ARTICLE IN PRESS

Deep-Sea Research II 56 (2009) 1221

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Deep-Sea Research II
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/dsr2

Modeling the discharge of cuttings and drilling uids in a deep-water environment

M.A.G. Pivel a, C.M.D.S. Freitas b,, J.L.D. Comba b
a b

Centro de Estudos de Geologia Costeira e Oceanica, Instituto de Geociencias, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, CP 15001, Porto Alegre, RS 91509.900, Brasil Instituto de Informatica, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, CP 15064, Porto Alegre, RS 91501.970, Brasil

a r t i c l e in f o
Article history: Accepted 3 August 2008 Available online 30 October 2008 Keywords: Drilling uids Mathematical models Oil and gas exploration Brazil Campos Basin

a b s t r a c t
Discharge models allow the prediction of the potential impact associated with drilling activities based on estimates of the initial spatial extent and thickness of accumulations on the seabed. As such, they are a valuable tool for both the oil industry and regulatory agencies. In this study we present the use of the Offshore Operators Committee Mud and Produced Water Discharge Model (OOC Model) in modeling the discharge of drilling activities in a deep-water environment, from a well located in the Campos Basin, offshore Brazil, at a depth of around 900 m. Field and discharge data collected during the drilling and discharge activities allowed us to carry out a modeling based on real data, that is, hindcast modeling. The verication of the model was made by comparing the hindcast modeling results with eld observations. Discharges from both riserless and riser drilling were modeled. The riserless drilling was performed with seawater and water-based uid (WBF), and riser drilling with non-aqueous uid (NAF). According to model estimates, the deposits with greater thickness ($66.5 cm) were those from the riserless phase. Maximum estimated thickness for the discharge of NAF cuttings was 0.76 cm. The comparison of modeling results with eld observations showed that the estimates of both the area affected by the deposits and maximum thickness are satisfactory. The conguration of the affected area is harder to predict because small uncertainties, mainly related to the discharge activity itself, introduce a signicant error. Thicknesses predicted from real data by hindcast modeling agree with estimates provided by forecast modeling presented by other authors. This means that, in areas where there is certain knowledge of the hydrodynamics, the OOC Model can be a valuable tool to determine the degree of potential impact associated with drilling activities. & 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction The expansion of oil exploration and production into increasingly deep waters demands a major effort to establish the potential impacts associated to drilling activities, especially the environmental effects from the disposal of cuttings and drilling uid. In this context, modeling has proved to be a useful tool to assess the potential impacts from drilling discharges (e.g., Rye et al., 1998, 2004; Smith et al., 1994, 2004). One of the most widely known models is the Offshore Operators Committee (OOC) Mud and Produced Water Discharge Model (Brandsma and Smith, 1999). The OOC Model allows estimating the effect of discharges into the sea, both of drilling uids and cuttings, as well of produced water. As with most models, OOC is usually used to predict future events, i.e. as a forecast modeling. However, in order to determine

Corresponding author.

E-mail addresses: mariale1973@yahoo.com.br (M.A.G. Pivel), carla@inf.ufrgs.br (C.M.D.S. Freitas), comba@inf.ufrgs.br (J.L.D. Comba). 0967-0645/$ - see front matter & 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.dsr2.2008.08.015

its reliability and limitations, the model needs to be validated. The validation is accomplished through the comparison of model predictions with observations either from laboratory or eld experiments. Field experiments have the advantage of dealing with the real scale. However, they also have the great disadvantage of being subject to great variability due to the complex temporal and spatial behavior of ocean currents and the impossibility of fully controlling or measuring parameters such as the discharge rate, outfall geometry or efuent properties (Smith et al., 2004). The OOC model already has been validated through both laboratory (Nedwed et al., 2004) and eld experiments (Smith et al., 1994, 2004), but these eld experiments were restricted to shallow waters (less than 100 m). More recently, Brandsma (2004) referred to several validation experiments accomplished through the use of data from 25 laboratory experiments and four eld data sets. Brandsma (2004) included the OOC modeling of a eld study based on data published by DeMargerie (1989), although this eld study also was restricted to shallow waters. In this study, we present the results of modeling a deep-water wellEagle wellaiming at the validation of the OOC model in

ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.A.G. Pivel et al. / Deep-Sea Research II 56 (2009) 1221 13

such environment. The Eagle well is located in the Campos Basin, offshore Brazil, at a depth of 902 m (at the well head), and was drilled by Unocal in June 2001. The validation was part of a project called MAPEMEnvironmental Monitoring of Offshore Drilling for Petroleum Exploration (Toldo and Ayup-Zouain, 2004), which among other objectives, proposed the validation of the OOC model both in relatively shallow (less than 300 m) and deep (around 1000 m) water environments. The main interest was the evaluation of the models ability to predict the distribution and thickness of discharged drilling solids on the seabed. Data were collected during the drilling and discharge process and used to model the discharge, which corresponds to the hindcast modeling of the Eagle well.

depth, were used to estimate velocities and directions near the seabed. At the well site, this depth is at about 28 m from the bottom. Another limitation of the current data for the simulation of discharges near the bottom was related to the horizontal variability of the currents. It is assumed that currents stay constant laterally, both in direction as well as in velocity. For most of the water column this is a valid assumption, since there were no obstacles or limits near the simulation area. However, near the bottom, the irregular relief will surely inuence the pattern of currents, causing lateral variations in direction and velocity. These variations could not be estimated. 2.2. Post-processing Since the discharge modeling was divided into several simulations, the results were subsequently added to obtain the cumulative effect for each phase, providing partial accumulations of the bottom thickness and, nally, a total accumulation representing all the discharges together. The seabed accumulation results delivered by the model as data arrays of values expressed in pounds per grid cell were transformed into thickness following calculations detailed in the Appendix. In order to compare the model predictions with eld data, thickness accumulation contour plots were generated. Also, the three-dimensional development and evolution of the plume in real-time were analyzed using the visualization tool Gritex (Binotto et al., 2003). To apply this tool, the OOC model was instructed to produce planar vision outputs every 300 s for 128 layers down the water column. The result is a video of the progress of the plume.

2. Methods Field and discharge data were collected during the drilling and discharge activities to allow us to carry out hindcast modeling of the discharge and, consequently, of the deposition of drilling uid and cuttings on the seabed. The verication of the model was made by comparing the hindcast modeling results with eld observations. The ideal comparison would have been through direct eld measurements using tools such as sediment traps, but the lack of these limited the validation to the comparison of the models predictions with indirect measurements, mainly the chemical composition and visual observation of box-cores sampled in the area surrounding the well. The work comprised (1) the pre-processing of data to feed the model, (2) the simulation itself, (3) the post-processing of results, and nally (4) the comparison of model predictions with eld data. The simulation consisted in running the OOC model with the appropriate input les built in the pre-processing phase. The pre- and post-processing are briey detailed below, and the comparison of model predictions with eld data are discussed in Section 6. 2.1. Pre-processing The pre-processing involved the compilation of all data regarding the drilling and discharge procedures and the receiving environment, simulation grid design, denition of simulation intervals, and data processing and formatting. The overall dimensions of the simulation grid were dened after performing several tests including areas of different sizes, in order to obtain the largest possible resolution, without ignoring any relevant information. The simulation grid was composed of 128 128 cells, each with a width of 12.2 m (40 ft), making the total area 1561.6 m 1561.6 m. All the information regarding the drilling and discharge conditions was provided by Unocal (2002). The discharged solid classes were described mainly based on information provided by ExxonMobil (2002). All this information as well as the denition of simulation intervals is further detailed in Section 3. The receiving environment was described in terms of bathymetry and oceanographic conditions (hydrography and currents). The bathymetry data also were provided by Unocal. The temperature and salinity data were obtained with a conductivitytemperaturedepth (CTD) proler during the rst sampling operation (1924 April 2001). The proles reached a depth of 760 m. The data on currents were obtained at the Eagle well location using an acoustic Doppler current proler (ADCP), from Thales Geosolutions, and covered the entire drilling and discharge period, with acquisition intervals of 10 min. For the modeling of the riserless phase discharges, data for currents from the acquisition nearest to the bottom, at 873 m

3. Modeling the discharge process Drilling involved an initial riserless stage, using seawater and water-based uid (WBF), and a second stage, with riser, using a non-aqueous uid (NAF). Drilling with seawater started with the xation of a 52-m long 3000 casing. The casing was introduced 47 m into the seaoor, meaning that during this stage the discharge point decreased progressively from 52 to 5 m above the seabed. The modeling of these discharges was made dividing the process into three stages, each with a discharge depth progressively nearer the bottom. With the casing already in place, the remaining discharges from the riserless phase (of both drilling cuttings with water and WBF) were 5 m above seabed. After xing the 3000 casing, drilling of the 17.500 section was made also using seawater and reached 760 m into the sediment. The last 12.2500 section was drilled with NAF in the phase with riser. The discharge of WBF occurred in six stages, either while pumping sweeps during the drilling with seawater or after drilling, before the riser phase. Each stage was simulated independently. All discharges of WBF were made 5 m above the seabed. From the 2532 barrels of WBF initially prepared, only 1966 bbls were used. The remaining 566 barrels were later discarded from the platform. This discharge was not simulated because the dispersion of these very ne particles from the surface waters would occur beyond the area monitored during the study. The drilling cuttings with NAF were discharged from an 1100 diameter discharge nozzle located 13 m below the sea surface. The simulation intervals for the NAF phase discharges were dened assuming that the discharge rate was directly proportional to the drilling rate. This is an adequate assumption, as the discharge is continuous and always directly associated with the drilling process. The drilling material (cuttings and uid) is pumped towards the platform, then goes through shale shakers where the

ARTICLE IN PRESS
14 M.A.G. Pivel et al. / Deep-Sea Research II 56 (2009) 1221

drilled solids are removed from the uid, and soon afterwards the cuttings are discharged. Only the nest particles are discharged at different moments not directly related to the drilling because they go through a second solid control treatment at the centrifuges, which is used to remove ne particles from the recirculated NAF prior to reuse. To facilitate the selection of intervals, a depth versus time chart was prepared (Fig. 1). A total of six drilling intervals were selected following an approximately constant drilling rate criterion and avoiding very long time periods to prevent problems in calculating the passive dispersion phase. The drilling time intervals were transformed into simulation time intervals, using appropriate time corrections and assuming that the drilling and discharge processes were continuous. 3.1. Discharge rate The discharge rates from the simulations of the drilling with seawater phase and the NAF phase were calculated based on the estimates of volumes drilled and the discharge intervals. The discharge rate calculation for the WBF discharge simulation, which was not associated to the drilling itself, was based on the discharged volumes and discharge periods, both furnished by Unocal (2002). A summary of the estimated volumes of cuttings discharged from the drilling with seawater, cuttings drilled with NAF, WBF, NAF and ne materials from the centrifuges is presented in Table 1. The calculation of the volumes of discharged material was based on a series of assumptions listed in Table 2.

Table 2 Assumptions made for the calculations of the discharged volumes based on information provided by ExxonMobil and Unocal. Washout volume Drilling with seawaterduring jetting of 3000 casing Drilling with seawater Drilling with NAF Volume (%) 0 30 7.5

Discharge Composition in the NAF phase Percentage of solids (cuttings+base uid+barite) Percentage of seawater

Volume (%) 50 50

Composition of the drilling uid (NAF phase) Base uid Seawater Barite

Volume (%) 64.9 28 7.1

Composition of the drilling uid (NAF phase) Base uid Seawater Barite

Mass (%) 46.4 26.3 27.3

Densities Base uid Barite Seawater Drilling uid Cuttings

(g/cc) 0.78 4.2 1.026 1.09 2.4

Time (minutes) 0 -1600 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

Base uid adhered to cuttings (NAF phase) (mass %)

10

-1800 Depth from sea surface (m)

-2000 2

-2200

-2400

3 4 5

-2600

-2800

-3000
Fig. 1. Graph showing the drilling with NAF progress, to identify the simulation intervals. The dots represent the limits between the selected intervals.

Table 1 Estimated volumes of material discharged during the drilling of Eagle well. Volume (bbls) Cuttings drilled with seawater Cuttings drilled with NAF Non-aqueous uid (NAF) Water based uid (WBF) Centrifuges material 1040 642 389 1966 342

Volumes of cuttings both from the riserless phase and the phase with riser were estimated from the dimensions (diameter and depth) of the hole drilled and the percentage of estimated washout, variable according to the type of uid used. Washout is the term used to dene the excess material that comes out of the borehole. Zero washouts would mean that the boring diameter was exactly equal to the drill bit diameter. In practice, the walls of the well boring are not stable and sediment or rock is shed from the walls and circulated out of the well. The washout estimate is used to account for the instability of the well bore. Since the 3000 section was drilled at the same time as the casing was inserted, it was considered that the washout in this stage was zero (0%). The washout in the 17.500 section was estimated at 30%, and for the 12.2500 section at 7.5% because the washout is higher when the drilling is performed with water or WBF than when with NAF (US EPA, 2000). The volume of NAF was estimated assuming 10% (in mass) of base uid adherence to the cuttings. The volumes of cuttings drilled with NAF estimated by Unocal and in this study are different due to the methods applied to the calculations. While Unocal estimated and reported a volume of 815 bbls cuttings drilled with NAF, based on the quantity of material crossing the screens at a certain moment in time, in this work the estimate was of a volume equal to 642 bbls, as a function of the volume of the well and the washout percentage. This is a common practice, while the measurement of the volume crossing the screens is highly inaccurate. Likewise, the volumes of NAF estimated by Unocal are different from the present estimate for two reasons: rst, due to the difference in the assumed percentage of base uid adhered to the cuttings, considered 6% by Unocal and 10% in this

ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.A.G. Pivel et al. / Deep-Sea Research II 56 (2009) 1221 15

work (mass percentages), and second, due to differences in the estimated volumes of cuttings. 3.2. Discharged solids Cuttings drilled with seawater and WBF were discharged in the riserless phase. The classes of solids discharged in this phase have been described using the tables provided by the OOC Manual (Brandsma and Smith, 1999) with some modications (Table 3). In the case of the solids generated by drilling with water, instead of using the particle density value of 2.65 g/cc proposed in the OOC Manual, 2.4 g/cc was used, based on the prole of densities at Eagle well. This value is coherent with the theoretical values for this type of rock (Dobrin and Savit, 1988). Also, considering that only small particles are generated during the drilling of the upper (shallowest) portion of the well because it penetrates unconsolidated or low consolidation material and that the low viscosity of seawater would render difcult the removal of larger particles (large particles would fall back into the well bore where additional breakdown would occur before passing upward), the larger classes of solids were excluded from the rst simulations of the riserless phase. In the case of WBF, the dispersion of ne solids that were part of the composition of the uid itself was simulated. The table that describes these solids was used as suggested in the OOC manual (Table 3). In the NAF drilling phase, the solids discharged included the cuttings themselves, barite and the base uid. Since the cuttings pass through shale shakers to separate uid for reuse before they are discharged into the sea, it was considered that all barite and
Table 3 Classes of solids for all discharges from the Eagle well. Class Density (g/cc) Volume fraction Fall velocity (cm s1)

Water based uid solids (Brandsma and Smith, 1999adapted from OReilly et al., 1998) 1 3.377 5.300E04 1.122E+00 2 3.377 2.110E03 4.267E01 3 3.377 1.016E02 8.230E02 4 3.377 1.016E02 6.400E02 5 3.377 7.000E03 5.120E02 6 3.377 7.000E03 4.360E02 7 3.377 5.280E03 3.000E02 8 3.377 2.640E03 1.480E02 9 3.377 4.220E03 6.100E03 10 3.377 3.700E03 2.700E03 Cuttings drilled with watera (modied from Brandsma and Smith, 1999) 1 2.400 4.272E02 1.350E04b 2 2.400 3.204E02 1.690E03b 3 2.400 3.738E02 2.180E02b 4 2.400 1.602E02 2.330E01b 5 2.400 1.068E02 1.450E+00 6 2.400 9.612E02 4.010E+00 7 2.400 8.544E02 9.800E+00 8 2.400 8.010E02 1.350E+01 9 2.400 1.335E01 2.600E+01

base uid from the NAF were discharged adhering to the cuttings. Nevertheless, on the way down to the seabed, it is possible that the cuttings are partially washed out, releasing NAF into the water. However, this process is difcult to predict and quantify. Based on information provided by ExxonMobil (2002), the simulations were performed considering a percentage of 10% of base uid adhered to the cuttings (mass percentage). This measurement was obtained from TPH analysis on samples at the Kittyhawk well, drilled by the same company in the same block with the same platform and under the same conditions as Eagle well. Unocal had estimated a smaller percentage of base uid adhered to cuttings (6%), based on the retort test specied for the Eagle well permit. The decision was to work with a value of 10%, considered more conservative and especially due to the higher precision of the TPH analysis over the retort test. In fact, the percentage of uid adhered to the particles is not constant, depending essentially on the size of particles. According to US EPA (2000), particles of the size of cuttings retain around 2% of NAF, while ner particles retain up to 20%. The properties of solids discharged during drilling with NAF were based on settling velocity data and volume fractions also obtained from the measurements made in laboratory with samples from the Kittyhawk well (ExxonMobil, 2002). These data were obtained by allowing a sample to fall through a settling column lled with seawater with a balance at the bottom. The balance measured the mass accumulated along time, making it possible to determine the time that the different classes take to deposit. These measurements were considered more representative than data obtained from a grain size-analysis and calculation of settling velocities, since they attempt to simulate what happens under real conditions, including occulation and particle aggregation effects. The shortcoming of the measured data is that the experiment was done in a water column of about 1 m height, whereas under real conditions the deposition occurs in a 900-m water column. Evidently, the initial occulation and aggregation processes must be well represented in the settling velocities distribution measured by the experiment in laboratory. However, the inverted process of disaggregating, possibly associated with the washing out of particles along the way down, is underestimated. The underestimation is a conservative assumption because it results in less dispersion than might actually occur if more particle break up occurs. As a proof one can refer to the results presented by Nedwed and Melton (2004) regarding the good correlation between the discharge modeling of the Kittyhawk well, also in deep waters, and the quantities of material accumulated in sediment traps installed on the seabed near the ExxonMobil well.

4. The receiving environment The Eagle well is located on the continental slope in an area of complex bathymetry cut by numerous valleys and canyons. For a detailed description of the area, see Correa et al. (2008). During the entire discharge period, more intense currents occurred near the surface and around 230 m depth, but highest mean velocities occurred at the surface and between approximately 300 and 550 m depth (Fig. 2). During the discharge of cuttings with NAF, the surface currents had a predominantly SW direction, corresponding to the Brazil Current circulation pattern in the drilling area (Fig. 3) (Peterson and Stramma, 1991). Below it, at around 150 m depth, the pattern was less dened, with signs of direction reversal, and by 250 m depth, the overall direction of the currents had reversed. Below this depth a northward ow dominated. The currents near the bottom did not present a dened pattern. Fig. 4 shows the current data acquired 28 m above the seabed for the simulation of the discharges from the riserless phase.

Cuttings drilled with NAF 1 2.011 2 2.011 3 2.011 4 2.011 5 2.011 6 2.011 7 2.011 8 2.011
a

1.000E01 1.000E01 1.000E01 1.125E01 4.250E02 2.000E02 6.250E03 1.875E02

3.292E+01 3.109E+01 2.896E+01 2.652E+01 2.347E+01 1.829E+01 1.219E+01 6.100E+00

These classes were originally dened for cuttings drilled with WBF. Solid classes considered in the simulation of solid discharges from the upper portion of the well.
b

ARTICLE IN PRESS
16 M.A.G. Pivel et al. / Deep-Sea Research II 56 (2009) 1221

The water masses associated to the different currents are the warm, salty supercial tropical water (STW), transported southward by the Brazil Current, and the colder, less salty South Atlantic Central Water (SACW), owing northward (Viana et al., 1998) (Fig. 5). On the lower left corner of the TS diagram, the inuence of the Antarctic Intermediate Water (AAIW), cold and with a low salinity (Viana et al. 1998), can be noted. This water mass, formed in the Antarctic convergence, also ows northward.

5. Results 5.1. Thickness estimates for the riserless phase 5.1.1. Cuttings drilled with seawater The maximum estimated thickness of cuttings drilled with seawater accumulated on the seabed is approximately 66.5 cm (Fig. 6). The area with an accumulated thickness of 0.1 cm or

Fig. 2. Maximum velocity proles (black solid line), mean (dashed line) and standard deviation of currents (gray solid line).

Fig. 3. Stickplots of ADCP currents for different depths along the water column for the period of discharged cuttings drilled with NAF.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.A.G. Pivel et al. / Deep-Sea Research II 56 (2009) 1221 17

Fig. 4. Currents at 873 m depth during the discharge of (A) cuttings drilled with water and (B) WBF (velocities in cm s1).

Fig. 5. TS diagram at the Eagle well location (April 2001).

greater, around 8300 m2, is approximately equivalent to a 50-m radius circle; if a thickness of 0.01 cm is considered, the area affected is of approximately 57,000 m2, the equivalent of a 135-m radius circle. 5.1.2. Water-based uid According to the modeling results, the accumulation of solids from the WBF covered the 50-m sampling circle completely, the 100-m circle partially, and in a few northward locations (Fig. 7). The ner particles, which take a longer period of time to settle, tend to spread NNW. The maximum predicted thickness is 1.11 cm. This value is low when compared to the values for the accumulated thickness of cuttings in the preceding phase, since in this phase only ne particles are discharged. The area covered with a thickness of more than 0.1 cm was estimated at 11,300 m2, approximately equivalent to the area of a circle with a 60-m radius. 5.2. Thickness estimates for the riser-phase drilling 5.2.1. Cuttings covered with NAF The modeling results for the discharge of cuttings drilled with NAF show a transport mainly towards NNE, due to the strong mid-water currents (Fig. 8). The intense SW surface currents did not extend deeply enough into the water column to affect
Fig. 6. Estimated accumulated thickness on the seabed due to the deposition of cuttings drilled with seawater. Contour lines represent thickness of 0.01, 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 5, 10, 25, 50 and 75 cm. The results are superimposed on the sampling grid with the 48 sampling stations up to 500 m away from the well site. The (0,0) coordinates show the location of the Eagle well.

deposition in this direction. The maximum predicted thickness, associated to the NAF-cuttings discharge, was 0.76 cm. These discharges, coming from the surface, covered a larger area. The area with a thickness above 0.1 cm occupied approximately 82,000 m2, the equivalent of a circle with a radius of approximately 160 m.

5.2.2. Material from centrifuges Due to the lack of reliable information relating the classes of solids that compose the material deriving from the centrifuges and of their behavior in seawater, it was not possible to obtain a reliable estimate of the thickness accumulated on the seabed. Nevertheless, various tests made with different classes of possible solids showed that the material from the centrifuges must have

ARTICLE IN PRESS
18 M.A.G. Pivel et al. / Deep-Sea Research II 56 (2009) 1221

Fig. 7. Estimated accumulated thickness on the seabed due to deposition of WBF solids. Contour lines represent thickness of 0.01, 0.1, 0.25, 0.5 and 1 cm. The results are superimposed on the sampling grid with the 48 sampling stations up to 500 m away from the well site. The (0,0) coordinates show the location of the Eagle well.

Fig. 9. Estimated total thickness accumulated on the seabed due to the deposition of solids discharged during the drilling of Eagle well. Contour lines represent thickness of 0.01, 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 5, 10, 25, 50 and 75 cm. The results are superimposed on the sampling grid with the 48 sampling stations up to 500 m away from the well site. The (0,0) coordinates show the location of the Eagle well.

around 89,500 m2, which is approximately equivalent to a circle with a radius of 170 m.

5.4. Comparison between model predictions and eld observations Field observations were based on the analysis of box-core samples taken from three environmental surveys conducted before and after drilling. The sampling grid comprised a total of 54 stations located along radial transects up to 500 m from the well except for six reference stations located 2500 m away from the well site. Side-scan sonar images also were used in the interpretation (see Toldo and Ayup-Zouain, 2008, for a detailed explanation of the sampling strategy). Statistical analysis of eld data identied the area affected by the discharges based on variables indicating the presence of drilling solids (Pulgati et al., 2008). These variables are total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), C14C20 Linear Fraction+C14C20 unresolved fraction, barium, and percentage of cuttings on the surface of the box-core samples. All the chemistry data are discussed by Pozebon et al. (2008). The indicative variables allowed an estimate of the area affected exclusively by the discharge of WBF, as well as the area affected by both cuttings drilled with NAF and solids from the riserless phase (cuttings drilled with seawater and WBF solids). The comparison between the area where the variables indicated alterations and the area considered affected according to the model predictions reported herein shows that both present a main spreading direction towards the north (Fig. 10). The main discrepancy is the observed spreading towards the west, pointed by the indicative variables, which does not occur in the modeling results. Notwithstanding the discrepancies observed in terms of the affected depositional area, the model predictions about the area extent and thickness of deposits can be considered satisfactory. Despite the different conguration, the extension of the affected area is similar and the amount of sampling stations affected

Fig. 8. Estimated accumulated thickness on the seabed due to the deposition of cuttings drilled with NAF. Contour lines represent thickness of 0.01, 0.1, 0.25 and 0.5 cm. The results are superimposed on the sampling grid with the 48 sampling stations up to 500 m away from the well site. The (0,0) coordinates show the location of the Eagle well.

been deposited within the same area already affected by the discharges of cuttings with NAF. 5.3. Total accumulated thickness Fig. 9 presents the sum of the estimated thickness for the discharges of WBF and cuttings drilled with water and NAF. The estimated area with more than 0.1 cm thickness deposits is

ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.A.G. Pivel et al. / Deep-Sea Research II 56 (2009) 1221 19

Fig. 10. Comparison of the area affected by the discharged material as dened by the statistical analysis of indicative variables (Pulgati et al., 2008) (left) with the area considered affected based on modeling results (right).

is practically the same predicted by the model (Fig. 10). The affected area is concentrated in the rst 150 m around the well, and the effects rapidly reduce with the increasing distance from the well.

6. Discussion The models precision needs to be assessed according to three aspects: (1) the conguration and (2) amount of area affected, and (3) the accumulated thickness. From these three parameters, the conguration of the affected area is both less important and harder to predict, as it is very sensitive to small variations in the currents intensity and direction. On the other hand, the thickness of the deposits and area coverage of the seabed affected by them are signicant parameters because they determine the degree of environmental impact. The discharged drilling material is usually deposited in two ways (e.g., Grant and Briggs, 2002; OGP, 2003; Breuer et al., 2004). The coarser particles are characterized by higher settling velocities that tend to deposit near the well, forming piles of material. The ner particles have the tendency to spread out, forming a thin layer deposit. In the case of the Eagle well discharges, the greatest thickness estimated by the model is not associated with the NAF phase discharges, but with the discharges of cuttings drilled with seawater, due to the discharge being close to the seabed. While the cuttings with NAF were released in a water column of about 900 m, allowing a greater dispersion, cuttings from the seawater drilling phase were released from very near the bottom, mostly 5 m above the seabed, where the weak currents do not contribute to material dispersion. Certainly, the thickness associated to a great volume of WBF (only the uid, without cuttings) must be much less than the thickness caused by a moderate deposition of cuttings. Nevertheless, the comparison of the thickness accumulated on the bottom associated to these different discharges must be made with caution, since the environmental effects do not depend exclusively on the thickness, but also on the nature of the discharged material.

When comparing observed eld results with modeling results, we must consider that the shape and dimensions of the area initially affected by the deposition may change with time due to erosion and re-sedimentation processes of the material on the bottom or by leaching, degradation and/or bioturbation of contaminants (Delvigne, 1996). One of the limitations of the OOC Model as well as of most models for the discharge of drilling material is its inability to forecast re-suspension and transport processes, after initial deposition. The model ends its calculations after the rst contact of the material with the bottom. Despite this, in the case of discharges of the NAF phase at Eagle well, this limitation seems not to constitute a problem because, as seen in Section 4, the bottom currents in this area are weak. According to Delvigne (1996), the velocity necessary to re-suspend particles deposited varies between 29 and 40 cm s1, depending on the type of solid treatment used. These values are somewhat above those observed in the Eagle well area. According to the ADCP data, the maximum velocity measured 28 m above the seabed did not reach 20 cm s1, although the period monitored by the ADCP was short and there may have been stronger currents due to the irregular topography of the canyons. Another process that may affect the characteristics of the deposits is bioturbation. In the Eagle well area, seabed photo graphs (see Correa et al., 2008) clearly show that this is an active process. However, it is very difcult to quantify the intensity and pace of the reworking associated with bioturbation. Many factors can explain the difference between what was observed and what was modeled in terms of spatial location and conguration. The most likely were (a) the discharge point of material at the platform may have not been recorded precisely; (b) the platform itself may have suffered displacements as a function of surface currents and the stability of the anchorage; and (c) the discharge rates and times used in modeling were estimated from indirect measurements and may not have captured important high-ow events. Investigating the aforementioned factors, and in spite of the precise information delivered by the drilling company on the location of the discharge nozzle, several tests were made

ARTICLE IN PRESS
20 M.A.G. Pivel et al. / Deep-Sea Research II 56 (2009) 1221

assuming different discharge points: one point further southwest from the well and one displacement of the whole platform in the direction of the surface currents. The results demonstrated that the predicted deposition area on the seabed would not show a signicant change, only a slight displacement of the area affected by the deposition of cuttings. Similar results are obtained when assuming the displacement of the whole platform in the direction of the surface currents. The discrepancy between observed and predicted congurations is more likely related to factor (c). In the simulation procedure, the discharge is divided into time intervals during which a constant discharge rate is assumed. As it is known, the discharge rate varies signicantly with time as a function of the drilling rate, the time of processing in the solids control equipment, and mainly, it can vary abruptly because of the plugging of the discharge pipe, followed by the ushing of a large amount of material in a very short time. Unfortunately, the impossibility to fully control or measure the environmental conditions and, mainly, the activities and processes that inuence the discharge rate introduce uncertainties to the simulation process. A forecast modeling presented by Melton et al. (2000) for a theoretical well in similar conditions as those in the Eagle well reached a value of maximum estimated thickness equal to 1.3 cm. A side-scan sonar image in the Eagle well area and the photographs of the box-cores show that, in fact, the area more densely covered with cuttings was restricted and that the maximum thickness was small (see details in Correa et al., 2008). Fig. 11 shows a cross section made in the sediment of a box-core sampled at the sample point of maximum observed thickness accumulation, about 3 cm. This means that both the forecast modeling and the hindcast modeling provided valid estimates. The point where the higher accumulation of cuttings was observed is located at a distance of approximately 75 m from the Eagle well, close to sample station 05. According to the model estimates, the point of highest accumulation also would be 75 m away from the well but in a different direction. However, if we consider the different possible locations of the discharge point the displacement between the observed and the modeled may be smaller.

7. Conclusions The model predicted that Eagle well discharge would not be conducive to piles of cuttings associated to riser-phase drilling. The estimated maximum thickness for the NAF phase was 0.76 cm. In the riserless phase, the estimated thickness was larger, but as the material from this phase is composed of ner particles and without the NAF covering, we did not expect to nd preserved piles. Our results were in good agreement with thickness predictions obtained by forecast modeling (Melton et al., 2000). The prediction ability of the OOC Model is limited by the accuracy of the input data. Even in conditions as those in the MAPEM Project, which allowed us to work with a detailed data set, it was observed that small uncertainties, mainly related to the discharge activity itself, introduce an error that results in differences between the predicted and observed spatial congurations. More important than the spatial conguration of the affected area, the predictions of its areal extent and of the deposits thickness showed that the model provides estimates that are coherent with the eld observations. Together with previous laboratory and eld validations studies (Nedwed et al., 2004; Smith et al., 1994, 2004; Brandsma, 2004), this work corroborates the ability of the OOC Model to predict the fate of drilling discharges. In areas where there is some knowledge of the hydrodynamics, the OOC Model can be a valuable tool to determine the degree of potential impact associated to drilling activities. Nevertheless, it is suggested that forecast modeling consider different possible scenarios and include conservative simulations, that is, situations that promote the fast deposition of material such as low-density stratication in the water column and slow currents.

Acknowledgments This study is part of the MAPEM ProjectEnvironmental Monitoring of Offshore Drilling for Petroleum Exploration, supported by Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos (FINEP) and Instituto Brasileiro do Petroleo (IBP). Special thanks go to Elrio E. Toldo Jr. and Ricardo N. Ayup-Zouain, coordinators of the Project. This work greatly beneted from suggestions and helpful information provided by Rodger Melton and Tim Nedwed from ExxonMobil and Greg Moon from Unocal. We appreciate the work on the pre-processing of data by Silvia Coan and Carla DAquino and the post-processing by Alecio Binotto.

Appendix. Thickness calculation The thickness calculation described here was proposed by ExxonMobil (2002). To calculate the thickness (T) from the results provided by the model, we consider a unit sampling area Asamp (m2). Assuming that the solids accumulated on the bottom consist of: (1) a load of solids Ms (kg m2), with density rs (g cm3), including any adhering oil, (2) a percentage in mass of pure water Ww, with density rw (g cm3) and (3) a mass of solids dissolved in porewater (salts) Msalt (kg m2), the total accumulated volume over the area Asamp, is given by   M s M w M salt V bed TAsamp Asamp (A.1)

rs

rw

Fig. 11. Box-core collected near sample station 05 after the drilling. This sample was taken at the point of highest accumulation of cuttings as determined by sidescan sonar images and conrmed by the box-cores photographs. The image shows most of the box-core surface, which is 50 50 cm. The cross section shows a dark layer probably due to drill cuttings overlaying natural sediment. This estimated thickness is approximately 13 cm.

Applying the appropriate conversion factors, to obtain the thickness in cm, we have Eq. (A.2)   M s M w M salt (A.2) T 0:1

rs

rw

ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.A.G. Pivel et al. / Deep-Sea Research II 56 (2009) 1221 21

Msalt may be expressed in terms of Mw and ppt (parts per thousand of salts dissolved in the porewater). M salt pptM w 1000 ppt (A.3)

The percentage (in mass) of pure water (Ww) in the bed above Asamp, may be written as Ww 100M w M s M w M salt 100M w M s M w 1 ppt=1000 ppt (A.4)

Substituting (A.3) for (A.4) yields Ww (A.5)

Or, introducing a correction factor a: Ww 100M w Ms Mwa (A.6)

Isolating Mw from Eq. (A.6) yields: Mw W wMs 100 W w a (A.7)

Substituting (A.7) again in Eq. (A.3) and after in (A.2) yields:   1 aW w T 0:1M s rs rw 100 W w a In the calculation of the thickness associated to a single discharge, except for Ms, all other values remain constant. Ms represents the solids loading accumulated on the bottom, variable from one cell to another within the grid. The model provides those values in units of pounds per area cell used in the simulation. To calculate the thickness of the deposit, these values were initially transformed to units of kg m2. Considering a salinity of 35, the value of the correction factor a is 1.0363. References
Binotto, A.D., Comba, J.L.D., Freitas, C.M.D.S., 2003. Real-time volume rendering of temporal data using a fragment-shader compression approach. In: Proceedings of IEEE Parallel and Large Data Visualization and Graphics 2003. IEEE Press, Seattle, USA, pp. 6975. Brandsma, M.G., 2004. Automatic validation of the Offshore Operators Committee Discharge Model and application to predicting drilling solids accumulation on the sea oor. Environmental Modelling & Software 19, 617628. Brandsma, M., Smith, J., 1999. Offshore Operators Committee Mud and Produced Water Discharge ModelReport and User GuideProduction Research Report EPR.29PR.99. Exxon Production Research Company, Houston, TX. Breuer, E., Stevenson, A.G., Howe, J.A., Carroll, J., Shimmield, G.B., 2004. Drill cutting accumulations in the Northern and Central North Sea: a review of environmental interactions and chemical fate. Marine Pollution Bulletin 48, 1225. Correa, I.C.S., Toldo Jr., E.E., Toledo, F.A., 2008. Seaoor geological impacts associated with drilling disturbance. Deep-Sea Research II, this issue [doi:10.1016/j.dsr2.2008.08.014]. Delvigne, G.A.L., 1996. Laboratory investigations on the fate and physicochemical properties of drill cuttings after discharge into the sea. In: The Physical and

Biological Effects of Processed Oil Drill Cuttings. E&P Forum Report no. 2.61/202, April 1996, pp.1624. DeMargerie, S., 1989. Modeling drill cuttings discharges. In: Engelhardt, F.R., Ray, J.P., Gillam, A.H. (Eds.), Drilling Wastes. Elsevier Applied Science, New York, pp. 627645. Dobrin, M.B., Savit, C.H., 1988. Introduction to Geophysical Prospecting, fourth ed. McGraw-Hill, New York. ExxonMobil Inc., 2002. Communication by Tim Nedwed during MAPEM Project Technical Meetings. Porto Alegre and Gramado, Brazil. Grant, A., Briggs, A.D., 2002. Toxicity of sediments from around a North Sea oil platform: are metals or hydrocarbons responsible for ecological impacts? Marine Environmental Research 53, 95116. Melton, H.R., Smith, J.P., Martin, C.R., Nedwed, T.J., Mairs, H.L., Raught, D.L., 2000. Offshore Discharge of Drilling Fluids and CuttingsA Scientic Perspective on Public Policy. Rio Oil and Gas Expo and Conference. Brazilian Petroleum Institute, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (IBP 44900). Nedwed, T.J., Melton, H.R., 2004. Fate of Nonaqueous Fluid Drilling Discharges from a Single Exploration Well into a 950 m Marine Environment in the Campos Basin. ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company, Brazil (URC.2004PR.002). Nedwed, T.J., Smith, J.P., Brandsma, M.G., 2004. Verication of the OOC Mud and Produced Water Discharge Model using lab-scale plume behaviour experiments. Environmental Modelling & Software 19, 655670. OGP, 2003. Environmental aspects of the use and disposal of non aqueous drilling uids associated with offshore oil & gas operations. Report no. 342. International Association of Oil & Gas Producers, London, UK. Peterson, R.G., Stramma, L., 1991. Upper-level circulation in the South Atlantic Ocean. Progress in Oceanography 26, 173. Pozebon, D., Santos, J.H.Z., Peralba, M.C.R., Maia, S.M., Barrionuevo, S., Pizzolato, T.M., 2008. Arsenic and hydrocarbons monitoring in marine sediment during drilling activities using NAFs. Deep-Sea Research II, this issue [doi:10.1016/ j.dsr2.2008.08.016]. Pulgati, F.H., Fachel, J.M.G., Ayup-Zouain, R.N., Landau, L., 2008. Bayesian spatial prediction of the area affected by drilling discharges from an exploratory well using water-based and non-aqueous-based uids in Campus Basin, Brazil. Deep-Sea Research II, this issue [doi:10.1016/j.dsr2.2008.08.019]. Rye, H., Reed, M., Ekrol, N., 1998. The PARTRACK model for calculations of the spreading and deposition of drilling mud, chemicals and drill cuttings. Environmental Modelling & Sotware 13, 431441. Rye, H., Reed, M., Frost, T.K., Re Utvik, T.I., 2004. Comparison of the ParTrack mud/ cuttings release model with eld data. Environmental Modelling & Sotware 13, 431441. Smith, J.P., Mairs, H.L., Brandsma, M.G., Meek, R.P., Ayers Jr., R.C., 1994. Field validation of the offshore operators committee (OOC) produced water discharge model. In: Proceedings of the Society of Petroleum Engineers 69th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, Paper SPE 28350. Smith, J.P., Brandsma, M.G., Nedwed, T.J., 2004. Field verication of the offshore operators committee (OOC) Mud and Produced Water Discharge Model. Environmental Modelling & Software 19, 739749. Toldo Jr., E.E., Ayup-Zouain, R.N., 2004. MAPEMenvironmental monitoring of offshore drilling for petroleum exploration: deep waters. MAPEM Technical Report, Porto Alegre UFRGS (CD-ROM). Toldo Jr., E.E., Ayup, A., Zouain, R.N., 2008. Environmental monitoring of offshore drilling for petroleum exploration (MAPEM): a brief overview. Deep-Sea Research II, this issue [doi:10.1016/j.dsr2.2008.10.002]. Unocal Inc., 2002. Communication by Denise Pinho and Greg Moon to MAPEM Project. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. USEPA, 2000. Environmental Assessment of Final Efuent Guidelines and Standards for Synthetic-Based Drilling Fluids and Other Non-Aqueous Drilling Fluids in the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category. Ofce of Water, Washington, DC (EPA-821-B-00-014). ` Viana, A.R., Faugeres, J.C., Kowsmann, R.O., Lima, J.A.M., Caddah, L.F.G., Rizzo, J.G., 1998. Hydrology, morphology and sedimentology of the campos continental margin, offshore Brazil. Sedimentary Geology 115, 133157.