Kuwait Environmental Remediation Program (KERP): South ... · Kuwait Environmental Remediation...

www.kockw.com

Kuwait Environmental Remediation Program (KERP): South East Kuwait oil field FEED works and Remediation Program

Presented by : Mr. Muthanna Al-Mumin Ms. Aisha-Al-Barood *

* Kuwait Oil Company – Soil Remediation Group

26th IPEC: INTERNATIONAL PETROLEUM ENVIRONMENTAL CONFERENCESan Antonio, Texas, USA. Oct 7-9, 2019

www.kockw.com

1. FEED Objectives

2. KERP Overview- Background

3. KERP Stakeholders Organization

4. KERP-KOC Claim of elements awarded

5. Contaminated Features

6. KERP Strategy - Total Remediation Solution

7. KERP Projects

8. Data Analysis and Results

9. Conclusion

Index

3

FEED Objectives

FEED (Front End Engineering Design).

www.kockw.com

Bringing the picture into focus.

Treatable contaminated soil vs. Landfill volumes within the time

frame.

Remediation contractors technical and financial assessment of

most suitable technology to treat contamination.

Provide sufficient data for tender pricing.

Minimizing risk pricing by contractors. Assignment of treatment / landfill areas and reservation.

4

KERP - Background

KOC

Kuwait Government

UNCC

KERP Stakeholders Organization

3 Claims

KERP Stakeholders Organization

www.kockw.com

KNFP

MEW

KMOD

PAAF

KEPA

6

KERP - KOC Claim Elements Awarded

www.kockw.com

Claim No. 5000259

(Coastal & Marine Resources)

Claim No.5000450

(Remediation of areas in and around wellhead

pits and Tarcrete)

Claim No. 5000454

(Remediation of areas damaged by oil lakes,

oil-contaminated piles, oil trenches & oil spills)

The following Environmental Claim elements were awarded to KOC by UnitedNations Compensation Commission under Decision 258.

Dry Oil Lakes

www.kockw.com

Contaminated Features

Wet Oil Lake

Dry Oil Lakes

www.kockw.com

Contaminated Features

Dry Oil Lake

Dry Oil Lakes

www.kockw.com

Contaminated Features

Oil Contaminated Piles

Heavily contaminated surface layer -1

Visibly contaminated layer -2

Visibly uncontaminated soil

Dry Oil Contaminated Soil

11

Wet Oil Contaminated Soil

Heavily contaminated layer below the sludge

Visibly uncontaminated soil

Oily liquid sludge-Layer 1

Visibly contaminated layer -2

www.kockw.com

RBATPH 0.5%-2%

Ex-situ BioTPH 2%To 7%

TreatmentMethods

TPH 5%-10%

Non treatment

>10% (stabilize, oil

recovery, reuse, landfill

SludgeOil Recovery,

temp storage for re-use or

stabilize/landfill

KERP Strategy - Total Remediation Solution

13 www.kockw.com

Projects Name Phase

Engineered Landfill (South East Kuwait) Completed

Engineered Landfill (North Kuwait) Completed

Excavation &Transportation (North Kuwait) Completed

Excavation &Transportation (South East Kuwait) Completed

UXO Phase-1 On going

Mega Remediation NK (4 Mm3)Under Committee

Approval

Mega Remediation SEK-I (9 Mm3) Under Preparation

KERP Projects

14 www.kockw.com

FEED Characterization

KOC conducted a limited

soil characterization study

in south East Kuwait areas

in 2014 and 2017.

FEED Characterization

KOC/Worley conducted a

more detailed soil

characterization study in

south East Kuwait areas in

2019.

2000 locations across a contaminated area of approx. 70 km2 .

16

FEED Characterization

17

FEED Characterization

KERP Optimization Plan

18

FEED Characterization

Data Maps via EQUIS software

KERP Optimization Plan

19

Feature TypeLand

Coverage (km2)

Material Type#

SamplesMean TPH

Concentration

Potential Remediation

ApproachComment

DOL 64.17

Layer 1 –hardened crust

103 6.40%Treatment

Technologies or landfill

Layer 2 - Oil contaminated

soil322 2.20%

Enhanced bioremediation

Depth profiling suggests potentially

shallower contamination

WOL 5.59

Layer 1 - Oily Sludge

20 18%Recovery/re-use or

landfill

Sludge thickness varies but may be

shallower

Layer 2 - Oil contaminated

soil45 2.90%

Enhanced bioremediation

Depth profiling suggests potentially

shallower contamination

OCP 5.19

Oil contaminated soil and free product (oil)

123 7.20%Treatment

Technologies (i.e. Soil washing)

Correlation between outward colour and

contamination profile.

The FEED characterization work has provided essential data to support the developmentof remediation packages in line with the UN approved TRS.

FEED CharacterizationFEED Characterisation Works (2019)

20

Data Informing Strategy

26 million m3 designated for landfill.

Original Data All 26 M m3 heavily contaminated soils designated for landfill

Updated data Sustainable remediation achievable on much higher percentage

[Assessed using a basic hydrocarbon screen]

21

Data Assessment – Bringing Into Focus

9.0%

7.2% 7.3%

6.4%

2.5%2.2% 2.1%

2.2%

1%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%

10.0%

CIC (2003) LSSC (2015) SEK E&T (6B) 2017 SSC (2019)

TPH

(H

EM)

%

Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3 RTC

Example of findings from various characterization campaigns• Surficial DOL Layer 1 (oil dominated material) general trend in concentration reduction, likely

from weathering.• Underlying DOL Layer 2 remains reasonably consistent across various sampling campaigns

22

• Most recent TPH SARA analysis showing higher proportion of resins and asphaltenes

13%16%

4%

5%

51%

55%

33%

24%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Layer 1 Layer 2

SAR

A (

%)

Saturates Aromatics Resins Asphaltenes

Incr

easi

ngl

y ch

alle

ngi

ng

for

bio

rem

ed

iati

on

w

ith

po

ten

tial

‘re

-bo

un

d’

Data Assessment – Bringing Into Focus

23

Physical Parameters• The physical composition can impact

choice of remediation technique

• FEED characterization undertook wetsieve assessment to try and simulatefurther this phenomenon, showing anincrease in fines over earlier dry sievedata

• Lessons learned from other KOCremediation projects identified higherfines content (silt/clay) than expected

• Identified that sand can be weaklycemented silts that break apart underattrition (such as during soil washing).

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Fines

Sand

Gravel

Averaged Particle Size Analysis Comparison

FEED Data (2019) CIC Data (2003)

Data Assessment – Bringing Into Focus

24

Coming into focus…

24

Risk Mitigation

• In summary, greater data wealth mitigates risk and consequently, reduces overalluncertainty and associated cost.

• KOC have invested in de-risking complex remediation programs.

26 www.kockw.com

KERP – Remediation SEK Project

TPH Range %Indicative Total

Volume Mm3

Approximate Percentage SK (%)

Min. Treatment Requirement as

Percentage of Total Volumes (%)

1.0 - 5.0 4.7 52% 90%

5.0 - 7.0 0.6 6% 80%

7.0 - 10 0.4 4% 70%

10 - 15 0.3 4% N/A

15 3 34% N/A

TOTAL 9

27 www.kockw.com

Expected distances to be travelled to transport contamination 4-8 million km to

complete works (100 to 200 times around the earth)

Dependent on Contractor Strategy (in-situ vs ex-situ)

High pressure abrasive soil wash will result in an increase in waste production due to

increasing fines

Bioremediation TPH rebound to be considered in treatment period

No HTTD allowed as per client directive

Contractor Considerations

28 www.kockw.com

Minimising Potential Claim against Company in the Future

Avoid scenarios of remediation failures

Competitive rates due to de-risking

Achieve Kuwait Environmental Public Authority clean-up criteria.

Less reliance on Landfill

TRS provide more ecologically sustainable treatment solutions

FEED / TRS Benefits

29

www.kockw.com

Thank you

30

Limited Scope Investigation - Burgan - South East Kuwait (2014):

www.kockw.com

Table 1 : Minimum, Maximum & Mean for TPH level in Layers-1&2 of Wet and Dry Oil Lakes

Material Type /

Analysis

Minimum

(mg/kg)

Maximum

(mg/kg)

Geometric

Mean (mg/kg)

Arithmetic

Mean (mg/kg)

Standard

Deviation

(mg/kg)

Wet Oil Lake

Layer 1 94,835 166,171 133,373 135,557 25,310

Layer 2 11,585 87,450 32,847 39,749 24,840

Dry Oil Lake

Layer 1 718 126,811 17,576 27,847 10,271

Layer 2 9,923 35,126 23,660 28,507 4,847

Data Analysis and Results

31

Petroleum Hydrocarbons Investigations in S&EK fields:

www.kockw.com

Table 2 : Minimum, Maximum & Mean for TPH level in Layers-1&2 of Wet and Dry Oil Lakes

Material Type /

Analysis

Minimum

(mg/kg)

Maximum

(mg/kg)

Geometric

Mean (mg/kg)

Arithmetic

Mean (mg/kg)

Standard

Deviation

(mg/kg)

Wet Oil Lake

Layer 1 305,816 624,513 466,424 480,068 13,644

Layer 2 73,941 169,045 131,966 13,6521 4,555

Dry Oil Lake

Layer 1 1,074 326,421 62,440 89,456 27,016

Layer 2 9,866 203,760 30,310 40,052 9,742

Data Analysis and Results

32

Data Assessment – Bringing Into FocusExample of findings from various characterization campaigns• TPH Criteria Working Group (CWG) banding and speciation comparison demonstrating larger

chain length dominance (C35-C90) and absence of “light end” hydrocarbons.

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

3.500

C5-C6 C6-C8 C8-C10 C10-C12 C12-C16 C16-C21 C21-C35 C5-C6 C6-C8 C8-C10 C10-C12 C12-C16 C16-C21 C21-C35 C35-C90

VolatileAliphatics

VolatileAliphatics

VolatileAliphatics

ExtractableAliphatics

ExtractableAliphatics

ExtractableAliphatics

ExtractableAliphatics

VolatileAromatics

VolatileAromatics

VolatileAromatics

ExtractableAromatics

ExtractableAromatics

ExtractableAromatics

ExtractableAromatics

Fraction-ated PHC

TPH

%

TPH Banding and Speciation Comparison on DOL Layer 2

LSSC (2015) FEED (2019)

33

Data Assessment – Bringing Into Focus

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

TPH SARA Total Saturates Aromatics Resins Asphaltine

Co

nc.

mg

/kg

Weathered Crude Oil Constituents

FJPEC/KISR(1997) vs. PMC 2014 Chemical Constituents Data Dry Oil Lakes (Layer

1 & Layer 2) & Wet Oil Lake (Layer 2)

JPEC/KISR 1997 PMC-2014 DOL Layer-1 PMC 2014 DOL Layer-2 PMC 2014 WOL Layer 2

Utilizing detailed characterization for more predictive remediation approaches• Utilizing TPH composition analysis when considering bioremediation or

combination of bioremediation with other techniques

Increasingly challenging for bioremediation

34

Data Analysis and Results

AOI 1

AOI 2

35

Attributes

Data Analysis and Results

36

Data Analysis and Results

Next

AOI 1

37

Data Analysis and Results

Back

AOI 2