
mental impact and worker safety issues relating to the use of
OBFs based on diesel and mineral oil and the formation of
poly-nuclear aromatic hydrocarbons are key disadvantages
for their use. SBFs have lower toxicity, faster biodegradability
and lower bioaccumulation potential and are recyclable.
WBFs are generally discharged to the sea at offshore locations
(US DOE, 2003).
Waste Management & Research 30(5)
Solid waste
discharge
Mud pit
In early offshore oil and gas development, drilling wastes
were discharged from the platforms directly to the ocean; the
oceans were perceived to be limitless dumping grounds.
During the 1970s and 1980s, however, evidence mounted
that oil-based drilling fluids and cuttings could have undesir-
able effects on local ecology as appreciable changes were
seen in the benthos adjacent to many oil and gas platforms
in the North Sea (Davies et al., 1984; Kingston, 1992; Olsgard
and Gray, 1995). Accumulated oil-based cuttings can affect
the local ecosystem in three main ways: by directly covering
organisms, by presenting direct toxicity to surrounding organ-
isms, and by forming anoxic conditions caused by microbial
degradation of the organic components in the waste (Grant
and Briggs, 2002; Jorissen et al., 2009; Marsh, 2003).
Drill cutting piles are generally biologically impoverished,
poorly sorted, weakly cohesive oil-rich silts with a variable
admixture of clay particles (Black et al., 2002). Over the last
decade, the potential environmental and health impacts of
contaminated fluids and rock cuttings from drilling opera-
tions have attracted increasing community awareness and
scrutiny. OBFs are toxic due to their composition (Cranford
and Gordon, 1991; Cranford et al., 1999; Daan et al., 1992).
Results of toxicological studies on used drilling fluids showed
that most formulations have 96-h LC50 (lethal concentration
causing the death of 50% of test organisms during a cer-
tain exposure time) values ranging between 104 and
105 mg g1 (1–10%) (Patin, 1999). Experiments have also
shown that after 180 days of discharge of drill cuttings con-
taminated by oil-based mud, less than 5% were biodegraded
(Østgaard and Jensen, 1985). As a consequence, during the
1980s there was a shift away from the use of diesel oil in dril-
ling mud and towards ‘non-toxic’ or ‘low toxicity’ mineral
Ball et al. 459

Table 1. Comparison between water-based fluids, oil-based fluids and synthetic-based fluids.

Water-based fluids Oil-based fluids Synthetic-based fluids

Solids are suspended in water
and have at least one common
ingredient – extremely hydro-
philic clay that increases
viscosity and prevents fluid
loss from the borehole.
Solids are suspended in a
hydrocarbon distillate (e.g.
diesel or mineral oil) rather
than water and may contain
barites (BaSO4) used for con-
trolling hydrostatic pressure
on the account of its high
density.
Solids are suspended in a
synthetic oil (such as vegeta-
ble esters, olefins, ethers and
others), which provide drilling
performance comparable to
OBFs, but with far lower envi-
ronmental and occupational
health effects.

and numerous companies and industry associations have

Table 2. Major components that define the generic types of
drilling fluids (Source: Patin 1999).
Major components Examples
Base Fresh water, salt water, paraffin, diesel,
polyemulsion, air, foam, synthetic base
Oil Gasoline, diesel, lubricant oil, crude oil,
synthetic oil
Clay mixture Bentonite, kaolinites, organophilic clays
Organic polymers Cellulose, starch, gum, tannins
Weighting agents BaSO4, calcite, carbonates
Heavy metals Chromium, nickel, lead, cadmium, zinc
Biocides Carbamate, sodium, sulfide, aldehyde,
chlorinated phenols
Chlorides Potassium chloride, magnesium chloride,
sodium chloride, calcium chloride
Other additives Deformers, corrosion and scale inhibitors
oils, basically paraffin oils. No diesel oil-based fluids have
been used in the North Sea since 1985 (GESAMP, 1993).
The Convention for the Protection of the Marine
Environment of the North-East Atlantic (known as the
‘OSPAR Convention’) is the basis for national laws governing
discharges into the North Sea, including offshore drilling
wastes. Due to strict regulations on discharge of OPF-
contaminated cuttings (OSPAR, 2003), most offshore wells
are currently drilled with water-based fluids (WBF). In addi-
tion to heavy metal contaminants in the minerals, most WBFs
contain approximately 20 different additives (Neff, 2005).
Many of these are considered to pose little or no risk
(PLONOR) to the environment (OSPAR, 2008).The US
Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 states that: ‘pollution that
cannot be prevented should be recycled in an environmentally
safe manner whenever feasible, and disposal or release into the
environment should be employed only as the last resort’. The
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates dis-
charges of drilling muds and cuttings to state and federal
waters of the US Current National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) allows discharge of WBM
and cuttings to federal, but not state, waters if they meet
restrictions in the Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELG)
(OSPAR, 2008). In the USA, the EPA, the Department of
Energy (DOE), the Minerals Management Service (MMS),
worked together to finalize new Effluent Limitations
Guidelines for SBFs (US EPA, 2000). Those rules allow for
discharge of SBM cuttings, subject to various restrictions but
prohibit the discharge of SBMs themselves. For offshore dril-
ling in the Gulf of Mexico, the guidelines classify the amount
of oil in drill cuttings as the retention on cuttings (ROC),
defined by mass of oil per mass of cuttings and reported as
percentage. For offshore drilling, the ROC of OBF cuttings is
set to 0%. For SBFs the discharge regulations require either
containment of contaminated cuttings or drying below 6.9%
ROC for base fluids that meet the environmental performance
criteria for C16–C18 internal olefins, and 9.4% ROC for base
fluids that meet the environmental performance criteria of
esters. Untreated OBF and SBF drill cuttings fall within the
EU list of hazardous waste (CEC, 2007; OSPAR, 2001).
Untreated WBF cuttings are generally not categorized as spe-
cial waste unless they contain oil. However, WBF cuttings
cannot be disposed to landfill without undergoing some
form of treatment to reduce the high liquid content and salin-
ity. With increasing pressure on landfill space and waste
classification codes, coupled with greater emphasis on sustain-
ability, there is an urgent need to identify environmentally
sustainable clean-up strategies for drill cuttings management.
This review looks at current advances in each of the main
technologies available for treating drill cuttings and com-
pares the technologies in terms of cost, time and space
requirements.
Non-biological treatment and disposal
options
Historically, a wide range of non-biological methods have
been employed for the disposal of drilling wastes. These meth-
ods are described in the following section.
Off-site and on-site burial options
Typically, in offshore operations drilling waste has been either
disposed of on-site by discharging to the sea or re-injected to
disposal wells. In onshore operations, drill cuttings have been
temporarily stored in earthen pits (on-site or off-site) before
disposal to the land or subsurface (Wojtanowicz, 2008).
460
Pit burial is the most common onshore disposal technique
used for drill cuttings. Generally, the solids are buried in the
same pit (the reserve pit) used for collection and temporary
storage of the waste fluid and cuttings after the liquid is
allowed to evaporate. Pit burial represents a simple and low
cost disposal method. The methodology requires no transpor-
tation of the drilling waste, thereby reducing both cost and
risk of accidental spills during transportation. On-site pits
have been classified according to the waste that they hold or
their function as summarized by Wojtanowicz (2008). In the
US, pit burial represents a key waste management technique;
generally during onshore drilling operations, drilling wastes
are sent directly to a waste pit which is used to accumulate,
store and, to a large extent, dispose of spent drilling fluids,
cuttings and associated drill site wastes generated during dril-
ling and completion operations. Drilling reserve pits are
located near the drilling site and are generally open to the
atmosphere. Three options for on-site disposal of the liquid
phase are disposal to surface waters, land spreading or sub-
surface injection (Wojtanowicz, 2008). On-site pit burial is
environmentally unsuitable for wastes that contain high con-
centrations of oil, salt, biologically available metals and other
harmful components that could migrate from the pit and con-
taminate usable water resources (Cripps, 1998). The level of
toxicity of any drill cutting depends on the composition of the
formation rock and the type of drill fluid involved, and despite
various treatment techniques, the generally complex blend of
both organic and inorganic contaminants, including chlorides
has hindered the re-use of treated cuttings (Al-Ansary and Al-
Tabbaa, 2007; Leonard and Stegemann, 2009). Modern tech-
nology of pit closure involves partial removal of waste from
the pit, separation of liquids from solids and different treat-
ment of these two phases prior to their final disposal on-site
(Wojtanowicz, 2008). In some oil field areas, large landfills are
operated to dispose of oil field waste from multiple wells.
Burial usually results in anaerobic conditions, which limit
any further degradation when compared with waste materials
that are land-farmed or land-spread, where aerobic conditions
predominate. The oldest and cheapest technique for pit clo-
sure is backfilling the pit berm on top of the waste and com-
pacting the surface area. At the end of the drilling job,
operators pump off the liquid layers for disposal through
injection wells and then cover and bury the solids in place
(pit burial). Environmental risks of this technique include
leaching of concentrated waste components from periodic
rainfalls and lack of oxygen for biodegradation of organics
and hydrocarbon-contaminated waste (Cripps, 1998). At pre-
sent, the method of backfilling meets regulatory approval only
if the concentration of contaminants has been found to be
below certain levels that render the waste harmless with-
out dilutions (LA Louisiana Administrative Code, 2008).
Otherwise, land treatment techniques should be used for oil-
field pit closure. This is a simple, inexpensive process that has
been used for decades and is acceptable to most regulatory
Waste Management & Research 30(5)
agencies. Given the low cost of this process, there is little
incentive for onshore operators in most locations to explore
alternatives (Veil and Dusseault, 2003). As a rehabilitation
technique, pits designated for closure are covered in place
using native soils, the surface is graded to prevent water accu-
mulation, and the area is revegetated with native species to
reduce the potential for erosion and promote full recovery of
the area’s ecosystem (Veil, 2002).
Another common method of disposing of drill cuttings is
to send them to landfill. An example is the landfill at a remote
site in Libya designed and built by TotalFinaElf to dispose of
inert wastes from oil and gas exploration. The landfill has a
bottom liner overlaid by a geological barrier to prevent con-
tamination of the soil. A top liner, which is drawn over the
waste during non-active periods, is installed permanently after
the landfill is closed. Two collection pits collect rainwater and
subsequent leachate (Morillon et al., 2002). Water-based drill
cuttings are suitable for landfilling as they are semi-solid inert
material that is low in hydrocarbons and in salt. The advan-
tages of on-site burial of drilling wastes include the fact that it
is based on simple, low-cost technology for uncontaminated
solid wastes and that only limited surface area requirements.
Concerns over the use of landfilling include the potential for
groundwater contamination and the requirements for stabili-
zation and monitoring (Freeman, 1997). In terms of disposal
of drilling wastes, the estimated costs are AU$12–15 per m3
of waste (Bansal and Sugiarto, 1999).
There are several key factors, listed here, which need to be
considered prior to deciding to bury drilling wastes.
. Depth of pit. A burial pit should be located at a distance of
at least 1.5 metres above any groundwater. This will greatly
reduce the risk of contamination of the groundwater with
drilling waste. In addition, the top of the burial pit should
be located well below the potential rooting zone of plants
either already growing or likely to grow in that area in the
future. Generally the rooting zone is around 1.0 metre.
. Soil type. This is an important consideration. Soil type
varies from clay soils and other impermeable soils to per-
meable soils such as sandy soils.
. Control of runoff and leachate. The use of geo-membranes
and clay as pit liners will assist in controlling aqueous frac-
tions, preventing groundwater contamination.
. Monitoring. Regular sampling and monitoring will help
reduce the potential for environmental damage caused
through failure of the pit to control the drilling waste.
. Chemical composition. A knowledge of the original chem-
ical composition of the drilling waste is essential in deter-
mining the potential risk of pit burial and to determining
the optimum pit burial procedure.
. Reactivity of drilling waste. A knowledge of the reactivity
of the drilling waste is also key in the waste management
process. Moisture content, dissolved oxygen and metal
content are all important parameters to be measured.
Ball et al.
On- and off-site re-injection of cuttings
Tightening regulations and increased environmental controls
have forced operators of oil and gas exploration to explore
new solutions to overcome disposal problems of drill cuttings.
One of the techniques that the industry has developed is to
inject drill cuttings as ground up material into a subsurface
formation where it is likely to remain for the indefinite future
(OSPAR, 2001). Re-injection of drill cuttings is mostly a batch
process using slurries of cuttings mixed with waste mud
and water before being sent to a holding tank and then
injected downhole. In offshore applications drill solids are
mixed with seawater (Wojtanowicz, 2008). An example of cut-
tings re-injection is the pilot process introduced in Shell
Expro’s Brent field in 1994 (Brakel et al., 1997). The cuttings
discharged from shale shakers are fed into a slurrification unit
where the initial cuttings slurry is formed by the addition of
sea water. This slurry is pumped to the grinding unit. The
cuttings are ground to the required specification and then
injected into the disposal well.
Solidification and stabilization
There exist a number of non-biological alternatives to
bioremediation of the drill cuttings. A range of techniques,
involving physical and/or chemical immobilization can be
employed to transform the waste into a less hazardous form.
Solidification/stabilization as a method of treatment for liquid
or semi-liquid wastes can be traced back to the treatment of
low-level radioactive waste in the 1950s (Mohamed and Antia,
1998; Wojtanowicz, 2008). The US EPA has described them as
follows:
Solidification refers to techniques that encapsulate the
waste in a monolithic solid of high structural integrity.
The encapsulation may be of fine waste particles (micro-
encapsulation) or of a large block or container of wastes
(macro-encapsulation). Solidification does not necessarily
involve a chemical interaction between the wastes and the
solidifying reagents, but may mechanically bind the waste
into the monolith. Contaminant migration is restricted
by vastly decreasing the surface area exposed to leaching
and/or by isolating the wastes within an impervious
encapsulate.
Stabilization refers to those techniques that reduce the
hazard potential of a waste by converting the contaminants
into their least soluble, mobile or toxic form. The physical
nature and handling characteristics of the waste are not
necessarily changed by stabilization.
Frequently, both stabilization and solidification processes
are combined, thereby changing both the physical and chem-
ical structure, to ensure that the contaminants will remain in
the matrix even if the monolith deteriorates. Cement and poz-
zolanic-based processes or a combination of cement and
461
pozzolans (e.g. fly ash, lime, kiln dust) are the methods of
choice in the solidification/stabilization industry today.
Cement-based processes create an alkaline environment suit-
able to the containment of several toxic metals. The leaching
of a pollutant from a cement-based waste depends on whether
it remains in solution in the pore system or is immobilized
through chemical reactions (Mohamed and Antia, 1998).
A combination of cement, fly ash, lime, and calcium oxide
have been used most frequently as solidification/stabilization
additives for treating drill cuttings and other types of wet
solids (Chandler et al., 1997). A field study tested seven
types of additives for stabilizing cuttings and assessing the
performance of stabilized cuttings as a substrate for growing
wetlands plants. These included: medium-ground mica-based
material, fine-ground mica, three different commercial mix-
tures of recycled cellulose fibres, walnut nut plug, and pecan
nut plug (Hester et al., 2003). Various other commercial prod-
ucts with proprietary compositions have been marketed.
Solidification/stabilization should be adapted for site-specific
applications depending on the end-use of the treated material
and the chemical characteristics of the waste. Conducting lab-
oratory tests to determine the proper blend of additives to
achieve the desired material properties is recommended.
Some companies have used stabilization and solidification
for the treatment of drilling wastes with the resulting materials
being used for road foundations, backfill for earthworks or as
building materials (Morillon et al., 2002). Two different types
of processed drill cuttings, one obtained from physical sepa-
ration of the drilling fluids from the cuttings, the other from
further processing and encapsulation of the cuttings in a silica
matrix, have been utilized in experiments to assess the poten-
tial of processed drill cuttings in terms of their ability to sup-
port wetland vegetation and potential toxicity (Shaffer et al.,
1998). Performance of plants grown in the first substrate was
comparable to those planted in dredge spoil, a common wet-
land restoration substrate and topsoil. Performance of plants
grown in the encapsulated substrate was greatly reduced com-
pared to all other substrate types under fresh water condi-
tions, but became equivalent under saline conditions. It
became apparent that cuttings stabilized in a silica matrix
had a pH higher than 11 and thus did not support plant
growth as well as un-stabilized cuttings. In these studies,
there appeared to be little danger of migration of metals
from drill cuttings into interstitial waters or of bioaccumula-
tion of metals from these drill cuttings, with the exception of
barium. Concern has been expressed about the long-term sta-
bility of the solidification/stabilization processes as they are
considered less compatible with organic wastes, because
organic compounds may inhibit binder hydration and are gen-
erally not chemically bound in binder hydration products
(Trussell and Spence, 1994). Physical entrapment in the
binder matrix, and sorption onto the surface of binder hydra-
tion products are the two key factors for immobilization of
organic contaminants (Leonard and Stegemann, 2009). A
462
possible method for improving the effectiveness of solidifica-
tion/stabilization for organic waste is by using binders that
increase sorption of organic compounds, thereby improving
their immobilization and preventing their detrimental effects
on binder (Vipulanandan and Krishnan, 1990). Leaching
compliance testing showed that 20% blast furnace slag–
Portland cement and 30% lime–Portland cement binders of
the low oil content mix resulted in converting synthetic drill
cuttings to a stable non-reactive hazardous waste and reduc-
ing oil concentrations to values compliant with the UK accep-
tance criteria for non-hazardous landfills. Overall, because of
the equipment and space requirements for solidification/sta-
bilization, this is not a practical process to use at offshore
locations. It can be used at onshore locations for either
onshore drilling wastes or offshore wastes that have been
hauled back to shore. Current costs for solidification/stabili-
zation range from AU$100–250 per tonne excluding landfill
disposal costs (Davies, Envardi Pty Ltd, personal commun.).
Naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) is the
term used to describe materials that contain radionuclides
that exist in the natural environment. Long-lived radioactive
elements of interest include uranium, thorium, potassium, and
any of their radioactive decay products, such as radium,
radon and lead. These elements have always been present in
the Earth’s crust and within the tissues of all living species
(RHSA, 2005). Naturally occurring radioactive elements
such as uranium and thorium are dissolved in very low con-
centrations during normal reactions between water and rock
or soil and are present in the oil/gas source rocks (USGS,
1999). Oil and gas industry operations sometimes cause
NORMs to accumulate at elevated concentrations in by-pro-
duct waste streams, such as production water, sands and oily
sludges. Radium precipitates out on equipment surfaces
resulting in sludges and hard scales. The scale is typically a
mixture of carbonate and sulfate minerals, including barite
(barium sulfate) which is known to readily incorporate
radium in its structure. The sources of most of the radioactiv-
ity are isotopes of uranium-238 (238U) and thorium-232
(232Th), which are naturally present in the subsurface forma-
tions from which both oil and gas are produced (Veil et al.,
1998). Naturally occurring radioactive material generated by
the petroleum industry may be divided into two general cate-
gories: waste containing radium and their progeny and waste
Table 3. Typical activity levels in waste products from the oil and gas industry (Source: Cooper 2005).
Radionuclide concentrations (Bq kg1)
238 226
Waste material U Ra
Sand sludges <10 100–10 000
Hard scales <10–500 100–250 000
Soft scales <10–50 100–25 000
a
Concentration in gas processing.
Waste Management & Research 30(5)
containing only lead-210 (210Pb) and its progeny (Smith et al.,
1999). The latter typically accumulate inside gas-processing
equipment from the decay of radon-222 (222Rn), whereas of
the former, radium-226 (226Ra) of the U-238 decay series and
radium-228 (228Ra) of the Th-232 decay series, are the primary
radionuclides of concern. Table 3 shows typical activities for
radium levels in various oil and gas production waste. Current
waste disposal routes being considered or used for NORM
waste management in Australia include the following methods
(ARPANSA, 2008).
. On-going ocean disposal of produced formation water
following a formal study of the type referred to above.
. Ocean (overboard) disposal of sands and scales from plat-
forms, provided oil content criteria have been met and
again following formal studies.
. Down-hole disposal of smaller volumes of higher activity
scales and sands into disused oil wells followed by cement-
ing of the wells.
. On-shore near surface disposal of stabilized oily sands and
sludges into engineered clay pits which are covered by a
defined thickness of clean fill after disposal. Some contam-
inated plastic sheet, gloves, etc., has also been disposed of
via this route.
. Disposal of contaminated items via smelter recycling has
occurred in Australia after careful definition of contamina-
tion limits and associated measurement protocols.
The worldwide petroleum industry has developed a
number of NORM waste disposal options, the application
of which depends on the legislative framework of a given
country (APPEA, 2002). However, it is evident that there is
no consistent approach within in relation to the level of radio-
activity at which regulation should commence. In Australia,
disposal options of NORM wastes range from the ocean-floor
dumping of petroleum exploration wastes in the Northern
Territory to their deposition in salt caverns (Cassels and
Waite, 2001; Veil et al., 1998). In an amended licence for the
treatment and disposal of waste, NORM-containing oily grit
and scale sludges, sourced from oil rigs in Bass Strait, is depos-
ited at the NORM waste disposal facility at Dutson Downs in
Gippsland (EPA Victoria, 2003; RHSA, 2005). The waste is
210 232 228
Pb Th Ra
20–1000 <10 50–4000
10–300 000a <10 100–100 000
20–1000 <10–70 50–400
Ball et al.
stabilized with lime and cement before being deposited in
highly engineered landfill cells with multiple bentonite clay
and high-density polyethylene liners and leachate monitoring
(Gippsland Water, Soil and Organic Recycling Facility, 2009).
Thermal treatment technologies
Thermal technologies include a range of processes using heat
to remove or destroy contaminants by incineration, gasifica-
tion, desorption, stripping, volatilization, pyrolysis or some
combination of these (Wood, 2001). Thermal treatment can be
conducted in a fixed or mobile installation and is broadly
grouped into two categories: destruction of the contaminant
by incineration and removal or recovery of the contaminant
by desorption. The use of thermal treatment is effective in
degrading the organic contaminants, reducing the overall
volume of the waste and in reducing the mobility of metals
and salts; however it may be necessary to instigate a post ther-
mal treatment procedure for the metals and salts. Drilling
wastes high in hydrocarbon content (around 10–40%) are
particularly suited for thermal treatment. Thermal treatment
can be used in combination with other treatment technologies
either as a pre-disposal step prior to landfilling or land farm-
ing or as a final treatment following pre-treatment using bio-
remediation technologies.
Incineration is a high-temperature process, which directly
or indirectly heats the material to temperatures of 820 up to
16008C and reduces the contaminant to inert residues
(Nemerow, 2007; Wood, 2001). Hazardous waste incinerators
have been limited to two types: liquid injection and rotary kiln
systems (Freeman, 1981). In the former, liquid wastes are fed
along with support fuel and air for combustion into the incin-
erator, while the latter consists mainly of rotary or cement
kilns, which can handle large volumes of solid and liquid
wastes. Incinerators are usually employed to destroy organic
wastes which pose high levels of risk to health and the envi-
ronment. Incineration of oily wastes of exploration and pro-
duction wastes is generally not necessary, except where
located in sensitive environments or other disposal options
are not available (Owens et al. 1993). As incineration is a
high temperature process, it destroys the soil structure and
removes all natural humic components. Residues may contain
high heavy metal contents and exhaust gasses may need to be
treated to remove particulates and harmful combustion prod-
ucts such as sulfur dioxides, nitrogen oxides or hydrogen chlo-
ride. At the higher end of incineration temperature,
vitrification of the soil occurs forming a monolithic solid
glassy product. Vitrified contaminants are either destroyed
or trapped in the glassy product (Wood, 2001). Most inciner-
ation of drilling wastes occurs in rotary kilns, a commercially
available technology, which is able to incinerate almost any
waste. A rotary kiln tumbles the waste to enhance contact with
hot burner gases. Capital equipment costs for an incinerator
that processes between 3 and 10 tonnes h1 ranges from
463
AU$5–7 million. The process can handle wastes with up to
10% hydrocarbons. Minimum costs to process solids with
10% hydrocarbons at the plant are AU$500 tonne1.
Thermal desorption is a physical separation process and is
not designed to destroy organics. Waste materials are heated
to temperatures in the region of 6008C to volatilize water and
organic contaminants, mainly hydrocarbons (Wood, 2001). A
carrier gas or vacuum system transports volatilized water and
organics to a gas treatment system, typically consisting of
scrubbers or filters. The bed temperatures and residence
times designed into these systems will volatilize selected con-
taminants but will typically not oxidize them. Two common
thermal desorption designs are the rotary dryer and thermal
screw. Rotary dryers are horizontal cylinders that can be indi-
rectly or directly fired. The dryer is normally inclined and
rotated. For the thermal screw units, screw conveyors or
hollow augers are used to transport the medium through an
enclosed trough. Hot oil or steam circulates through the auger
to indirectly heat the medium. Rotary dryers typically can
treat soils with an organic content of less than 2% while ther-
mal screw units may treat soils with up to 50% organics
(Noyes, 1998). All thermal desorption systems require treat-
ment of the off-gas to remove particulates and contaminants.
Particulates are removed by conventional particulate
removal equipment, such as wet scrubbers or fabric filters.
Contaminants, such as volatiles organic carbons are removed
through condensation followed by carbon adsorption, or they
are destroyed in a secondary combustion chamber or a cata-
lytic oxidizer. A variant of thermal desorption is thermal
phase separation, in which gases are condensed and separated
to recover heavier hydrocarbons. It is a phase separation pro-
cess based on indirectly heated thermal desorption. A sealed,
fixed-chamber design is used to indirectly heat material to the
boiling point of the base fluids, which can vary between 220
and 5008C, volatizing hydrocarbons from the cuttings. The
volatized vapours are extracted in the desorption chamber
and rapidly cooled and condensed for oil–water separation.
Thermal phase separation processing can remove and recover
99% of hydrocarbons from hydrocarbon-based feedstock,
with less than 2% solids in the recovered fluid (Khodja
et al., 2007). Thermal desorption can effectively treat soils,
sludges and filter cakes and remove volatile and semi-volatile
organic compounds. Inorganic compounds, however, are not
easily removed with this process and temperatures reached in
thermal desorbers generally do not oxidize metals (Noyes,
1998). The suitability of thermally treated drilling mud
waste for use in landfill liner or cover systems was evaluated
using two types of oil-based mud samples (Carignan et al.,
2007). Based on hydraulic conductivity values being less
than 108 m s1, an organic carbon content of approximately
2% and toxic characteristic leachate procedure (TCLP)
results, the material could potentially be used in composite
liner systems together with geotextile membranes or geosyn-
thetic clay liners. Capital equipment costs for a thermal
464
desorption plant that processes between 3 and 10 tonnes h1
range from AU$5–8 million. Current contractor operator
treatment costs range from AU$400 to $1500 per tonne
(Davies, Envardi Pty Ltd, personal commun.). The economics
of the process may improve in cases where the thermal desorp-
tion process is operated as part of the overall production
facility.
Microwave energy is delivered directly to materials
through molecular interactions with the electromagnetic
field. This is in contrast to conventional thermal processing
where energy is transferred to a material through conduction.
The internal temperature distribution of a material subjected
to conventional heating is limited by its thermal conductivity,
whereas microwave heating results in all individual elements
of the material being heated individually. Accordingly, micro-
wave heating times of less than 1% of those required using
conventional heating methods can be achieved (Meredith,
1998). Transporting large quantities of drilling waste from
offshore platforms to land poses significant safety and opera-
tional hazards to oil-field personnel. The major factor which
currently prevents successful on-shore treatment processes
being used on platforms offshore is space. There is thus is
clearly a need for the development of offshore cuttings pro-
cessing systems. Furthermore, recent legislation in the United
Kingdom and the European Union has prevented the dis-
charge of cuttings directly into the sea unless the oil levels
are below 1% (w/w) (Robinson et al., 2008). Microwave treat-
ment of OCDC has been identified as one process, which, if
able to meet the environmental discharge limits, can be retro-
fitted to existing production platforms (Robinson et al., 2009).
A pilot study on removal of oil content from oil-contaminated
drill cuttings demonstrated that oil-contaminated cuttings can
be remediated to below the off-shore discharge threshold of
1% (w/w) using a novel continuous cavity mode and a single
cavity batch mode (Patin, 1999; Shang et al., 2006). Moreover,
the continuous processing achieved could further reduce resid-
ual levels to below 0.1% (w/w), which is the classification for
non-hazardous waste.
Bioremediation technologies for treating
drill cuttings
Bioremediation can be defined as any process that uses organ-
isms (bacteria, plants, fungi) or their enzymes to biologically
degrade contaminated soil and waste into non-toxic residues.
Bioremediation is a natural process which, although capable
of generating some greenhouse gas emissions (e.g. methane
from anaerobic processes), mostly involves the environmen-
tally friendly conversion of contaminated matrices into a
stable and often re-usable products (Diplock et al., 2009;
Gallego et al., 2001). As a biological process, the rate of
bioremediation is dependent upon the bioremediation envi-
ronment, the composition of the organic contaminants to be
degraded and the type of treatment utilized. Bioremediation
Waste Management & Research 30(5)
can therefore be a rapid process (requiring weeks for comple-
tion) when conditions are favourable or be a relatively slow
process, requiring months or years to reach the desired result
(Reis, 1996). Environmental factors such as nutrient availabil-
ity, micro-organisms present in the soil and aerobic conditions
all play a role in achieving bioremediation and different strat-
egies are employed when remediation is carried out in situ or
ex situ (OSPAR, 2008; Vidali, 2001). The most commonly
used ex situ bioremediation technologies for treating drilling
mud and cuttings are described below.
Composting and biopile-based remediation
Composting may be defined as the conversion of organic
waste into useful organic soil amendments that provide nutri-
ents to crops and enhance the tilth, fertility and productivity
of soils (Anon, 1980). Composting is therefore a form of recy-
cling a material through the process into a new resource. For
composting, wastes are mixed with organic bulking agents
such as wood chips, straw or some other organic waste mate-
rial. This results in increased porosity allowing both air and
water to penetrate the matrix. Biodegradation of hydrocar-
bons occurs naturally; however, the rate of biodegradation
can be greatly enhanced by manipulating certain environmen-
tal parameters, including the addition of nitrogen- and phos-
phorus-containing fertilizers to achieve optimum carbon:
nitrogen and carbon: phosphorus ratios, aeration/tilling,
and pH and moisture maintenance. With composting systems,
treated waste may be bioremediated within a controlled envi-
ronment, such as in-vessel systems. Both aeration and mois-
ture addition can be controlled through either windrow
turning or the use of forced aeration systems. Generally, a
moisture content of between 40 and 60% (w/w) is optimal
for microbial activity. During the composting process, intense
microbial activity generates considerable heat, often reaching
a temperature of 708C or more. Prolonged high temperatures
in composting systems can also lead to charring of the
soil matrix, making the end product less useable for soil
amendment applications. In closed vessels, control of volatile
emissions is carried out by absorption into biofiltration units
(Crawford, 2006). Biofiltration involves passing contaminated
air through a bed of soil, compost or peat and work well for
volatile components of petroleum as well as for odour control.
Composting has been examined as a treatment for a variety of
contaminants from the oil and gas industry; examples include
petroleum sludges (McMillen et al., 1993), petroleum hydro-
carbon-contaminated soil (Jørgensen et al., 2000), oily sludges
(Ouyang et al., 2005) and drilling mud-polluted soils (Rojas-
Avelizapa et al., 2007). A composting biopile trial of soils at a
site contaminated with drilling mud showed the effects of
amending the biopiles with carbon bulking agents, urea and
dipotassium phosphate to adjust the nutrient conditions
for optimal microbial activity (Rojas-Avelizapa et al., 2007).
A total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) concentration of
Ball et al.
99 300 6 23 000 mg kg1 was reduced 94% to a concentration
of 5500 6 770 mg kg1 over a period of 180 days compared
with a 77% reduction to 22 900 6 7800 mg kg1 for biopiles
that did not receive any amendment. These results demon-
strate the benefits of adjusting the soil conditions to optimize
microbial activity.
A field trial involving the composting of soils contaminated
with lubricating oil and diesel oil in two separate biopiles
showed a reduction of about 70% (2400 to 700 mg kg1) and
71% (700 to 200 mg kg1) in mineral oil content for the respec-
tive soils over a period of approximately 150 days (Jørgensen
et al., 2000). These final concentrations are well within most
health-based investigation levels worldwide. For example the
health investigation levels in Australia for <C16–C35 aliphatic
alkanes range from 5600 mg kg1 for human exposure in res-
idential settings with garden to 28 000 mg kg1 for commer-
cial/industrial settings as per the national guidelines (NEPC,
1999). A 56-day composting trial of oily sludges (327.7–
371.2 g kg1) resulted in a total petroleum hydrocarbon
removal of 45–47% following nutrient and microbial augmen-
tation, compared to a reduction of 13–20% total hydrocarbon
for a non-amended indigenous microbial compost consortium
only (Jørgensen et al., 2000). Various amendments were also
trialled over 365 days using 1 m3 biopiles in the laboratory and
composting oily sludges from an oil refinery wastewater
treatment plant (Kriipsalu et al., 2007). The reduction of
TPH on mass balance in the trials was 62% for amendment
with sand (3.71 to 1.41 kg), 51% for amendment with matured
oil compost 3.99 to 1.94 kg), 74% using kitchen waste compost
(3.49 to 0.91 kg) and 49% for shredded waste wood amend-
ment (5.93 to 3.04 kg). On the basis of this evidence composted
wastes that meet health-based criteria have good commercial
potential either as soil amendments, soil conditioners or for use
in land reclamation and re-vegetation disturbed areas or cover
landfills. McMillen and colleagues (McMillen et al., 2004)
reported costs at greater than US$100 tonne1 for treatment
of exploration and production wastes using in-vessel compost-
ing, bio-slurry systems, soil venting and saturated zone biore-
mediation technologies. In most jurisdictions, composted
wastes that meet health-based criteria can be re-used as soil
amendments, soil conditioners or for use in land reclamation
and re-vegetation disturbed areas or cover landfills. Although
composting represents a cost-effective and practical approach
for the management of drill cuttings waste, it should be noted
that the time and space requirements can be prohibitive,
and drill cuttings wastes with particularly high starting con-
centrations of hydrocarbons cannot always be sufficiently
reduced by composting alone to allow unrestricted reuse of
the final composted material.
Land application
The aim of applying drilling waste and contaminated soils to
land is to enable the indigenous soil microbial community to
465
break down the waste constituents in a process termed natural
attenuation. Land farming and land spreading are two biore-
mediation techniques where natural attenuation processes are
applied. Land farming can be defined as the controlled and
repeated application of wastes to the surface of the soil sur-
face, using the naturally occurring soil micro-organisms to
mineralize the contaminating hydrocarbons. In addition
land farming will result in the dilution and potential attenua-
tion of metals, and the transformation and assimilation of
other constituents of drilling wastes. Generally, the practice
is limited to the treatment of the top 10–35 cm of soil. The soil
may be supplemented with nutrients (fertilizer, compost,
manure) to support the microbial catabolism of the added
contaminated carbon. Soils can be kept moist by irrigation
and aerated by periodic tilling (Crawford, 2006;Vidali,
2001). Land farming can be a relatively low-cost drilling
waste management approach. However, if there is a danger
that contaminants may leach through the vadose zone
towards the groundwater or vaporize to dangerous levels in
the atmosphere, then additional controls must be imple-
mented. This may require the installation of liners or barriers
in addition to leachate collection systems and vapour contain-
ment structures. Land farm areas must therefore be managed
carefully to prevent migration of contaminants and cross-con-
tamination of ground water or surface water in the vicinity.
After applying the waste, hydrocarbon concentrations are
monitored to measure progress and determine the need for
enhancing the biodegradation processes. Although nearly all
constituents in petroleum products are biodegradable, the
more complex the molecular structure of the constituent, the
more difficult the biological treatment. Most low molecular-
weight (<C9) aliphatic and mono-aromatic constituents
are more easily biodegraded than higher molecular weight
aliphatic or poly-aromatic organic constituents. This means
that repeated applications can lead to accumulation of high
molecular weight compounds (Callahan et al., 2002).
Bioavailability of the hydrocarbon is another factor that has
to be assessed and measures to increase bioavailability may
need to be instigated. The use of chemical dispersants may
alter the normal behaviour of hydrocarbons by increasing
their functional water solubility, resulting in increased bio-
availability and altered interactions between dispersant, oil,
and biological membranes. Common hydrocarbon disper-
sants include Corexit (Exxon Chemicals, Houston, TX),
which is composed of non-ionic and anionic surfactant
along with hydrocarbon solvent (ethylene glycol mono-butyl
ether) (Wolfe et al., 2001). It is generally accepted that soil
concentrations heavy metals exceeding 2500 mg kg1 are con-
sidered inhibitory and/or toxic to most micro-organisms.
Heavy metals or inorganics are generally not biodegraded
but may be immobilized or volatilized. As a rule of thumb,
the higher the molecular weight and the more substitutions
(especially halo- or nitro groups) on ring structures, the more
difficult and slower the degradation will be. The general
466
criteria for constituent concentration and land farming
effectiveness are outlined in Table 4. Typically, land farms
are uncovered and thus exposed to climatic factors including
rainfall, drought and wind. During and following a significant
rainfall event, the moisture content of the soils may be
temporarily in excess of that required for effective bacterial
activity. Conversely, during periods of drought, moisture con-
tent may be below the effective range and additional moisture
may need to be added. Erosion of land farm soils can occur
during windy periods as well as during tilling or ploughing
operations. Seasonal changes influence the length of the
land farming period, which may last all year in warm regions
while it may be ranging from 7 to 9 months in colder climates.
Special precautions can be taken, including enclosing the
land farm within a greenhouse-type structure or introducing
special bacteria (psychrophiles), which are capable of activity
at lower temperatures (Saterbak et al., 1999). Clean up
requirements for land farm treatment include reductions in
TPH concentration greater than 95% and constituent con-
centration >0.1 mg kg1. Although the threshold limit
varies greatly depending on bacteria-specific and constitu-
ent-specific features, generally constituent concentrations
below 0.1 mg kg1 are not achievable by biological treatment
alone. In addition, experience has shown that reductions in
TPH concentrations greater than 95% can be very difficult to
achieve because of the presence of recalcitrant or non-degrad-
able species (US EPA, 2004). A trial study on land farming of
oil-based drill cuttings at an average loading of 540 m3 ha1
and TPH concentrations between 20 000 and 73 000 mg kg1
gave reduction to approximately 0.13–0.56% of initial TPH
concentration over a three year treatment time (Cole and
Mark, 2000). The cost of treating petroleum hydrocarbon-
contaminated soils has been estimated at US$ 30–60 tonne1
by the EPA (US EPA, 2004). Two case studies on land farming
and sludge treatment of hydrocarbon-affected soil, sand,
drilling mud and tank bottoms showed costs for the treatment
of metric tonne dropping from US$ 10 to US$ 3.60 (Line et al.,
1996). In other studies, pre-treating the wastes by composting
and activating aerobic biodegradation by regular turning
Table 4. Constituent concentration and land farming
effectiveness (Source: Chandler et al., 1997; Cole and Mark, 2000).
Constituent Land farming
concentration effectiveness
Petroleum constituents Effective; however, if contaminant
<50 000 mg kg1 concentration is >10 000 mg kg1,
Heavy metals the soil may need to be blended
< 2500 mg kg1 with clean soil to reduce the
concentration of the contaminants.
Petroleum constituents Ineffective; toxic or inhibitory
>50 000 mg kg1 conditions to bacterial growth exist.
Heavy metals Dilution by blending necessary.
>2500 mg kg1
Waste Management & Research 30(5)
(open windrows) or by forced ventilation (biopiles) was
found to reduce the amount of area required for land farming
(Morillon et al., 2002).
Land spreading
In land spreading, also known as land treatment, the biolog-
ical processes are similar to those already described above.
The main differentiating factor for land spreading is that
one single application of the sludge or drilling waste is made
to the soil. Land spreading is a technique that aims to achieve
degradation of the contaminants through the natural soil
microbial community whilst maintaining the subsoil’s physi-
cal, chemical and biological functions through limitation of
the amount of contaminants penetrating the subsoil. In land
spreading drilling waste is spread on across the surface and the
soil tilled to a depth of 15–20 cm to allow mixing. Tilling
enhances both the rate of biodegradation and volatilization
of the hydrocarbon contaminants. An investigation into the
soil-dependent bioremediation and ecotoxicity of drilling
fluids, including linear alpha and isomerized olefins, mineral
oil, isomerized paraffin and diesel oil was carried out using
coniferous forest soil, silty clay and a clay loam (Visser
et al., 2002). Bioremediation of isomerized olefin, alpha
olefin and isomerized tetradecene in forest subsoil resulted in
almost complete degradation of these fluids with no associated
toxicity after remediation based on short-term plant, earth-
worm and MicrotoxTM bioassays. Isomerized paraffin and
mineral oil was degraded to less than 50% while the
disappearance of diesel to 71% was attributed primarily to
the abiotic loss of the large volatile component in this fluid.
Based on the toxicity assays, soil following diesel treatment
was found to be still extremely toxic, with a complete mortality
of earthworms after 7 days exposure. Degradation of linear
alpha olefin, one tetradecene, linear paraffin and isomerized
paraffin was more rapid in loam soil than in clay soil, indicative
of low bioavailability due to sorption of fluids to clay particles
(Chaı̂neau et al., 1996). Land spreading has both, advantages
and disadvantages. Cost and low technology input are an
advantage, together with the potential to improve existing
soil characteristics. A disadvantage however, is the require-
ment for large land area. Field-scale experiments on bioreme-
diation of soil heavily contaminated with crude oil and solid n-
alkane (paraffin) wastes removed from the surface of drilling
equipment was undertaken using the successive treatment of
contaminated soil using a bioslurry reactor and land farming
cells (Kuyukina et al., 2003). Laboratory analyses of soil sam-
ples indicated contamination levels up to 200 g kg1 of total
recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons. Average oil composition
consisted of 64% aliphatics, 25% aromatics, 8% heterocyclics,
and 3% of tars/asphaltenes. Slurry-phase biotreatment of the
contaminated soil resulted in an 88% reduction in oil concen-
tration after 2 months. The resulting reactor product, contain-
ing approximately 25 000 mg kg1 of TPH was loaded into
Ball et al.
land farming cells and enhanced with different treatments (e.g.:
soil tilling, bulking with woodchips, watering and biofertilizer
addition). The rates of oil biodegradation were 300 to
600 mg kg1day1. As a result, TPH levels dropped to 1000–
1500 mg kg1 of TPH after 5 to 7 weeks.
Bioreactors
The alternative to land farming/spreading is a biodegradation
process in a contained bioreactor (Ward et al., 2003). Liquid/
solid treatment using a bioreactor is recognized as a technol-
ogy applicable to the degradation of petroleum-based waste
products (Stroo, 1989). Essentially the processes that occur in
the bioreactor leading to the aerobic degradation of the con-
taminating substances are the same as those underlying land
spreading and composting, with the only difference being that
these reactions all occur within a confined and highly con-
trolled system. This results in an increase in the rate of bio-
degradation of the contaminants through optimization of the
environmental conditions such as temperature, aeration and
moisture, factors which are known to affect the rate of bio-
degradation of hydrocarbons (Kuhad and Gupta, 2009; Van
Hamme et al., 2003). In addition, in a bioreactor, nutrients
(e.g. nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium) can be added, lead-
ing to biostimulation of the indigenous micro-organisms and
subsequently to increased rates of degradation. Air sparging
or intensive mechanical mixing of the reactor contents pro-
vides oxygen concentrations of at least 2.0 mg L1 (Anon,
1980). This mechanical mixing results in significant contact
between micro-organisms and the waste components being
degraded. To accelerate the initial rates of degradation,
micro-organisms with a known ability to degrade the contam-
inants can be added (bioaugmented) to the bioreactor. Most
of the nutrient additives used for amending the bioreactors are
common agricultural waste products such as chicken manure,
food processing wastes, etc. Bioreactor processes for waste-
water or contaminated solid material (soil, sediment, sludge)
are typically operated as a batch or semi-continuous process.
Another variation on reactors designed for treatment of
petroleum waste sludges is the slurry-phase biotreatment
(Christodoulatos and Koutsospyros, 1998). Slurry-phase
biotreatment has been successfully applied to the decontami-
nation of oily sludges and soils that have contaminant
concentrations ranging from 2500 to 250 000 mg kg1
(Christodoulatos and Koutsospyros, 1998). Petroleum waste
sludges have been treated in a continuous flow multistage
slurry bioreactor system that operates at relatively short res-
idence times with minimal loss of volatile constituents using
the patented Bio-Slurry Reaction Process (BSRP) tank-based,
slurry-phase biotreatment process (Castaldi 2003). The pro-
cess was demonstrated on a commercial scale where petro-
chemical waste tar destruction of greater than 80% occurred
in continuously fed slurry-phase systems of 10 000 L each, at
temperatures above 308C and a 42 day residence time (US
467
EPA, 1990). Although the use of bioreactors leads to
enhanced rates of degradation in comparison with less inten-
sive processes such as land spreading the costs associated
with capital, operation and maintenance are also relatively
high compared with other forms of biological treatment.
Estimated costs for bioreactor treatment of oily cuttings
waste are less than US$350 per tonne (McMillen et al.,
2004). After the desired treatment level has been reached,
and depending on the constituents, liquids may be reused,
transported to wastewater treatment facilities, injected or dis-
charged. Solids may be buried, applied to soils, used as fill or
treated further to stabilize components such as metals.
Vermiculture
Vermiculture is the use of worms for the decomposition of
organic waste, resulting in the formation of end product(s)
which, when applied to crops assist or enhance plant
growth. The application of vermiculture to the active biodeg-
radation (vermidigestion) of drilling wastes has recently been
described. It was demonstrated that worms were capable of
facilitating the degradation of hydrocarbon-contaminated
drilling waste following land farming (Norman et al., 2002).
In the experiments, a blend of cuttings and sawdust containing
41 000 mg kg1 (dry weight) hydrocarbon drill cuttings was
applied to windrows, generally once per week, with the
worms consuming the applied material over a 5 to 7 day
period. The authors reported a decrease in hydrocarbon con-
centration from 4600 mg kg1 to below 100 mg kg1 in less
than 28 days, with less than 200 mg kg1 remaining after 10
days. Because vermicast (manure) has important fertilizer
properties, the process may provide an alternative drill cutting
disposal method. In a second study the complete degradation
of the cuttings (originally 5–10 mm in diameter) and no detect-
able mortality among the worms was demonstrated (OSPAR,
2001). There are limited examples of this technology being
used but a treatment price of US$70–90 m3 is probably
based on the limited amount of data available. However,
these costs may be offset by sales of the resulting worm cast
as organic fertilizer and soil conditioner. However, to date few
studies on the effects of vermicomposting on petroleum
hydrocarbons have been reported, with many of the investi-
gations being descriptive investigations as opposed to mech-
anistic (Norman et al., 2002). A recent study investigated
biochemical processes during bioremediation treatment of
oil refinery sludge with (a) a mixture of micro-organisms,
enzymes and nutrients, (b) compost only and (c) compost
with earthworms for 3 months (Hickman and Reid, 2008).
The results indicated that the reduction in TPH of the oil
refinery sludge was greatest in the treatment with earthworms
(50.3%) followed by compost only (39.5%), highlighting the
usefulness of the co-application of compost and earthworms.
The influence of additives and earthworms on TPH degrada-
tion was also investigated in a crude oil-polluted soil
Table 5. Summary comparison between the bioremediation technologies and non-biological approaches to the treatment of contaminated drill cuttings.

Treatment Space Time for Cost* Monitoring required Physical Capital Advantages Disadvantages
requirement treatment requirements requirements

Composting/ Land area 56–8 days 60–80 Regular pollutant, Impermeable or General lifting and Rapid, complete Volatile hydrocar-
biopiling required temperature and plastic lined base. windrow turning removal of pollut- bons may be
(10 m3 t1) moisture monitoring Wood or straw, water equipment. Vessel if ants. Production of released into envi-
and manure required closed composting useful by-product- ronment. Fire risk.
compost
Land farming Large area of 200–800 days 10–12 Regular monitoring Field with good soil Spreading Complete removal of Slow process-pollu-
soil required of pollutant concen- microbial activity. equipment pollutants. Low cost tants may build up on
(1 ha per 20 t) tration in soil and Manure, and water repeated
runoff may be added applications.
Land Very large area 400–1200 days 4–5 Regular monitoring Large areas of soil Spreading Complete removal of Very slow process-
treatment required (1 ha of pollutants with good drainage. equipment pollutants. Very low requires long-term
per 6 t) cost monitoring
Bioaugmented Significant 100–200 day 15–20 Regular monitoring Field with good soil Spreading equip- More rapid removal Requires nutrients
landfarming land required of pollutants microbial activity. ment. N, P and K of pollutants than and regular
Manure, nutrients needs to be added land-farming alone monitoring
and water may be
added
Burial pit Use of existing 500–3000 days 10–12 Regular monitoring May need to blend Some earth-moving No transportation Long term monitor-
reserve pit for pollutants in drill cuttings with equipment costs. On site ing required. Finite
only ground water soil treatment area. Anaerobic con-
ditions reduce bio-
degradation rate
Landfills Large area 300–2500 days 40–60 Long-term monitor- Large area away Transportation of Burial so cuttings are Long-term monitor-
with clay or ing of site required from inhabitants with drill cuttings to buried. Relatively ing and site restora-
lined base clay or lined base landfill site-excava- low cost tion. Many legislative
tion equipment issues. Slow biode-
required grading rates
Bioreactors Small land 10–30 days 700 Constant monitoring Nutrients and media Large, computer Rapid, complete Large cost of equip-
requirement of bioreactor condi- required for addition controlled bioreactor removal of pollut- ment and required
tions during to the bioreactor required with skilled ants.- within a rela- skilled operation and
incubation operator tively short time maintenance
period
(continued)
Table 5. Continued

Treatment Space Time for Cost* Monitoring required Physical Capital Advantages Disadvantages
requirement treatment requirements requirements

Vermiculture Area required 28–56 days 80–100 Monitoring of Windrows for vermi- Equipment for set- Rapid removal of Only suitable for a
for windrows pollutants composting. ting up windrows pollutants. Useful limited range of
20 m3 t1 Nutrients and water by-product produced pollutants
required
Chemical Very low space 1–2 th1 100–250 Long-term monitor- Range of chemicals Significant costs for Low space, rapid Large set up costs.
solidification/ requirement (plus ing of stabilized required for solidifi- equipment to enable treatment Risk associated with
stabilization disposal product cation/stabilization solidification long term
costs) stabilization
Incineration Small, porta- 5–6 th1 500– Temperature and 1200–15008C AU$5–7 million Waste reduction. Large costs associ-
ble equipment 1000 flue gas monitoring required in set up Low retention times. ated with setting up
costs Complete removal of and running
pollutants. incineration
Thermal Small, some- 3–10 th1 400– Temperature and 220–5008C AU$0.5–8 million Waste reduction. High equipment and
desorption times mobile average) 1500 flue gas monitoring required in set up Portable equipment. running costs. May
equipment costs (depending on Low retention times not remove all
size) pollutants
*per m3 (AU$).
470
containing 5000 mg kg1 TPH (Ceccanti et al., 2006).
Additives were chosen from the following industrial waste
products: (i) coffee grounds; (ii) horticultural waste (grass
and wood chips); and (iii) brewery mash. The additives were
added to the soil in mass concentrations 1 : 10 and degradation
was followed for 28 days. Mash mixed into the soil resulted in
a similar TPH decrease (20–34%) as in treatments with earth-
worms but without additives. Coffee grains or horticultural
waste resulted in no significant decreases of TPH concentra-
tion. High mortality rates were attributed to lethal TPH con-
centrations of 5000 mg kg1 and higher. However, other
studies have demonstrated that lower concentration levels
(TPH <4000 mg kg1) cause hardly any mortality in earth-
worms (Saterbak et al., 1999; Schaefer and Filser, 2007). In
conclusion, it is possible that the earthworm application may
be most suitable for the later stages of the bioremediation of
even highly contaminated sites, when TPH concentrations
and potential toxicity have been decreased to a reduced
toxicity level.
Application for end use of treated cuttings
Most drill cuttings have been historically managed through
disposal, although some are treated and beneficially reused.
Before the cuttings can be reused, it is necessary to ensure that
the hydrocarbon content, moisture content, salinity, and clay
content of the cuttings are suitable for the intended use of the
material. Some of the recorded applications for the reuse of
treated drill cuttings are briefly described below (Dorn and
Salanitro, 2000).
Road spreading
One use of cuttings is to stabilize surfaces that are subject
to erosion, such as roads or drilling pads. Oily cuttings
serve the same function as traditional tar-and-chip road
surfacing. Not all regulatory agencies allow road spreading.
Where it is permitted, operators must obtain permission from
the regulatory agency and the landowner before spreading
cuttings.
Use as filler
Treated cuttings that have been cleaned through the processes
described above can be used as fill material at landfills or as
aggregates in concrete or bricks. Other possible construction
applications include use in road pavements, bitumen, and
asphalt or use in cement manufacture. The economics of this
approach is rarely based on the value of the finished product,
but rather on the alternative cost for the other disposal
options. Properly done, drilling waste can be used as a filler
or base material to make other products; however, in most
jurisdictions around the world the legal liability will stay with
the company who produced the waste initially.
Waste Management & Research 30(5)
Restoration of wetlands using cuttings
Another new application for drilling waste involves using
them as a substrate for restoring coastal wetlands. The US
DOE funded several research projects to test the feasibility
of treating cuttings and using them to help restore damaged
wetlands in Louisiana. The results indicated that properly
treated cuttings can support the growth of wetlands vegeta-
tion. This promising reuse option is expected to be demon-
strated at field scale in the US over the next decade.
Use of cuttings for fuel
Several trials have been conducted in the UK using oily cut-
tings as a fuel at a power plant. Cuttings were blended in at a
low rate with coal, the primary fuel source. The resulting ash
was much the same as the ash from burning just the coal.
Generating stations should be located near the point where
cuttings originate or are landed onshore from offshore oper-
ations, to minimize the need to transport cuttings.
Conclusion
Table 5 provides a summary comparison of bioremediation
technologies and non-biological technologies for the treat-
ment of contaminated drill cuttings. Overall in this review
information on factors that need to be taken into account
when choosing the best technology for drilling waste man-
agement is presented, including the environmental risks
associated with disposal of drilling wastes, thereby provid-
ing a backdrop for informed decisions regarding the dis-
posal of drilling wastes to be made. Cost is only one of a
number of factors that need to be taken into account when
choosing the best technology for drilling waste manage-
ment; other factors include the local environment, safety
aspects and the relevant regulatory framework (McMillen
et al., 2001).
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency
in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
References
Al-Ansary MS and Al-Tabbaa A (2007) Stabilization/solidification of
synthetic petroleum drill cuttings. Journal of Hazardous Materials
141: 410–421.
Anon (1980) Report and Recommendations on organic Farming
Prepared by USDA Study Team on Organic Farming United States
Department of Agriculture July 1980. Retrieved from http://www.nal.
usda.gov/afsic/pubs/USDAOrgFarmRpt.pdf (accessed 9 August 2011).
APPEA (2002) Guidelines for Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials.
Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association Limited,
March 2002. Available at: http://www.appea.com.au/publications/
environment-publications/933-guidelines-management-of-naturally-
occuring-radioactive-material.html (accessed 9 August 2011).
ARPANSA (2008) Management of Naturally Occurring Radioactive
Material (NORM). Radiation Protection Series Publication No. 15,
Ball et al.
Published by the Chief Executive Officer of ARPANSA in
August 2008. Available at: http://www.arpansa.gov.au/publications/
codes/rps.cfm (accessed 13 January 2010).
Bansal KM, SPE, Conoco Inc. S. Sugiarto, and Conoco Indonesia Inc.
Exploration and Production Operations – Waste Management A
Comparative Overview: US and Indonesia Cases, 54345 MS. SPE
Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference, Jakarta, Indonesia, April 20–
22 1999. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Bell N, Cripps SJ, Jacobsen T, Kjeilen G and Picken GB (1998) Review of
Drill Cuttings Piles in the North Sea, A Report for the Offshore
Decommissioning Communications Project. Aberdeen, UK: Cordah
Environmental Consultants.
Black KS, Patterson DM and Davidson IR (2002) Erosion of cuttings
piles sediments: a laboratory fume study. Journal of the Society for
Underwater Technology 25: 51–59.
Brakel J, Davies JB, Yule GK and Thornton JTO (1997). Cuttings
re-injection in Brent reduces drilled cuttings discharge to sea, 37864-
MS, SPE/UKOOA European Environment Conference, 15–16
April 1997, Aberdeen, United Kingdom. Society of Petroleum
Engineers, Inc.
Callahan MA, Stewart AJ, Alarcon C and McMillen SJ (2002) Effects
of earthworm (Eisenia fetida) and wheat (Triticum aestivum)
straw additions on selected properties of petroleum-
contaminated soils, Environmental. Toxicology and Chemistry 21:
1658–1663.
Carignan M-P, Lake CB and Menzies T (2007) Assessment of two ther-
mally treated drilling mud wastes for landfill containment applica-
tions. Waste Management & Research 25: 394–401.
Cassels B and Waite A (2001) Regulatory management of NORM wastes
from petroleum exploration in the Northern Territory. Radiation
Protection Australia 18: 16–34.
Castaldi FJ (1993) Bio-Slurry Reaction System and Process for Hazardous
Waste Treatment, US Patent, 5, 232, 596.
Castaldi FJR (2003) Tank-based bioremediation of petroleum waste
sludges. Environmental Progress 22: 25–36.
Ceccanti B, Masciandaro G, Garcia C, Macci C and Doni S (2006) Soil
bioremediation: combination of earthworms and compost for the eco-
logical remediation of a hydrocarbon polluted soil. Water, Air & Soil
Pollution 177: 383–397.
Chaı̂neau CH, Morel JL and Oudot J (1996) Land treatment of oil based
drill cuttings in an agricultural soil. Journal of Environmental Quality
24: 855–867.
Chandler AJ, Eighmy TT and Hartl J (eds.) (1997) ‘‘Solidification and
stabilization’’. Solidification and stabilization. Studies in
Environmental Science 67: 763–790.
Christodoulatos C and Koutsospyros A (1998) Bioslurry reactors.
In: Lewandowski GA and DeFilippi LJ (eds.) Biological Treatment
of Hazardous Waste. New York: Wiley, 69–101.
Cole E and Mark S (2000) E&P waste: manage it cost effectively through
land farming. World Oil 221: 132–134.
CEC (Commission of the European Communities) (2000) List of hazard-
ous waste (2000/532/EC) pursuant to Article 1(4) of Council Directive
91/689/EEC on hazardous waste, Official Journal of the European
Communities L226 pp. 3–24. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/
(accessed 23 November 2009)
Cooper MB (2005) Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM)
in Australian Industries – Review of Current Inventories and Future
Generation. A report prepared for the Radiation Health and Safety
Advisory Council. ERS-006, September 2005, 38 pp. Available at:
http://www.arpansa.gov.au/pubs/norm/cooper_norm.pdf (accessed
29 October 2009).
Cranford PJ and Gordon DC (1991) Chronic sublethal impact of mineral
oil-based drilling mud cuttings on adult sea scallops. Marine Pollution
Bulletin 22: 339–344.
Cranford PJ, Gordon Jr DC, Lee K, Armsworthy SL and Tremblay G-H
(1999) Chronic toxicity and physical disturbance effects of water- and
oil-based drilling fluids and some major constituents on adult sea
scallops (Placopecten magellanicus). Marine Environmental Research
48: 225–256.
471
Crawford RL (2006) Bioremediation. In: Dworkin M, Falkow S,
Rosenberg E, Schleifer K-H and Stackebrandt E (eds.) The
Prokaryotes. Volume 1, New York, USA: Springer, 850–863.
Cripps SJ, Picken G, Aabel JP, Andersen OK, Heyworth C, Jakobsen M,
et al. (1998) Disposal of Oil-based Cuttings, edn. Report RF-98/097.
Norway: Rogaland Research for the Norwegian Oil Industry
Association (OLF).
Daan R, van het Groenewoud H, de Jong A and Mulder M (1992)
Physico-chemical and biological features of a drilling site in the
North Sea, 1 year after discharges of oil-contaminated drill cuttings.
Marine Ecology Progress Series 91: 37–45.
Davies JM, Addy JM, Blackman RA, Blanchard JR, Ferbrache JE,
Moore DC, Somerville HJ, Whitehead A and Wilkinson T (1984)
Environmental effects of the use of Oil-based drilling muds in the
North Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin 15: 363–370.
Diplock EE, Mardlin DP, Killham KS and Patin GI (1999) Predicting
bioremediation of hydrocarbons: Laboratory to field scale.
Environmental Pollution 157: 1831–1840.
Dorn PB and Salanitro JP (2000) Temporal ecological assessment of oil
contaminated soils before and after bioremediation. Chemosphere 40:
419–426.
EPA Victoria (2003) EPA amends Gippsland water licence at Duston
Downs. Media Release January 2003. Available at: www.epa.vic.
gov.au) (accessed 29 October 2009).
Freeman H (1981) Hazardous wastes incineration. In: Peirce JI and
Vesiland PA (eds.) Hazardous Wastes Management. Ann Arbor,
MI: Ann Arbor Science Pub. Inc, 59, Chapter 5.
Freeman HM (1997) Standard Handbook of Hazardous Waste Treatment
and Disposal, 2nd edn. New York: McGraw Hill Companies Inc.
Gallego JLR, Loredo J, Llamas JF, Vázquez F and Sánchez J Bioremediation
of diesel-contaminated soils: Evaluation of potential in situ techniques
by study of bacterial degradation. Biodegradation 12: 325–335.
GESAMP (1993) Impact of Oil and Related Chemicals and Wastes on the
MARINE Environment. GESAMP Report on Studies, 50: 1-180
Available at: http://gesamp.colibri.mc/common.php (accessed 19
November 2009).
Gippsland Water, Soil and Organic Recycling Facility (2009) Oily
Sludges, 2009. Available at: www.gippswater.com.au (accessed 29
October 2009).
Grant A and Briggs AD (2002) Toxicity of sediments from around a
North Sea oil platform: are metals or hydrocarbons responsible for
ecological impacts? Marine Environmental Research 53: 95–116.
Growcock FB, Curtis GW, Hoxha B, Brooks WS and Candler JE (2002)
Designing invert drilling fluids to yield environmentally friendly drilled
cuttings, edn. IADC/SPE 74474, Drilling Conference, Dallas, Texas,
26–28, February.
Hamed SB and Belhadri M (2009) Rheological properties of biopolymers
drilling fluids. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 67: 84–90.
Hester MW, Shaffer GP and Willis JM (2003) Wetland Restoration
Mesocosm Studies: Examination of Hematite-based Drilling Mud
Phytotoxicity and Suitability as Wetland Substrate. Prepared by the
University of New Orleans and Southeastern Louisiana University,
for the US Department of Energy National Petroleum Technology
Office and United States DOE, Tulsa, OK.
Hickman ZA and Reid BJ (2008) Earthworm assisted bioremediation:
theory and practice. Environment International 34: 1072–1081.
Jørgensen KS, Puustinen J and Suortti A-M (2000) Bioremediation of
petroleum hydrocarbon -contaminated soil by composting in biopiles.
Environmental Pollution 107: 245–254.
Jorissen FJ, Bicchi E, Duchemin G, Durrieu J, Galgani F, Cazes L, et al.
(2009) Impact of oil-based drill mud disposal on benthic foraminiferal
assemblages on the continental margin off Angola. Deep-Sea Research
II 56: 2270–2291.
Khodja M, Canselier JP, Dali C, Hafid S and Ouahab R (2007) A diag-
nostic of the treatment of oil well drilling waste in Algerian fields.
Re´cens Progre`ss en Ge´nie des Proce´de´s 94: 1–11.
Kingston PF (1992) Impact of offshore oil production installations on
the benthos of the North Sea, ICES. Journal of Marine Science 49:
45–53.
472
Kriipsalu M, Marques M, Nammari DR and Hogland W (2007) Bio-
treatment of oily sludge: the contribution of amendment material to
the content of target contaminants, and the biodegradation dynamics.
Journal of Hazardous Materials 148: 616–622.
Kuhad RC and Gupta R (2009) Biological remediation of petroleum
contaminants. In: Singh A, Kuhad RC and Ward OP (eds.)
Advances in Applied Bioremediation, Soil Biology. Berlin: Springer
Verlag, 173–187.
Kuyukina MS, Ivshina IB, Ritchkova MI, Philp JC, Cunningham CJ and
Christofi N (2003) Bioremediation of crude oil-contaminated soil
using slurry-phase biological treatment and land farming techniques.
Soil and Sediment Contamination 12: 85–99.
Leonard SA and Stegemann JA (2010) Stabilization/solidification of
petroleum drill cuttings: leaching studies. Journal of Hazardous
Materials 174: 484–491.
Line MA, Garland CD and Crowley M (1996) Evaluation of
landfarm remediation of hydrocarbon- contaminated soil at the
Inveresk Railyard, Launceston, Australia. Waste Management 16:
567–570.
Louisiana Administrative Code (2008) Title 43 Natural Resources Part
XIX, Office of Conservation - General Operations, Subpart 1,
Statewide Order No. 29-B 2008. Available at: http://dnr.louisiana.
gov/ (accessed 08 December 2009).
Marsh R (2003) A database of archived drilling records of the drill cut-
tings piles at the North West Hutton oil platform. Marine Pollution
Bulletin 46: 587–593.
Meredith RJ (1998) Engineers Handbook of Industrial Microwave Heating.
London: Institution of Electrical Engineers, 377.
McMillen SJ, Kerr JM, Gray NR (1993): Microcosm studies of factors
that influence bioremediation of crude oils in soil. In: Exploration &
Production Environments Conference, Texas, USA, SPE 25981, pp
389–400.
McMillen SJ, Magaw RI and Carovillano RL (2001) Risk-based decision-
making for assessing petroleum impacts at exploration and production
sites, Editors S. J. McMillen, R. I. Magaw, and R. L. Carovillano.
Washington DC: US Department of Energy and PERF. (ISBN
0-9717288-0-1).
McMillen SJ, Smart R and Bernier R (2004) Biotreating E&P wastes:
lessons learned from 1992–2003, SPE86794. Presented at the
Seventh SPE International Conference on Health, Safety and
Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, 29–31 March 2004. Available at: http://www.nioch-
se.net/Download/pdffiles/papers/spe86794.pdf (accessed 24
November 2009).
Morillon, A, Vidalie, J-F, Hamzah, US, Suripno, S, Hadinoto, EK. (2002)
Drilling and Waste Management. SPE International Conference on
Health, Safety and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and
Production, 20–22 March 2002, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Available at: http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetro
preview?id¼00073931&soc¼SPE (accessed 28 November 2009).
Mohamed AMO and Antia HE (1998) Solidification/stabilization pro-
cesses. Developments in Geotechnical Engineering, Geoenvironmental
Engineering 82: 529–557.
Neff JM (2005) Composition, Environmental Fates, and Biological Effect of
Water-based Drilling Muds and Cuttings discharged to the Marine
Environment: a Synthesis and Annotated Bibliography. Prepared for
Petroleum Environmental Research Forum (PERF) and American
Petroleum Institute (2005). Available at: www.perf.org/pdf/
APIPERFreport.pdf (accessed 19 November 2009).
Nemerow NL (2007) Hazardous waste. Industrial Waste Treatment.
Contemporary Practice and Vision for the Future. Oxford, UK:
Elsevier, 245–353.
NEPC (1999) Schedule B (1); Guideline on the Investigation Levels for Soil
and Groundwater. National Environment Protection (Assessment of
Site Contamination) Measure 1999. Canberra, ACT Australia:
National Environment Protection Council.
Norman M, Ross S, McEwen G and Getliff J (2002). Minimising envi-
ronmental impacts and maximizing hole stability - the significance of
drilling with synthetic fluids in New Zealand. New Zealand Petroleum
Waste Management & Research 30(5)
Special Publications, Volume 2002 Conference (2002), pp. 141–152.
Perth, WA: Petroleum Exploration Society of Australia.
Noyes R (1998) Thermal desorption. In: Noyes R (ed.) Unit Operations in
Environmental Engineering. New Jersey, USA: Noyes Publications,
377–380.
Okpokwasili GC and Nnubia C (1995) Effects of oil spill dispersants and
drilling fluids on substrate specificity of marine bacteria. Waste
Management 15: 515–520.
Olsgard F and Gray JS (1995) A comprehensive analysis of the effects of
offshore oil and gas exploration and production on the benthic com-
munities of the Norwegian continental shelf. Marine Ecology Progress
Series 122: 277–306.
Østgaard K and Jensen A (1985) Acute phytotoxicity of oil-based drilling
muds. Oil and Petrochemical Pollution 2: 281–291.
OSPAR Commission (2001) Environmental aspects of on and off-site
injection of drill cuttings and produced water, OSPAR Commission
(2001). Available at: http://www.ospar.org (accessed 19 November
2009).
OSPAR Commission (2003) Decision 2000/3 on the use of organic-phase
drilling fluids (OPF) and the discharge of OPF-contaminated cuttings
(2003). Available at: http://www.ospar.org (accessed 19 November
2009).
OSPAR Commission (2008) OSPAR list of substances/preparations used
and discharged offshore which are considered to pose little or no risk
to the environment (PLONOR), (Reference number: 2004-10) (2008).
Available at: http://www.ospar.org (accessed 19 November 2009).
Commission OSPAR (2009) Assessment of Impacts of Offshore Oil and
Gas Activities in the North-East Atlantic. Offshore Industry Series.
London, UK: OSPAR Commission.
Ouyang W, Liu H, Murygina V, Yu Y, Xiu Z and Kalyushnyi S (2005)
Comparison of bio-augmentatin and composting for remediation of
oily sludge: a field-scale study in China. Process Biochemistry 40:
763–768.
Owens CK, Rycroft DR, Stephenson MT, Norris G, Johnson JA, Crame
LW, et al. (1993) Exploration and Production (E&P) Waste
Management Guidelines, Report No. 2.58/196, 43pp, London, UK:
E&P Forum, September 1993. Available at: http://info.ogp.org.uk/
Geophysical/reports/E5.pdf (accessed 24 November 2009).
Patin S (1999) Ecotoxicological characteristics of related chemicals and
wastes from the offshore oil industry. Environmental Impact of the
Offshore Oil and Gas Industry. East Northport, NY: EcoMonitor
Publishers, 264.
Reis JC (1996) Remediation of contaminated sites. Environmental Control
in Petroleum Engineering. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing, 216–229.
RHSA (2005) Naturally-Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM) in
Australia: Issues for Discussion. Prepared by the Radiation Health &
Safety Advisory Council (RHSA) for the CEO of ARPANSA, August
2005, 36 pp. Available at: http://www.arpansa.gov.au/pubs/norm/
rhsac_disc.pdf (accessed 29 October 2009).
Robinson JP, Kingman SW and Onobrakpeya O (2008) Microwave-
assisted stripping of oil contaminated drill cuttings. Journal of
Environmental Management 88: 211–218.
Robinson JP, Kingman SW, Snape CE, Barranco R, Shang H, Bradley
MSA, et al. (2009) Remediation of oil-contaminated drill cuttings
using continuous microwave heating. Chemical Engineering Journal
152: 458–463.
Rojas-Avelizapa NG, Roldán-Carrillo T, Zegarra-Martı́nez H, Muňoz-
Colunga AM and Fernández-Linares LC (2007) A field trial for an ex-
situ bioremediation of a drilling mud-polluted site. Chemosphere 66:
1595–1600.
Sadiq R, Husain T, Veitch B and Bose N (2003) Marine water quality
assessment of synthetic-based drilling waste discharges. International
Journal of Environmental Studies 60: 313–323.
Saterbak A, Toy RJ, Wong DCL, McMain BJ, Williams MP, Dorn PB,
et al. (1999) Ecotoxicological and analytical assessment of hydrocar-
bon-contaminated soils and application to ecotoxicological risk
assessment. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 18: 1591–1607.
Schaanning MT, Trannum HC, Øxnevad S, Carroll J and Bakke T (2008)
Effects of drill cuttings on biogeochemical fluxes and macrobenthos of
Ball et al.
marine sediments. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and
Ecology 361: 49–57.
Schaefer M and Filser J (2007) The influence of earthworms and organic
additives on the biodegradation of oil contaminated soil. Applied Soil
Ecology 36: 53–62.
Shaffer GP, Hester MW, Miller S, DesRoches DJ, Souther RF, Childers
GW and Campo FM (1998) Restored drill cuttings for wetlands:
Results of a two year mesocosm approach to emulate field conditions
under varying hydrologic regimes. Technical Report November
1998. Tulsa, Oklahoma: National Petroleum Technology Office, US
DOE. Available at: http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/296878-
AiyE0v/webviewable/296878.pdf 9 (accessed 10 December 2009).
Shang H, Snape CE, Kingman SW and Robinson JP (2006) Microwave
treatment of oil-contaminated North Sea drill cuttings in a high
power multimode cavity. Separation and Purification Technology 49:
84–90.
Smith KP, Blunt DL, Williams GP, Arnish JJ, Pfingston M, Herbert J,
et al. (1999) An Assessment of the Disposal of Petroleum Industry
NORM in Nonhazardous Landfills. Prepared for US Department of
Energy, National Petroleum Technology Office under Contract
W-31-109-Eng-38 and American Petroleum Institute, September
1999, 77 pp Available at: http://www.evs.anl.gov/pub/dsp_
detail.cfm?PubID=1178 (accessed on 13 October 2009).
Stroo HF (1989) Biological treatment of petroleum sludges in liquid/
solids reactors. Environmental Waste Management World 3: 9–12.
Trussell S and Spence RD (1994) A review of solidification/stabilisation
interferences. Waste Management 14: 507–519.
US DOE (2003) Environmental Benefits of Advanced Oil and Gas
Production Technology. Washington, DC: US Department of Energy,
Office of Fossil Energy, DOE-FE-0385. Available at: http://www.osti.
gov/bridge/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id¼771125 (accessed 16 November
2009).
US EPA (1900) Engineering Bulletin: Slurry Biodegradation, edn. EPA/
540/2-90/016. Cincinnati, OH: Center for Environmental Research.
US EPA (2000) Development Document for Final Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for Synthetic-Based Drilling Fluids and
other Non-Aqueous Drilling Fluids in the Oil and Gas Extraction
Point Source Category. EPA-821-B-00-013. From US EPA (2000)
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide/sbf/final/
eng.html) (accessed 16 November 2009).
US EPA (2004) How to Evaluate Alternative Cleanup Technologies for
Underground Storage Tank Sites. A Guide for Corrective Action Plan
Reviewers, Chapter 5 Landfarming; US Environment Protection
Agency Report EPA 510-R-04-002. Washington DC: US EPA’s
Office Of Underground Storage Tanks.
US GS (1999) Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM)
in Produced Water and Oil-Field Equipment—An Issue for the
Energy Industry, Fact Sheet FS–142–99. US Department of the
Interior – US Geological Survey, September 1999 Available at:
473
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0142-99/fs-0142-99.pdf). Denver, CO: US
Department of the Interior – US Geological Survey (accessed on 30
November 2009).
Van Hamme JD, Singh A and Ward OP (2003) Recent advances in petro-
leum microbiology. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews 67:
503–549.
Veil JA (2002) Drilling Waste Management: Past, Present, and Future,
77388-MS, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 29
September – 2 October 2002, San Antonio. Richardson, TX: Society
of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
Veil JA and Dusseault MB (2003) Evaluation of Slurry Injection
Technology for Management of Drilling Wastes. Argonne National
Laboratory. Prepared for US Department of Energy National
Petroleum Technology Office under Contract W-31-109-Eng-38,
May 2003. Tulsa, OK: US DOE National Petroleum Technology
Office.
Veil JA, Smith KP, Tomasko D, Elcock D, Blunt DL and Williams GP
(1998). Disposal of NORM Contaminated Oil Field Wastes in Salt
Caverns, Prepared for: US Department of Energy Office of Fossil
Energy National Petroleum Technology Office under Contract W-
31-109-Eng-38, 1998, 67pp. Available at: http://www.ead.anl.gov/
pub/doc/saltnorm.pdf (accessed 13 October 2009).
Vidali M (2001) Bioremediation. An overview. Pure and Applied
Chemistry 731163–1172.
Vipulanandan C and Krishnan S (1990) Solidification/stabilization of
phenolic waste with cementitious and polymeric materials. Journal
of Hazardous Materials 24: 123–136.
Visser S, Lee B, Hall J and Krieger D (2002). Bioremediation study of
olefins, mineral oils, iso-paraffin fluids and diesel oils used for land-
based drilling, SPE 73921. Presented at the SPE International
Conference on Health, Safety and Environment in Oil and Gas
Exploration and Production, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 20–22
March 2002. Available at: http://www.ineosoligomers.com/docs/bior-
emediation_olefins_mineral.pdf (accessed 28 November 2009).
Ward OP, Singh A and Van Hamme JD (2003) Accelerated biodegrada-
tion of petroleum waste. Journal of Industrial Microbiology and
Biotechnology 30: 260–270.
Wood P (2001) Remediation methods for contaminated. In: Hester RE
and Harrison RM (eds.) Sites Assessment and Reclamation of
Contaminated Land. Cambridge, UK: Royal Society of Chemistry,
115–139.
Wojtanowicz AK (2008) Oilfield waste disposal control. In: Orszulik ST
(ed.) Environmental Technology in the Oil Industry. The Netherlands:
Springer Verlag, 123–154.
Wolfe MF, Schwartz GJB, Singaram S, Mielbrecht EE, Tjeerdeman RS
and Sowby ML (2001) Influence of dispersants on the bioavailability
and trophic transfer of petroleum hydrocarbons to larval topsmelt
(Atherinops affinis). Aquatic Toxicology 52: 49–60.