Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Ilinykhetal.
Sustainable Environment Research (2023) 33:9
https://doi.org/10.1186/s42834-023-00171-0
RESEARCH
© The Author(s) 2023. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which
permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the
original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or
other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line
to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory
regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this
licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/.
Open Access
Sustainable Environment
Research
A life cycle assessment ofdrilling waste
management: acase study ofoil andgas
condensate eld inthenorth ofwestern Siberia,
Russia
Galina Ilinykh1, Johann Fellner2, Natalia Sliusar1* and Vladimir Korotaev1
Abstract
Oil production is currently impossible without drilling wells, so millions of tons of drilling waste contaminated with oil,
chlorides, and heavy metals are generated every year in Russia alone. This article presents the results of a comparative
life cycle assessment of water-based drill cuttings management technologies applied in Russia, including disposal,
solidification, and reinjection. Life cycle assessment of the drilling waste management was performed using Open-
LCA software, Ecoinvent 3.8 database and ReCiPe Midpoint (H) impact assessment method. Fossil depletion, climate
change and human toxicity were chosen as impact categories. Data from oil producing companies on the composi-
tion of drilling waste and information from drilling waste treatment companies on the technologies and reagents
used were also applied. To compare alternative technologies the following scenarios were compared: Scenario 0
«Landspraying», scenario 1 «Disposal», scenario 2 «Solidification» (scenario 2a – in a waste pit, scenario 2b – without a
waste pit), and scenario 3 «Reinjection». Sensitivity analysis was performed to test for variations in results for oilfields
located in different regions and for differences in mass of reagents used. The environmental impact of scenario 0
(landspraying) depends mostly on drilling waste composition, which is largely determined by human toxicity that
can differ from 17 up to 2642 kg 1,4-DCB-eq per 1 t of drill cuttings, when for other scenarios it is from 24 up to 73 kg
1,4-DCB-eq per 1 t of drill cuttings. It means, that drilling waste landspraying is the best option only if the level of pol-
lutants in the waste is very low. Among the other scenarios of drill cuttings management aimed at isolating pollutants
from the environment, solidification technologies have the greatest environmental impact, primarily due to their
use of binders. Among all scenarios, 2a and 2b have the biggest environmental effect in most impact categories. The
production of cement and lime for drilling waste solidification was the main contributor to fossil depletion (64% of
the total amount for scenario 2a and 54% for scenario 2b), and greenhouse gas emissions (49% of the total amount
for scenario 2a and 70% for scenario 2b). However, the application of soil-like material (solidified drill cuttings) as an
inert ground in swampy areas can make migration of heavy metals possible. Scenario 3 (reinjection) is associated
with the least impact on the environment and the main contributor is electricity production (75% of greenhouse
gas emissions). Sensitivity analysis shows that oilfield location does not affect the data for reinjection, but the impact
assessment changes up to 60% for drill cutting disposal due to different waste pit design depending on permafrost
*Correspondence:
Natalia Sliusar
nnslyusar@gmail.com
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
Page 2 of 17
Ilinykhetal. Sustainable Environment Research (2023) 33:9
and groundwater levels. Differences in the mass of used cement and lime change results for solidification scenarios
considerably (up to 80%).
Keywords Drilling waste, Water-based drill cuttings, Drilling waste pit, Pitless drilling, Permafrost, Outlying territories,
Material flow analysis, Assimilation, Climate change
1 Introduction
e process of oil and gas production, and well drilling
in particular, is accompanied by waste generation. Drill-
ing wastes are the second largest volume of waste, behind
produced water, generated by the oil and gas explora-
tion and production industry [1]. Drilling waste includes
drill cuttings, used drill mud, and drilling wastewater.
In the process of drilling a well, drilling fluid is supplied
to lubricate and cool the tool, compensate for down-
hole pressure, reduce the intensity of cavern formation,
strengthen the walls of the well, and bring the drilled
rock to the surface [2]. Drill cuttings are formed after the
exit of used drill mud with particles of the drilled rock
at the surface resulting from its subsequent cleaning. At
the end of drilling a well or its separate interval, and upon
reaching the point of no further use, the used drilling
fluid also becomes waste. When the drilling site, drilling
equipment, and tools are flushed, drilling wastewater is
generated [3].
Every year, the number of wells put into operation
increases, therefore, the volume of drilling waste gener-
ated also grows, which is an urgent problem that requires
constant monitoring and incurs large monetary costs [4,
5]. In fact, according to data from Rosneft [6], the larg-
est oil and gas company in Russia, formed about 4 Mt of
drilling cutting alone.
Drilling waste contains water, drilled rock particles,
oil, and drilling mud components in various proportions.
Different fields are characterized by unique composition
of drilling waste and significant variation in the compo-
nents to be found there [3]. e composition of drilling
waste is influenced by the drilling technologies used, the
location of the oil production facility, the geological and
geochemical features of the rocks, the composition of
chemical reagents used for the preparation and process-
ing of drilling fluids, etc. [7].
Around the world, the treatment of drilling waste off-
shore and onshore differs significantly. Drilling waste dis-
charging and reinjection are usually applied for offshore
drilling, while landspraying, solidification, biological and
thermal treatment, disposal are used for onshore drilling
[3].
In this regard, the need often arises to choose the most
appropriate drilling waste treatment technology.
e methodology of life cycle assessment (LCA) is
widely used today for a variety of purposes, particularly,
to justify decisions in the oil and gas industry, for exam-
ple for environmental evaluation of oil and gas deposits,
and also for assessing methods and technologies of oil
extraction and processing [7, 8]. But there are very few
examples of LCA application for comparative evalua-
tion of drilling waste management technologies. LCA
was used to evaluate options for wastewater manage-
ment in the production and processing of oil [9], and to
justify the choice of drilling fluids [10]. LCA was also
applied to compare alternative options for drilling waste
management in Algeria [11]. Four scenarios of treatment
and disposal were compared: thermal desorption, stabi-
lisation/solidification offshore, stabilisation/solidification
onshore, and disposal without treatment. Disposal had
the highest contribution to the human health, climate
change and resources damage. e life cycle impacts of
treatment of typical oil-based drill cuttings using low-
temperature thermal desorption were explored with a
case study in British Columbia, Canada [12]. e pro-
cess contribution analysis found that thermal desorp-
tion process accounted for 80–95% of impacts in almost
all impact categories. LCA was also applied to evaluate
offshore drilling operations, including oil-based drill
cuttings and fluids treatment in historical, current and
future best practice [13].
But these examples considered cover only some types
of drilling waste and technologies for handling them
for rather specific local conditions. e management
of water-based drilling waste onshore in the North has
never been evaluated using LCA before, despite the fact
that millions of tons of this type of waste are generated
and treated annually.
e main research question of this study is which
aspects of oil field characteristics, drilling waste prop-
erties and features of treatment technologies are of the
greatest importance for the appropriate environmental
assessment of waste management scenarios. Taking into
account the diversity of oil and gas fields, the constantly
changing legislation in the field of waste management
and the development of new technologies for waste treat-
ment, it is important not to create a list of “ideal” tech-
nologies for any cases, but rather to develop and to test
an approach for comparative analysis of technologies
encompassing all stages of the waste life cycle.
Based on the research questions, this study has a fol-
lowing research objectives: (1) to analyze the material
Page 3 of 17
Ilinykhetal. Sustainable Environment Research (2023) 33:9
flows and the life cycle of drilling waste for the most used
treatment technologies; (2) to determine the influence of
oil field peculiar properties and drilling waste composi-
tion on the LCA results; and (3) to identify the steps and
processes of drilling waste management that have the
greatest impact on the environment.
e study makes a novel contribution to the existing
literature of drilling waste treatment technology com-
parison because of several reasons. First, there are no
previous studies on LCA of drilling waste management in
the conditions of the far north, permafrost and swamps.
Second, this study was performed for water-based drill-
ing waste, which in itself is a rarity, since oil-based drill-
ing waste is most often analyzed. In addition, this study
analyzes the possible impact of waste composition on the
assessment results.
2 Materials andmethods
e following data were initially used for LCA of drilling
waste and comparative analysis of drilling waste manage-
ment technologies: (1) geographical and climate charac-
teristics of the oil field under consideration, its transport
accessibility; (2) chemical composition and properties of
drilling waste, conditions of their generation and accu-
mulation, current treatment and disposal practices; and
(3) characteristics of alternative methods of drilling waste
management, including requirements for reagents and
equipment.
2.1 Oileld anddrilling waste characteristics
Drilling waste generated at Novoportovskoye oil and gas
condensate field (OGCF) located on the territory of Rus-
sia (67°53′04″ N latitude, 72°25′46″ E longitude), in the
north of western Siberia, approximately 2200 km north-
east of the city of Moscow with severe climate condi-
tions and bad transport infrastructure was hypothetically
selected as the object of research because more and more
such oil deposits are exploited there.
Novoportovskoye OGCF is located on outlying ter-
ritories of the Far North tundra and permafrost. Due to
the location of this oilfield, there are long distances to
travel for the delivery of reagents (190 km by truck and
thousands of km by rail depending on the manufacturer’s
location) and all objects are built in mounds of artificial
soil because of permafrost and high groundwater levels.
Also, a lot of sand is necessary for waste pit construction.
2.2 Drilling waste properties
Drilling waste samples usually contain 0.8–7.5% oil and
up to 15% organic compounds (petroleum products and
chemical reagents) [14]. Drilling waste generated with
oil-based drilling fluid is characterized by a higher petro-
leum product content in comparison to water-based
drilling fluid and, accordingly, it has a more significant
impact on the environment and demands a more respon-
sible attitude [15].
To compare technologies, drilling waste obtained from
drilling production wells using water-based solutions
was considered, because it is commonly used in Rus-
sia. According to the average data on the composition of
drilling cuttings (based on data from 21 oilfields of one of
the largest Russian oil companies for the period of 2012–
2017), it can be assumed that the waste mainly consists of
drilled rock and water, and that it contains a number of
environmentally toxic components (Table1).
Drill cuttings with a high content of petroleum prod-
ucts or salts (mainly sulfates and chlorides) after special
types of drilling fluids (oil-based, saltwater etc.) applica-
tion, are not considered in this paper since they are rarely
formed.
2.3 System boundaries andfunctional unit
e process of drilling and drill mud cleaning is not
considered in this study, and 1 kt of drill cuttings (after
pitless drilling) or the solid phase of drilling waste after
sedimentation and removing the liquid phase (when
drilling waste pits are applied) are used as the functional
unit. At this stage of research, only the treatment of drill
cuttings is taken into account, after preliminary sedimen-
tation and removal of the liquid waste. It is accepted that
liquid drilling waste in all scenarios is sent for reuse to
the reservoir pressure maintenance system and is not
considered further.
e boundaries of the system under consideration
include all the stages of drill cuttings management from
Table 1 Drill cuttings composition
Element Content (ppm, wet mass)
Average Min Max
Hydrocarbons 14,600 8400 60,000
Sulfates 5400 770 10,000
Chlorides 4100 100 18,500
Phosphates 340 40 500
Barium (Ba) 44,000 60 15,800
Iron (Fe) 28,000 4600 41,400
Manganese (Mn) 1000 60 1870
Cobalt (Co) 470 1.0 3150
Chromium (Cr) 100 60 240
Copper (Cu) 74 3 180
Zinc (Zn) 74 10 160
Nickel (Ni) 27 4 36
Lead (Pb) 14 2.3 30
Arsenic (As) 4.2 0.7 6.0
Page 4 of 17
Ilinykhetal. Sustainable Environment Research (2023) 33:9
the accumulation of drilling waste in waste pits to the
assimilation of drilling waste or products derived from
drilling waste into the environment.
2.4 Waste treatment technologies andmanagement
scenarios
Common methods of drilling waste treatment in off-
shore drilling operations are discharged into a marine
environment under specific conditions [16] and then
reinjected into a subsurface formation [17, 18]. e main
disadvantage of reinjection is the risk of ground water
contamination.
Onshore landspraying (spraying waste onto topsoil),
landspreading (spreading waste onto the shallow subsoil),
and landfarming (spreading waste onto land and mixing
it with topsoil to allow bioremediation of the hydrocar-
bons) are widely used in the USA and Canada [19]. Peri-
odic treatment of the mixture of soil and drilling waste
(to increase aeration), and the addition of nutrients and
other additives (manure, straw, etc.) can enhance the
aerobic biodegradation of hydrocarbons and prevent the
development of conditions that promote leaching and
mobilization of organic and inorganic pollutants from
drilling waste. ese methods are most effective in a mild
climate [20]. Vermicomposting uses worms to remediate
the drilling cuttings converting them in to a compost type
material that can be used as a soil enhancer or fertilizer
[21]. Bioaugmentation, biostimulation and phytoremedi-
ation of drilling waste reduce the content of heavy metal
compounds and some volatile organic compounds [22].
Solidification is one of the most popular methods of drill-
ing waste disposal, allowing users to reduce the solubil-
ity and mobility of pollutants [23–25]. ermal disposal
methods are commonly used for waste generated dur-
ing drilling with oil-based drill fluids [12, 26]. Currently,
drilling waste is also used for the production of building
materials. A mixture of drilling waste and various binders
(Portland cement, lime, sand, loam, etc.) allows consum-
ers to obtain materials that can be used for recultivation,
and strengthening of roadside slopes, embankments, and
quarries, as well as landfill dredging and reclamation [27].
In Russia, the most common method of onshore drill-
ing waste treatment is disposal into drilling waste pits.
e advantage of this method is the option for waste dis-
posal on each multi-well pad with a capacity correspond-
ing to the volume of drilling waste generated. However, it
takes up significant land areas and poses a potential dan-
ger to the environment because of possible emissions and
leaching. Drilling waste disposal in pits leads to signifi-
cant environmental pollution and cannot be considered
as a promising technology for drilling waste treatment.
It has therefore been replaced by other technologies
in numerous oil and gas companies. Currently, many
technologies in the field of drilling waste management
are offered in the Russian market of services and equip-
ment. For example, several dozen technologies developed
by different companies implement a common technologi-
cal principle of solidification and differ in the reagents
and formulations used, along with equipment and work
performed.
To analyze and compare drill cuttings treatment tech-
nologies, it is necessary to understand where the tech-
nology is in the life cycle of drilling waste and what
conditions are associated with it. Furthermore, it is
essential to determine whether additional steps of waste
treatment will be necessary and to know where and how
the resulting product will be used.
In this paper, several scenarios of drilling waste man-
agement are considered: scenario 0 – landspraying;
scenario 1 – disposal in waste pits; scenario 2 – solidifi-
cation to obtain a soil-like material in two sub-scenarios
with 2a) solidification in waste pits with abandonment
of resulting material in waste pit and pit reclamation,
and 2b) solidification on a special object (site or special
equipment) using the obtained material as inert soil; and
scenario 3 – reinjection into suitable deep geological
formations.
Scenarios 0, 1, 2a include drilling with exploitation of
waste pits, while scenarios 2b and 3 include pitless drill-
ing. In order to simplify the research, liquid drilling waste
in all scenarios is removed from the boundaries of the
system, and its contribution to the negative impact on
the environment is not taken into account, since it is
accepted in all scenarios that liquid drilling waste is used
in the reservoir pressure maintenance system, i.e. it is
pumped into underground horizons.
For all considered scenarios, the quantitative values of
all main flows were calculated, and a material flow analy-
sis was constructed. e calculations take only single-
use objects such as drilling waste pits into account. All
objects that can be used repeatedly are not included, for
example, tanks for the accumulation of drilling waste
during pitless drilling or centralized solidification/ rein-
jection facilities.
Scenario 0 (baseline) includes surface spreading of
drilling waste without any pretreatment. So, a mini-
mum of technological operations for the distribution
of solid drilling waste over the territory is assumed.
In accordance with legislation of the Russian Federa-
tion, landspraying of drilling waste management is not
allowed, but it is quite actively used in many foreign
countries. According to the requirements of Canadian
legislation [28, 29], it is possible to distribute drilling
waste on the territory if a number of requirements for
the quality of waste are met (the content of chlorides,
hydrocarbons and other substances). is scenario was
Page 5 of 17
Ilinykhetal. Sustainable Environment Research (2023) 33:9
added as a baseline to assess the environmental impact
of drilling waste itself and the impact of operations for
drilling waste accumulation, transportation, process-
ing, disposal, or assimilation of solidified waste. e
environmental impact of drilling waste landspaying is
the temporary occupation of land (while the assimila-
tion of drilling waste is underway, it will not be possible
to use it for other purposes), assimilation of pollutants
contained in drilling waste, drilling waste transporta-
tion and truck spreader operation.
For scenario 1, five main stages were identified (Fig.1),
starting with the construction of a drilling waste pit and
ending with its reclamation. Drilling waste pit construc-
tion involves the use of a geomembrane (a high-density
polyethylene layer with a thickness of 1.5 mm or more)
to prevent migration of pollutants contained in the drill-
ing waste into soils and water bodies. However, this only
occurs if we consider the short-term environmental
impacts of drilling waste disposal. When assessing long-
term impacts, it is necessary to bear in mind that the
Fig. 1 Material flows of Scenario 1. Drill cuttings disposal in waste pits
Page 6 of 17
Ilinykhetal. Sustainable Environment Research (2023) 33:9
geomembrane will collapse, and pollutants will enter the
environment.
For scenario 2a, five main stages were also identified,
starting with the construction of a temporary sludge
storage facility and ending with its reclamation. e
first three stages and the last one are similar to scenario
1 (Fig.1), but instead of filling the waste pit with sand,
some reagents are added for waste solidification. Solidi-
fication technologies are very diverse in terms of the
reagents used, recipes, and process conditions. In this
regard, the option of solidification with cement and lime
is considered to be most frequently used. is emphasis
on the use of cement and lime is primarily related to the
specifics of these materials – their production consumes
a large amount of resources (in particular fossil fuels) and
generates a significant amount of carbon dioxide emis-
sions, which are taken into account in the LCA.
Drilling waste solidification using cement and lime
assumes a range in how the reagents are proportioned,
so the average values are used for calculations. e main
quantitative characteristics of resource consumption are
presented (Fig.2).
Scenario 2b is the solidification of drill cuttings after
pitless drilling. e main stage with the greatest impact
on the environment is the solidification of drilling waste
(Fig.3). In this case, solidification takes place at a central-
ized waste management facility (using an excavator and
a bulldozer as in the case of solidification in a waste pit,
but on a special site with an impermeable surface). e
resulting soil-like material is used in the construction of
new multi-well pads. Transportation of drill cuttings and
soil-like material is an integral part of the process.
Reinjection includes collecting cuttings from drilling
wells, then mixing the cuttings with liquid waste, water
and additives to create slurry, and finally injecting the
slurry into a selected underground formation through
an injection well. Material flow analysis for Scenario 3 is
presented in Fig.4. e effort put into the construction
and maintenance of the reinjection site itself is not taken
into account at this stage of the assessment.
For each scenario, the main quantitative characteristics
of resource consumption were calculated, based on the
data of a Russian oil production company (Table2).
2.5 Emissions andmetal leaching
In different scenarios, the end of the drilling waste life
cycle is associated with different environmental impacts.
With landspraying, there are no measures to isolate
toxic components from the environment, moreover,
this method is basically aimed at the most complete and
rapid assimilation of waste. erefore, it is assumed that
all components of the waste completely enter the soil.
Аll other scenarios provide isolation of hazardous waste
components from the surrounding environment. In this
regard, it is assumed that there is no emission of pollut-
ants that can come into contact with humans or living
organisms.
2.6 LCA method
A LCA was made in order to determine the environmen-
tal impacts of every scenario. e OpenLCA software
version 1.10.3 from GreenDelta, Ecoinvent 3.8 database
and ReCiPe Midpoint (H) impact assessment method
were used for an environmental impact assessment.
3 Results anddiscussion
3.1 General results
e environmental impact of drilling waste manage-
ment scenarios (per 1 kt of drill cuttings) is presented in
Table3.
ree environmental impact assessment categories
were chosen for further consideration: «Fossil depletion»,
«Climate change» and «Human toxicity». For these cat-
egories, the main aspects of environmental impact are
considered.
3.2 Fossil depletion, climate change andhuman toxicity
Figure5 shows the results of a LCA of drilling waste by
fossil depletion.
Fossil depletion is mainly associated with material and
reagents consumption (sand for construction and recla-
mation of drilling waste pits, cement and lime for drill-
ing waste solidification). Fossil depletion due to material
and reagents consumption for scenario 1 is more than
59%, for scenario 2a is more than 64%, for scenario 2b is
more than 54%. Production of electricity for drill cuttings
grinding, slurry preparation, and pumping in scenario 3
is the reason of 75% of fossil depletion in scenario 3 due
to the fact that natural gas is the main fuel for electricity
production in Russia.
Figure6 shows the results of the LCA of drilling waste
management as determined by the level of greenhouse
gas emissions («Climate change» impact category).
Greenhouse gas emissions of scenarios 2 depend
mainly on the use of cement and lime (49% of the total
amount for scenario 2a and 70% for scenario 2b), the
production of which is associated with emissions due to
the burning of fossil fuels and the decarbonization of raw
materials. us, drilling waste solidification technologies
involving the use of cement and lime are immediately sig-
nificantly inferior to other options in terms of reducing
greenhouse gas emissions.
Despite the obvious link between the use of fossil fuels
and greenhouse gas emissions, the ratio of impact for
different scenarios, especially for scenario 1 and 2b has
changed, due to the use of different types of primary
Page 7 of 17
Ilinykhetal. Sustainable Environment Research (2023) 33:9
resources as energy sources for different processes. In
addition, the decarbonization of raw materials in cement
production leads to greenhouse gas emissions that are
not caused by fuel combustion.
Figure7 show the results of the life cycle assessment of
drilling waste in the category «Human toxicity».
In terms of toxicity to humans, the main contrib-
uting factor is materials and reagents. But only if the
migration of pollutants contained in waste, primarily
heavy metals, into the soil are not considered. It is log-
ical to assume that landspraying should be the worst
option, if all other scenarios provide complete preven-
tion of pollutants migration to the environment. But,
in truth, it is more complicated, so pollutant migra-
tion in different scenarios is considered in more detail
below.
Fig. 2 Material flows of Scenario 2a. Drill cuttings solidification in waste pits
Page 8 of 17
Ilinykhetal. Sustainable Environment Research (2023) 33:9
3.3 Pollutant migration indierent scenarios
Environmental impact of drilling waste assimilation was
calculated separately. It takes place in three variations of
drill cutting composition, according to Table1. Migra-
tion of 100% toxic substances from waste to the soil was
calculated. Results are presented in Table4 (the mass of
toxic substances is recalculated to 1,4 dichlorobenzene
(DCB) equivalent in accordance with ReCiPe life cycle
impact assessment method).
Assuming that only landspraying is accompanied by
toxic substances migration from drill cutting into the
soil the results of the toxicity assessment for humans will
look like this (Fig.8).
However, when assessing the environmental effect of
drilling waste assimilation, it is necessary to take into
account not only the waste composition, but also the
characteristics of the territory and its ability to assimi-
late. In particular, in the forest-tundra zone of Western
Siberia (Russia) cryogenic conditions and the seasonal
thawing of permafrost could change the downward flow
of matter [30].
All operations that isolate drill cuttings from the envi-
ronment will have less negative environmental impact
in comparison to landspraying if drilling waste with
average concentrations of heavy metals is treated. At the
same time, significant variability in the composition of
drill cuttings leads to the fact that landspraying will have
less impact on the environment than solidification with
cement only if waste with minimal pollutant content is
considered. So, waste composition analysis is extremely
important for choosing a drill cuttings treatment option.
In fact, scenarios 1–3 are also associated with certain
risks of pollutant migration.
If everything is done correctly for reinjection and suita-
ble underground horizon was found, this method provides
complete isolation of waste from underground water and
ensures the prevention of pollutant migration [31, 32].
High-density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane is
commonly used as a bottom liner in waste pit construc-
tion. It prevents migration of pollutants into the environ-
ment. But HDPE geomembrane degrades with time by
oxidation, radiation, extreme temperatures, or chemicals.
It is estimated that the service life of an HDPE geomem-
brane is 45–500 years depending on the surrounding
operating conditions [33]. When HDPE geomembrane
is used for drilling waste pit construction, it can be
assumed that there will be no cracks of the geomembrane
in the initial period of more than 100 years, because
Fig. 3 Material flows of Scenario 2b. Drill cuttings solidification (pitless drilling)
Page 9 of 17
Ilinykhetal. Sustainable Environment Research (2023) 33:9
drilling waste is not as chemically active as the solutions
that are usually used to determine the resistance of the
membrane in laboratory tests.
Solidification/stabilization of waste with cement as
a binder is applied for heavy metals immobilization by
converting them into a less soluble form and encapsu-
lating them by creating a durable matrix. In this case,
properties of treated waste are the main barrier for
prevention of environmental pollution. e pH of drill-
ing waste depends on the territory, the depth of drill-
ing and a number of other factors, but usually drilling
waste has an alkaline reaction and a pH of about 8.5–
10.5 (in some cases up to 12.7) [25, 34, 35]. Soil-like
materials obtained during drilling waste solidification
with cements are usually even more alkaline (pH 12.0–
13.5). In this regard, soil-like materials are usually
stable enough when exposed to water, atmospheric
precipitation, carbon dioxide in the surrounding air, or
acid rain conditions [25, 36–39]. Metals migration in
these cases is minimal and sometimes even lower than
the detection limit of the instruments. However, simu-
lation tests revealed that Co, Ni, Cu, Pb and Zn were of
long-term release concern in acetogenic landfill condi-
tions [39]. Leaching of all metals except Ba and Sr from
solidified products was strongly affected by leachate pH
[25]. So soil-like materials’ exposure to an acidic envi-
ronment can lead to the leaching of metals. e soil in
the area of Novoportovskoye OGCF is swampy and its
pH is 2.7–6.4 [40]. Consequently, the use of a soil-like
material as an inert ground on the territory of swampy
areas without any isolation may be accompanied by the
migration of heavy metals into the environment. It can
reasonably be assumed, that metals from soil-like mate-
rial obtained by drilling waste solidification will most
likely get into the environment over time.
e principle of multi-barrier protection is realized in
scenario 2b. Toxic substance migration is prevented by
the design of the waste pit (HDPE geomembrane) and by
the quality of the materials (heavy metals immobilization
with cement). So, emissions of pollutants are unlikely for
very long period of time.
In this regard, it is assumed that in scenarios 2a and 3
there are no emissions of pollutants into environments
that can come into contact with humans or living organ-
isms. As for scenario 2b in a longer-term perspective,
perhaps the pollutants will get washed out from soil-like
material in an acidic medium, and become more and more
similar to landspraying in terms of environmental impact.
Fig. 4 Material flows of Scenario 3. Drill cuttings reinjection
Page 10 of 17
Ilinykhetal. Sustainable Environment Research (2023) 33:9
3.4 Sensitivity analysis
e sensitivity analysis was based on different oilfield
locations. e same scenarios of drilling waste man-
agement were considered for Orenburg OGCF, which
is a significantly different oilfield, in order to assess the
impact of local conditions on the choice to become more
involved with drilling waste treatment technology.
e principal differences between Novoportovskoye
and Orenburg OGCF are:
1. Different distances for the delivery of reagents. Oren-
burg OGCF is located in the south of Russia just
30 km from Orenburg. It has a large, convenient rail-
way station and a good road network, so less trans-
portation of reagents is required.
2. Different designs of drilling waste pits – in the condi-
tions of the Orenburg OGCF, less sand is necessary
for waste pit construction because of the low ground
water level and the lack of necessity for embankment.
Also, there is less excavator and bulldozer work, and
transportation of sand is required.
3. Different types of land. Novoportovsky OGCF is
located on wetlands, while Orenburg OGCF is on
grassland.
Table 2 Life cycle inventory for treatment of 1000 tons of drill cuttings
Impact contributor Scenario 0. Drill
cuttings land-
spreading
Scenario 1. Drill
cuttings disposal in
waste pits
Scenario 2a. Drill
cuttings solidication
(in waste pits)
Scenario 2b. Drill
cuttings solidication
(pitless drilling)
Scenario 3.
Drill cuttings
reinjection
Material consumption, t
HDPE membrane 3.8 3.8
Sand 8744.2 8427 1464
Aluminum sulfate 2.1 2.1
Sodium carbonate 2.1 2.1
Fertilizer 0.04 0.04
Seeds 0.02 0.02
Cement 150 150
Lime 88 88
Reagents (thicken-
ers, inhibitors, viscosi-
fiers)
5.6
Water 38.2 38.2 5000
Тransportation, km
Drill cuttings truck 50 truck 50 truck 50
Sand truck 20 truck 20 truck 20
PE geomembrane truck 190, rail 3000 truck 190, rail 3000
Aluminum sulfate truck 190, rail 3000 truck 190, rail 3000
Sodium carbonate truck 190, rail 3000 truck 190, rail 3000
Fertilizer truck 190, rail 3000 truck 190, rail 3000
Seeds truck 190, rail 3000 truck 190, rail 3000
Cement truck 190, rail 1000 truck 190, rail 1000
Lime truck 190, rail 1000 truck 190, rail 1000
Soil-like material truck 50
Reagents truck 190, rail 3000
Diesel consumption for equipment operation, kg
Truck spreader 3200
Excavator 5140 6620 1950
Bulldozer 5540 5540 1050
Cementing truck 430 430
Electricity consumption for equipment operation, kWh
Grinders and pumps 60,000
Land occupation, m2*year
Land occupation 250,000*1 (wetland) 2540*2 (wetland) 2540*2 (wetland)
Page 11 of 17
Ilinykhetal. Sustainable Environment Research (2023) 33:9
Figure 9 shows the deviations in the values for the
selected categories when changing oilfields.
Despite the fact that very different oilfields were
selected for comparison, the influence of this factor on
the final results was negligible for a reinjection scenario
because only the delivery distance for a small number of
reagents changed. On the other hand, the oilfield loca-
tion had a far more significant influence on the scenarios
using a waste pit, due to big differences in its design that
affected the required quantity of sand and operating time
of the equipment at each site.
Also, as it was already said, different solidification tech-
nologies assume different mass of cement and lime per 1 t
of drill cutting. Previously average value was taken for cal-
culation – 150 kg of cement and 88 kg of lime per 1 t of drill
cuttings. In fact, the mass of cement could be from 100 up to
300 kg and the mass of lime from 0 (not used) up to 200 kg.
So, this range of values was taken for sensitivity analysis.
Results of sensitivity analysis are presented in Figs.10,
11 and 12.
us, cement and lime application significantly affects
the assessment results of waste solidification scenarios.
Table 3 Environmental impact of drilling waste management scenarios (per 1000 tons of drill cuttings)
a 1,4-DCB 1,4-dichlorobenzene
Impact category Reference unit Scenario 0. Drill
cuttings land-
spreading
Scenario 1. Drill
cuttings disposal in
waste pits
Scenario 2a.
Drill cuttings
solidication (in
waste pits)
Scenario 2b.
Drill cuttings
solidication
(pitless drilling)
Scenario 3.
Drill cuttings
reinjection
Agricultural land
occupation - ALOP m2 a 2.53E+05 7.63E+03 9.71E+03 2.60E+03 428
Climate change -
GWP100 kg CO2-eq 2.44E+04 1.82E+05 4.02E+05 2.79E+05 6.05E+04
Fossil depletion –
FDP kg oil-eq 8.33E+03 6.32E+04 9.41E+04 5.25E+04 2.10E+04
Freshwater ecotoxic-
ity – FAETPinf kg 1,4-DCB-eq 473 2.34E+03 3.64E+03 1.85E+03 1.92E+03
Freshwater eutrophi-
cation – FEP kg P-eq 3.1 23.6 47.6 29.7 29.0
Human toxicity –
HTPinf kg 1,4-DCB-eq 6.80E+03 4.25E+04 7.26E+04 4.56E+04 2.36E+04
Ionising radiation -
IRP_HE kg U235-eq 1.54E+03 1.35E+04 1.94E+04 1.02E+04 1.46E+04
Marine ecotoxicity –
METPinf kg 1,4-DCB-eq 451 2.32E+03 3.54E+03 1.84E+03 1.73E+03
Marine eutrophica-
tion – MEP kg N-Eq 74 547 784 404 66
Metal depletion –
MDP kg Fe-eq 2.04E+03 1.14E+04 1.68E+04 8.32E+03 1.97E+03
Natural land transfor-
mation - NLTP m27.9 299.5 319.9 81.8 8.2
Ozone depletion –
ODPinf kg CFC-11-eq 0.0036 0.0274 0.0364 0.0189 0.0077
Particulate matter
formation - PMFP kg PM10-eq 81 579 849 440 163
Photochemical
oxidant formation -
POFP
kg NMVOC 223 1.66E+03 2.35E+03 1.20E+03 194
Terrestrial acidifica-
tion - TAP100 kg SO2-eq 148 1.15E+03 1.71E+03 898 241
Terrestrial ecotoxicity
– TETPinf kg 1,4-DCB-eqa6.5 42.9 54.3 33.4 5.9
Urban land occupa-
tion – ULOP m2a 1.14E+03 4.79E+04 5.44E+04 1.61E+04 703
Water depletion –
WDP m329 2.14E+04 2.17E+04 3.87E+03 1.13E+04
Page 12 of 17
Ilinykhetal. Sustainable Environment Research (2023) 33:9
Fig. 5 Fossil depletion for drilling waste management scenarios by contributors
Fig. 6 Climate change for drilling waste management scenarios by contributors
Fig. 7 Human toxicity for drilling waste management scenarios by contributors
Page 13 of 17
Ilinykhetal. Sustainable Environment Research (2023) 33:9
And yet, even taking into account such significant differ-
ences in categories for Orenburg OGCF, the final ranking
of scenarios remains the same.
As for the migration of pollutants into the environ-
ment from waste, it is necessary to consider the follow-
ing differences between the two oilfields. As already
mentioned, Novoportovsky OGCF is located on wet-
lands (soil pH 3–6) and Orenburg OGCF on farmland
(soil pH 6–7). As a result, there are different condi-
tions for heavy metal leaching. At Orenburg OGCF, the
application of soil-like material outside of the waste pit
should lead to significantly less metal leaching. at
being said, there is no data at the moment on the basis
of which it would be possible to predict the migra-
tion of pollutants into the soil, based on the proper-
ties of waste, type and quality of reagents used, and soil
properties. For all scenarios, waste or soil-like mate-
rial assimilation is not included to compare the impact
from waste assimilation itself and waste treatment
operations. Among all given options, landspraying is
associated with the lowest environmental impact at the
waste treatment stage, since it requires minimal efforts.
Table 4 Environmental impact of drilling waste assimilation (per 1 kt of drill cuttings)
Impact category Reference unit Assimilation (average) Assimilation (minimum) Assimilation
(maximum)
Freshwater ecotoxicity - FAETPinf kg 1,4-DCB-eq 3,99E+04 90 5,27E+04
Human toxicity - HTPinf kg 1,4-DCB-eq 7,32E+05 1,04E+04 2,64E+06
Marine ecotoxicity - METPinf kg 1,4-DCB-eq 2,52E+04 54 3,31E+04
Terrestrial ecotoxicity - TETPinf kg 1,4-DCB-eq 4,03E+04 211 6,94E+04
Fig. 8 Human toxicity for different scenarios with assimilation for landspraying scenario
Fig. 9 Differences in impact categories for Orenburg OGCF in comparison with Novoportovsky OGCF
Page 14 of 17
Ilinykhetal. Sustainable Environment Research (2023) 33:9
Fig. 10 Fossil depletion for drilling waste management scenarios for Novoportovsky OGCF and Orenburg OGCF
Fig. 11 Climate change for drilling waste management scenarios for Novoportovsky OGCF and Orenburg OGCF
Fig. 12 Human toxicity for drilling waste management scenarios for Novoportovsky OGCF and Orenburg OGCF
Page 15 of 17
Ilinykhetal. Sustainable Environment Research (2023) 33:9
4 Conclusions
Currently available methods and approaches to substan-
tiate the technology for drilling waste management in the
Russian Federation are either primarily aimed at tech-
nical and economic assessment, or are often based on
methods of expert assessment. Quantitative assessment
of the environmental effectiveness of waste management
systems is practically unheard-of. erefore, it is clear
that LCA is a promising methodology for comparison of
drilling waste treatment options.
LCA was made for drilling waste management tech-
nologies that are widely-used in Russia, such as disposal
in waste pits and solidification along with landspraying
(widely used in Canada, but not yet allowed in Russia),
and reinjection, which is known to have good prospects
for implementation. e impacts are shown in the cat-
egories of «Fossil depletion», «Climate change» and
«Human toxicity».
e following significant findings were made as a con-
sequence of this study:
– e environmental impact of landspraying itself is
relatively small in all impact categories (at least two
and a half times less in comparison with reinjection
and six times in comparison with solidification), but
migration of heavy metals in the soil has significant
negative consequences. So, landspraying can be used
only for waste with minimum levels of pollutants.
– Cutting reinjection delivers the lowest environmen-
tal impact in most categories and in general among
all scenarios and promises the least risks to the envi-
ronment. For comparison, greenhouse gas emissions
equal to 60 kg of carbon dioxide per 1 t of drill cut-
tings during reinjection and to 279–402 kg when
solidification was applied.
– Scenario 2a (solidification in waste pit) has the high-
est level of impact not only in the impact category of
climate change, but also in fossil depletion (94 kg oil-
eq per 1 t of drill cuttings) and human toxicity (73 kg
1,4-DCB-eq per 1 t of drill cuttings). According to the
results, environmental impact for scenarios 2a and
2b is mostly associated with material consumption,
primarily cement and lime. Changing the dosage of
cement and lime for scenarios 2a and 2b within the
intervals that are applied in practice leads to sig-
nificant changes. Greenhouse gas emissions change
from minus 32 to plus 59% in comparison with the
basic calculations.
– Scenario 1 is the most sensitive to changes in the
location of the oilfield due to waste pit design peculi-
arities. Greenhouse gas emissions are up to 60% low
if there is no need for embankment, that is used for
pit the regions with permafrost and swamps.
– Oil field location has a significant impact on the final
assessment of waste management scenarios. At the
same time, transport accessibility plays a small role in
comparison with climatic conditions and the type of
ecosystem, on which the destructive features of the
technologies used and the amount of resources spent
will depend.
– Drilling waste composition is fundamentally impor-
tant to justify the choice of treatment technology,
especially if the technology involves the assimilation
of waste in the environment. Attention should be
paid not only to the oil content in the waste, but also
to the concentrations of heavy metals.
Main limitation of the study is uncertainty about the
possibility of pollutant leaching from solidified waste and
the dynamics of such leaching over time and depending
on initial waste composition, leaching conditions and
the reagents used. In addition, the presented results were
obtained only for the treatment of water-based drilling
waste in Russia.
Findings and limitations allow formulating some rec-
ommendations and directions for further research.
– e stability of materials obtained as a result of drill-
ing waste solidification and membranes at the bot-
tom of waste pit, especially in the acidic environment
of swamps and at low temperatures, requires addi-
tional research.
– e stability and longevity of waste pit construc-
tion and HDPE membranes are also introduce great
uncertainty into the results of the study. In general,
the concept of multi-barrier protection in relation to
drilling waste requires additional research. It is nec-
essary to determine how appropriate is it to spend
resources and get emissions when simultaneously
solidifying waste and installing an impermeable layer
at the bottom of waste pit.
e results of this study contribute to a developing
understanding of the environmental impacts from the
waste management actions themselves in an attempt
to reduce waste negative impact on air, water, soils and
human health. e results clearly showed that sometimes
it is better for environment just to spread waste with a
low content of hazardous substances over the territory
instead of curing them with cement and lime. It is also
a good reason to think about the expediency of waste
solidification despite the waste composition, which is
now mandatory according to the legislation of Russia.
e major practical contribution of the present
research is that it provides additional data for decision
makers. e results of this work can be used by oil and
Page 16 of 17
Ilinykhetal. Sustainable Environment Research (2023) 33:9
gas companies in the development of waste management
strategies, concepts and plans, as they enhance their abil-
ity to choose drilling waste management technologies
while also continuing to apply the current criteria for
technical and economic assessment.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the staff of the Laboratory of environmental
management and nature-inspired technologies of the Perm National Research
Polytechnic University for their cooperation during source data collection.
Authors’ contributions
Conceptualization, G.I. and J.F.; methodology, G.I., N.S. and J.F.; investigation,
G.I. and J.F.; data curation, V.K. and N.S.; writing—original draft preparation, I.S.,
J.F., and V.K; writing—review and editing, N.S., G.I., V.K. and J.F.; visualization, N.S
and G.I; supervision, N.S. and V.K.; project administration, G.I.; funding acquisi-
tion, N.S. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding
The study was performed with financial support from Ministry of science
and higher education of the Russian Federation (Project № FSNM-2020-
0024 «Development of scientific basis for environmentally friendly and
nature-inspired technologies and environmental management in petroleum
industry»).
Availability of data and materials
All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published
article.
Declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the
design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the
writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.
Author details
1 Environmental Protection Department, Perm National Research Polytechnic
University, Perm 614990, Russia. 2 CD Laboratory “Anthropogenic Resources”,
Institute for Water Quality and Resource Management, Vienna University
of Technology, A-1040 Vienna, Austria.
Received: 6 August 2022 Accepted: 23 February 2023
References
1. Ismail AR, Alias AH, Sulaiman WRW, Jaafar MZ, Ismail I. Drilling fluid waste
management in drilling for oil and gas wells. Chem Engineer Trans.
2017;56:1351–6.
2. Pereira LB, Sad CMS, Castro EVR, Filgueiras PR, Lacerda Junior V. Environ-
mental impacts related to drilling fluid waste and treatment methods: a
critical review. Fuel. 2022;310:122301.
3. Kazamias G, Zorpas AA. Drill cuttings waste management from oil & gas
exploitation industries through end-of-waste criteria in the framework of
circular economy strategy. J Clean Prod. 2021;322:129098.
4. Zhang A, Li M, Lv P, Zhu X, Zhao L, Zhang X. Disposal and reuse of
drilling solid waste from a massive gas field. Procedia Environ Sci.
2016;31:577–81.
5. Osuman LO, Kinigoma BS, Odagme BS. Economic analysis of oilfield
waste management systems in the Niger Delta (a case study). J Sci Eng
Res. 2016;3:367–74.
6. Rosneft. Rosneft Sustainability Report 2016. Moscow: Rosneft Oil Com-
pany Public Joint Stock Company; 2016.
7. Njuguna J, Siddique S, Kwroffie LB, Piromrat S, Addae-Afoakwa K,
Ekeh-Adegbotolu U, et al. The fate of waste drilling fluids from oil & gas
industry activities in the exploration and production operations. Waste
Manage. 2022;139:362–80.
8. Meili C, Jungbluth N, Annaheim J. Life cycle inventories of crude oil
extraction; Schaffhausen: ESU-services Ltd., fair consulting in sustainabil-
ity; 2018.
9. Vlasopoulos N, Memon FA, Butler D, Murphy R. Life cycle assessment of
wastewater treatment technologies treating petroleum process waters.
Sci Total Environ. 2006;367:58–70.
10. Ghazi M, Quaranta G, Duplay J, Hadjamor R, Khodja M, Amar HA, et al.
Life-Cycle Impact Assessment of oil drilling mud system in Algerian arid
area. Resour Conserv Recy. 2011;55:1222–31.
11. Malika G, Quaranta G, Duplay J, Khodja M. Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) of
drilling mud in arid area: evaluation of specific fate factors of toxic emis-
sions to groundwater. In: SPE International Conference on Health, Safety,
and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production. Nice: Soci-
ety of Petroleum Engineers (SPE); 2008.
12. Hu GJ, Liu H, Rana A, Li JB, Bikass S, Hewage K, et al. Life cycle assessment
of low-temperature thermal desorption-based technologies for drill cut-
tings treatment. J Hazard Mater. 2021;401:123865.
13. Pettersen JB, Hung CR, Solli C, Steeneveldt R, Kerr S, Aas N. A guide to
better wells: environmental life-cycle assessment of historical, current
and future best practice in drilling. In: SPE Offshore Europe Oil and Gas
Conference and Exhibition. Aberdeen: Society of Petroleum Engineers
(SPE); 2013.
14. Korol VV, Pozdnyshev GN, Manyrin VN. Recycling of well-boring waste
products. Ecology and industry of Russia. 2005;1:40–42 [In Russian].
15. Seyedmohammadi J. The effects of drilling fluids and environment
protection from pollutants using some models. Model Earth Syst Environ.
2017;3:23.
16. Bakke T, Klungsoyr J, Sanni S. Environmental impacts of produced water
and drilling waste discharges from the Norwegian offshore petroleum
industry. Mar Environ Res. 2013;92:154–69.
17. Shadizadeh SR, Majidaie S, Zoveidavianpoor M. Investigation of drill cut-
tings reinjection: environmental management in Iranian Ahwaz oilfield.
Pet Sci Technol. 2011;29:1093–103.
18. Ball AS, Stewart RJ, Schliephake K. A review of the current options for
the treatment and safe disposal of drill cuttings. Waste Manage Res.
2012;30:457–73.
19. USEPA. Management of Exploration, Development and Production
Wastes: Factors Informing a Decision on the Need for Regulatory Action.
Washington, D.C.: United States Environmental Protection Agency; 2019.
20. Saint-Fort R, Ashtani S. Effect of a water-based drilling waste on receiving
soil properties and plants growth. J Environ Sci Heal. A 2014;49:10–17.
21. Paulsen JE, Getliff J, Roald S. Vermicomposting and best available tech-
nique for oily drilling waste management in environmentally sensitive
areas. In: SPE International Conference on Health, Safety, and Environ-
ment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production. Calgary: Society of
Petroleum Engineers (SPE); 2014.
22. Kogbara RB, Ogar I, Okparanma RN, Ayotamuno JM. Treatment of
petroleum drill cuttings using bioaugmentation and biostimulation sup-
plemented with phytoremediation. J Environ Sci Heal A. 2016;51:714–21.
23. Kogbara RB, Dumkhana BB, Ayotamuno JM, Okparanma RN. Recycling
stabilised/solidified drill cuttings for forage production in acidic soils.
Chemosphere. 2017;184:652–63.
24. Ogechi Opete SE, Mangibo IA, Iyagba ET. Stabilization/solidification of
synthetic Nigerian drill cuttings. Afr J Environ Sci Technol. 2010;4:149–53.
25. Leonard SA, Stegemann JA. Stabilization/solidification of petroleum drill
cuttings: leaching studies. J Hazard Mater. 2010;174:484–91.
26. Huang Z, Xu Z, Quan Y, Jia H, Li J, Li Q, et al. A review of treatment meth-
ods for oil-based drill cuttings. IOP C Ser Earth Env. 2018;170:022074.
27. Oreshkin DV, Chebotaev AN, Perfilov VA. Disposal of drilling sludge in the
production of building materials. Procedia Engineer. 2015;111:607–11.
28. McClelland J. Landspraying While Drilling (LWD) Application and
Approval Guidelines. Winnipeg: Natural Resources and Northern
Development; 2006.
29. AER. Directive 050: Drilling Waste Management. Calgary: Alberta Energy
Regulator; 2023.
30. Opekunov A, Opekunova M, Kukushkin S, Lisenkov S. Impact of drilling
waste pollution on land cover in a high subarctic forest-tundra zone.
Pedosphere. 2022;32:414–25
Page 17 of 17
Ilinykhetal. Sustainable Environment Research (2023) 33:9
•
fast, convenient online submission
•
thorough peer review by experienced researchers in your field
•
rapid publication on acceptance
•
support for research data, including large and complex data types
•
gold Open Access which fosters wider collaboration and increased citations
maximum visibility for your research: over 100M website views per year
•
At BMC, research is always in progress.
Learn more biomedcentral.com/submissions
Ready to submit your research
Ready to submit your research
? Choose BMC and benefit from:
? Choose BMC and benefit from:
31. Guo Q, Geehan T, Pincock M. Managing risks and uncertainties in drill
cuttings re-injection in challenging environments–field experience from
Sakhalin Island. In: SPE/EPA/DOE Exploration and Production Environ-
mental Conference. Galveston: Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE);
2005.
32. Gaurina-Medimurec N, Pasic B, Mijic P, Medved I. Deep underground
injection of waste from drilling activities–an overview. Minerals-Basel.
2020;10:303.
33. Lavoie FL, Kobelnik M, Valentin CA, da Silva JL. Durability of HDPE
geomembranes: an overview. Quim Nova. 2020;43:656–67.
34. Onwuka OS, Igwe O, Ifediegwu SI, Uwom CS. An assessment of the effec-
tiveness of drilling waste treatment process in X-gas field, Niger Delta,
Nigeria. Geology, Ecology, and Landscapes 2018;2:288–302.
35. Ghasemi S, Gitipour S, Ghazban F, Hedayati H. Treatment of petroleum
drill cuttings using stabilization/solidification method by cement and
modified clay mixes. Iran J Health Saf Environ. 2017;4:781–787
36. Deeley GM, Canter LW. Distribution of heavy-metals in waste drilling-
fluids under conditions of changing pH. J Environ Qual. 1986;15:108–12.
37. Kujawska J, Pawlowska M, Cel W, Pawlowski A. Potential influence of
drill cuttings landfill on groundwater quality-comparison of leach-
ing tests results and groundwater composition. Desalin Water Treat.
2016;57:1409-19.
38. Xu TT, Wang L, Li T, Zhan XY. Heavy metal pollution and ecological risk
assessment of water-based drill cuttings produced in shale gas exploita-
tion in Chongqing, China. IOP C Ser Earth Env. 2019;227:062005.
39. Stuckman M, Lopano C, Thomas C, Hakala A. Leaching characteristics
of drill cuttings from unconventional gas reservoirs. In: SPE/AAPG/SEG
Unconventional Resources Technology Conference. San Antonio: Society
of Petroleum Engineers (SPE); 2015.
40. Alekseev II, Abakumov EV. Acid-base properties of the soils of Yamal
and the eastern macroscline of the polar Urals (on the example of the
results of the Yamal-2015 expedition). In: Soil is the basis of life on Earth.
Minsk: Belarusian State University; 2015. [In Russian].
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in pub-
lished maps and institutional affiliations.
