Journal of Cleaner Production 408 (2023) 137196

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Review

Life cycle assessment in the petroleum industry: A systematic framework

towards improved environmental performance
Huda Majid Al Zarkani, Toufic Mezher, Mutasem El-Fadel *
Department of Industrial & Systems Engineering, Khalifa University, United Arab Emirates

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Jian Zuo The increase in worldwide energy demand continues to highlight the dependency on the petroleum industry
albeit recent advances and market penetration of renewable technologies. This dependency reflects the impor­
Keywords: tance of minimizing environmental impacts associated with the petroleum industry, especially in terms of the
Life cycle assessment wide variety of industrial residuals generated during the various phases of operations and production processes,
Petroleum industry
including and not limited to produced and slop water, drill cuttings, fluids, as well as oily sludge. In this study,
Residual waste
we present a critical analysis and synthesis of life cycle assessment (LCA) for waste-wastewater management
Wastewater
from the petroleum industry operations. For this purpose, we examine the industry’s waste-wastewater sources
and types with current management approaches-techniques while focusing on the LCA role in this context. We
identified the main literature gaps including a lack of studies about the reuse options of PW, lack of regionalized
site-specific characterization factors (CF) for non-developed impact categories, and lack of sensitivity analysis
integration. We conclude by proposing a systematic framework defining future work in LCA implementation
targeting PW in particular as the largest wastewater stream from the sector.

phase with >80% as liquid wastewater (Azetsu-Scott et al., 2007) that

reaches up to 95% in mature oilfields (Kaur et al., 2009). A wide range of
1. Introduction wastewater types are generated during E&P operations with Produced
Water (PW) constituting the largest by volume during O&G extraction.
The Oil and Gas (O&G) industry, also known as the Petroleum in­ The PW composition includes a mixture of dissolved inorganic and
dustry, remains one of the most critical industrial operations and a key organic matter (Vlasopoulos et al., 2006) that are toxic necessitating
source of energy, revenue, and development worldwide. Since its strict regulatory discharge standards that led to the proliferation of
inception in the late 1850s, the demand for O&G increased exponen­ various management alternatives towards a beneficial use of O&G
tially with the daily petroleum and liquid fuels consumption forecasted residuals.
to increase by 34%, from 94 million barrels (Mb/day) in 2020 to ~126 On the other hand, petroleum refineries and petrochemical plants
Mb/day in 2050 (Elektorowicz and Habibi, 2005). Concurrently, the (PRPPs) are considered under the O&G downstream operations and
petroleum industry imposes significant challenges associated with po­ produce industrial wastes during the production process of fuel, petro­
tential environmental impacts exacerbated with the scarcity of water chemicals, lubricants, and their intermediates (Jain et al., 2020). The
resources needed at field sites (Jafarinejad and Jiang, 2019) empha­ content of Refinery wastes depends on the technology employed and the
sizing the importance of establishing efficient water and wastewater crude oil type. It may include oil handling wastes from tanks and process
management strategies. In this context, the O&G industry is divided into equipment (sludge, liquid hydrocarbon, organic compounds, heavy
three distinct operations, namely upstream (i.e. exploration, develop­ metals) and oil processing wastes (spent catalyst metals and chemicals,
ment, and production), midstream (i.e. processing, storage, and trans­ off-specification material) (Petroleum refinery waste management and
portation), and downstream (i.e. refining crude oil and gas processing, minimization, 2014). Furthermore, refineries’ wastewater exists in large
product marketing, and distribution) (Jafarinejad, 2017). The upstream quantities due to intensive water consumption for distillation, cracking
and downstream processes generate significant residuals particularly of hydrocarbon, cooling and cleaning, and steam generation processes
wastewater. Gaseous emissions, wastewater, and solid-industrial wastes (Muñoz et al., 2020) with 80–90% of the water supplied to refineries
are generated during the upstream exploration and production (E&P)

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (H.M. Al Zarkani), [email protected] (T. Mezher), [email protected] (M. El-Fadel).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137196
Received 4 February 2023; Received in revised form 10 April 2023; Accepted 13 April 2023
Available online 14 April 2023
0959-6526/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H.M. Al Zarkani et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 408 (2023) 137196

Abbreviations LTTD Low-Temperature Thermal Desorption-Based

MBR Membrane Bioreactor
ABS Absorbents MCDA Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis
AE Aquatic Eutrophication ME Marine Eutrophication
AIR Air Stripping MET Marine Ecotoxicity
AL Aerated Lagoons MF Microfiltration
AOP Advanced Oxidation Process MOX Mutioxidant
AP Acidification Potential NCP Noncarcinogenic Potential
AS Activated Sludge NRE Non-Renewable Energy
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand NF Nanofiltration
Buwal Bundesamt für Umwelt Wald & Landschaft O&G Oil and Gas
CC Climate Change OBDCs Oil Based Drill Cuttings
CED Cumulated Energy Demand OLD Ozone Layer Depletion
CMD Chemical Demulsification OSG Oily Sludge Gasification
CN Centrifuge OSRW Oil Spill Response Waste
COD Chemical Oxygen Demand ORG Organoclay
CWAO Catalytic Wet-Air Oxidation OZ-HH Ozone Formation- Human health
CWL Constructed Wetlands OZO Ozone
CP Carcinogenic Potential PCO Photochemical Oxidants
CR Crystallization PE Person Equivalent
DAF Dissolved Air Flotation PED Primary Energy Demand
DMF Dual Media Filtration PM Particulate Matter
E&P Exploration and Production PMF Particulate Matter Formation
ECT Ecotoxicity POCP Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential
EDIP Environmental Development of Industrial Products PRPP Petroleum refineries & petrochemical plants
EDR Electrodialysis Reversal PW Produced Water
EDTA Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid PYR Pyrolysis
EIA Environmental Impact assessment RBC Rotating Biological Contactors
ELP Electrokinetic Phase RDD Rotary Drum Dryer
EP Eutrophication Potential RE Respiratory effects
EVP Evaporation RO Reverse Osmosis
EVCR Evaporative Crystallizer SE Solvent Extraction
FD Fossil Depletion SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment
FE Freshwater Eutrophication SLD Solidification
FET Freshwater Ecotoxicity SS Suspended Solids
FFD Fossil Fuel Depletion SSF Slow Sand Filtration
FL Flotation STD Screw-Type Dryer
FLC Flocculation TA Terrestrial Acidification
FU Functional Unit TCC Thermo-Mechanical Cuttings Cleaning
GAC Granular Activated Carbon TET Terrestrial Ecotoxicity
GHG Greenhouse Gasses TF Trickling Filters
GWP Global Warming Potential THD Thermos-Desorption
HT Human Toxicity TOC Total Organic Carbon
INC Incineration TOPSIS Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal
ION Ion Exchange Solution
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change TRACI Tool for Reduction & Assessment of Chemicals & Impacts
IR Ionizing Radiation TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon
LCA Life Cycle Assessment UF Ultrafiltration
LCA Life Cycle Cost WC Water Consumption
LCI Life Cycle Inventory Analysis WWT Wastewater Treatment
LCIA Life Cycle Impact Assessment WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
LF Landfilling

coming out as wastewater (Siddiqui, 2015). Similarly, petrochemical hazardous organic compounds with adverse health and environmental
plants’ main solid waste streams include intermittent and continuous impacts, especially on aquatic ecosystems (Jain et al., 2020). Finally,
wastes. Spent catalysts and product treatment wastes (spent filter clay, Table 1 highlights the main sources of waste-wastewater streams in the
process vessel sludge) belong to the intermittent type, while process unit petroleum industry along with their major components and operation
wastes (vapor condensation, process water, and spent caustic in crackers source.
and aromatic plants) as well as sludge from the wastewater plant are Selecting an appropriate waste-wastewater treatment strategy
considered to be continuous wastes (Jafarinejad, 2017). Wastewater within economic and environmental sustainability constraints is vital.
from petrochemical plants include raw material effluents, cooling water, For this purpose, a sustainability assessment framework is imperative to
domestic sewage, and rainwater runoff (Tian et al., 2020). Wastewater achieve the desired end-use quality through economically and envi­
generated from PRPP and the O&G industry comprises various ronmentally optimal treatment-disposal processes. In this context, the

2
H.M. Al Zarkani et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 408 (2023) 137196

Table 1 et al., 2017; Gallego-Schmid and Tarpani, 2019) with limited efforts
Waste-Wastewater types in petroleum industry (adapted after Hu et al., 2013; targeting reviews of LCA models in the petroleum industry. Only one
Jafarinejad, 2017; Sakamoto et al., 2019; Rincón et al., 2003). unpublished study explored LCA in the O&G sector focusing on the
Main source Major Components Source transportation and production of fuels in refineries (Shrivastava and
Upstream Produced water Hydrocarbons, Drilling, Production
Unnikrishnan, 2019) without covering work on industrial waste treat­
inorganic salts, heavy ment in the sector.
metals, solids, The contribution of the study lies in the comprehensive analysis of
organics, sulfides, the petroleum waste-wastewater LCA literature, with a particular focus
corrosion inhibitors,
on the treatment technologies sequence, their efficiency, energy con­
biocides, phenols,
Biochemical Oxygen sumption, impact, and LCA stages. The latter were examined while
Demand, benzene, identifying gaps in the literature. We conclude by proposing a systematic
organo-halogens, framework towards LCA implementation addressing future needs in the
PAHs, radioactive context of the petroleum industry. To the best of our knowledge, no
material
Process water Inorganic salts, heavy Seismic, Drilling,
review analysis has been reported on LCA related to waste-wastewater
(engine cooling metals, solids, Production, from the petroleum industry, particularly “Produce water” the largest
water, brake organics, Biochemical Maintenance, wastewater stream from the sector. Notably, this study focused on the
cooling water, Oxygen Demand, Abandonment environmental impacts associated with petroleum wastewater and did
wash water) sulfides, corrosion
not target LCA studies about shale gas, midstream operations (including
inhibitors, biocides,
demulsifiers, wax transportation) or the cradle to grave process of upstream/downstream
inhibitors, detergents, operations.
hydrocarbons
Drilling fluid Metals, salts, Drilling, Production 2. Methodology
chemicals organics, pH,
surfactants, biocides,
emulsifiers, Performing LCA is beneficial in optimizing operations as it provides a
viscosifiers broad scope to view various environmental trade-off options, helps in
Waste lubricants Organics, heavy Seismic, Drilling, decision-making, and avoids problem shifting in life cycle stages
metals Maintenance
(Finnveden et al., 2009). As such, the LCA theory and application have
Water-based High pH, inorganic Drilling
(include brine) salts, hydrocarbons, evolved to become effective in evaluating a wide variety of complex
muds & cuttings solids/cuttings, systems in various sectors including the petroleum industry by repre­
drilling fluid senting a holistic approach that enables the visualization of interactions
chemicals, heavy between various elements of a system through a cradle-to-grave process
metals
Oil-based muds Hydrocarbons, Drilling
of waste-wastewater generation from upstream and downstream
& cuttings solids/cuttings, heavy operations.
metals, inorganic In this study, we identified recent efforts of LCA applications in the
salts, drilling, fluid context of upstream and downstream operations of the petroleum in­
chemicals
dustry through a comprehensive literature search. The search engines
Downstream Oily Sludge Petroleum Residues from oil Scopus, Science Direct, and Google Scholar were utilized to identify
hydrocarbons (PHCs, and water separator, review studies on life cycle assessment (LCA) of petroleum wastes and
or oil), water, metals, slop oil emulsion
and solid particles solids, sediments at
wastewater in the petroleum industry. The main keywords examined
the bottom of were variations of "(life AND cycle AND assessment OR LCA)" combined
storage tanks or with specific terms related to petroleum waste and wastewater. Studies
trucking vehicles, focusing on petroleum waste-wastewater were selected while excluding
sludge from
those targeting shale gas or the cradle to grave process of upstream-
floatation units,
excess activated downstream operations that are not related to waste-wastewater
sludge from management.
biological treatment We analyzed these efforts using a system’s approach (Fig. 1)
onsite, and heat encompassing several sequential steps including the definition of waste-
exchange bundle
cleaning slue
wastewater types and treatment technologies followed by the LCA
Refinery effluent Total dissolved solids, Outlet of industrial application in wastewater treatment and the LCA analysis stages in the
chlorides, carbonates, wastewater context of the petroleum industry. We conclude in identifying existing
metals treatment plants gaps and needs towards the development of a future framework analysis
Lubricating oils Non-degraded base Overlay on bearing
for sustainable management within the petroleum industry.
oil and additives with surfaces and
high concentrations degradation of the
of metals, varnish, fresh lubricant 3. Results and discussion
gums, and other components.
asphaltic compounds 3.1. Petroleum industry waste-wastewater: Types and treatment
technologies
international standardized methodology on life cycle assessment (LCA)
has been widely adopted to quantify the environmental impacts asso­ Water-wastewater and waste generated during upstream operations
ciated with products or services over the entire life cycle (Corominas include produced water (PW), slop water, drill cutting, drilling fluid or
et al., 2013). It is a systematic tool that assesses environmental loads mud, and oily waste. The reported literature reveals an almost equal
such as emissions and resource consumption over its life cycle through number of upstream studies utilized LCA to investigate the environ­
quantitative measures (ISO 14040, 2004). In fact, LCA reviews have mental impacts of drilling wastes or focused on other industrial wastes.
been reported in evaluating the environmental impacts of wastewater Oily sludge, lubricating oils and sulfur wastes, as well as refinery
and solid waste management (Zang et al., 2015; Hernández-Padilla effluent (wastewater) are industrial wastes that are reported for down­
stream operations. Studies on oily sludge waste concentrated on

3
H.M. Al Zarkani et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 408 (2023) 137196

Fig. 1. Sequential steps in examining LCA analysis in the petroleum industry.

treatment processes and technologies, whereas those about wastewater chloride dihydrate (55480 G/m3), Magnesium chloride hexahydrate
focused on sustainability and recycling, particularly that wastewater is (38090 G/m3), Potassium chloride (3820 G/m3), Iron (II) chloride tet­
generated in large quantities at oil refineries with relatively lower rahydrate (1070 G/m3), Sulfuric acid (408 G/m3), and Sodium hy­
pollution load than oily sludge. droxide (120 G/m3). Meanwhile, according to Table 4, filters’ energy
Prior to 2019, much effort focused on the treatment of oily sludge consumption is the highest, equivalent to 185,000 kWh. On the other
and other wastes whereas more recently these efforts were redirected hand, a comparative analysis of alternative disposal solution for PW
towards the reclamation/reuse of refinery effluent. Worth noting, all management in offshore environment was recently conducted based on
studies adopted an LCA approach at petroleum refineries’ waste rather LCA, biodiversity impact assessment and dispersion model (Chiavico
than petrochemical industrial wastes where a gap is noticeable in this et al., 2020). Vlasopoulos et al. (2006) examined 21 treatment tech­
context. Table 2 highlights common technologies utilized in upstream nologies with dissolved air flotation (DAF), absorbents, dual media
and downstream processes with centrifugation reportedly dominating filtration, and reverse osmosis (RO) offering relatively the minimal
the upstream followed by dissolved air flotation (DAF), thermo- environmental impacts. At that time, they explored conventional sys­
mechanical cuttings cleaning (TCC), thermal desorption, and biolog­ tems with recent advancements in treatment technologies yet to be
ical treatment while the reverse osmosis (RO) technology and inciner­ examined. The LCA analysis failed to incorporate the change in PW
ation treatment targeting mostly the downstream. The performance quality and quantity after the treatment and no value was estimated for
(removal efficiencies), treatment trains (sequence of treatment combi­ treated water. Furthermore, a decision support system included LCA
nations), and energy consumption of the treatment technologies syn­ information to assist the identification and prioritization of technology
thesized from the literature are presented in Tables 3 and 4. The combinations sufficient to satisfy the water quality necessary for various
beneficial” and “harmful” reflecting (minimum) and (maximum) envi­ end-users.
ronmental impacts, respectively for various treatment/disposal/recla­ Similarly, slop water is a waste product generated from oilfield
mation technologies are depicted in Fig. 2 whereby the DAF technology drilling operations and is composed mainly of water, oil, dissolved
is reported to achieve minimal environmental impacts when applied in solids, minerals, metals, and various hazardous substances that can
upstream treatment for PW and slop wastewater, while incineration affect the environment (Knudsen et al., 2004). Slop water undergoes
techniques were associated with minimal environmental impacts in similar treatment processes before discharge but they are generated
downstream treatment for most scenarios. In the remainder of this differently and in smaller quantities than PW. The slop water disposal
section, we provide further quantitative and qualitative analyses of options include offshore re-injection or transport with treated water or
treatment technologies and wastewater types. drilling fluids to become a single stream sent onshore for further treat­
ment and disposal (Massam et al., 2013).
3.1.1. Produced water (PW) and slop water Until recently, the LCA application for slop water treatment and
PW, often referred to as oilfield brine, is the byproduct of oil and gas management in offshore operations was lacking with only a couple of
onshore and offshore operations, and consists of a mixture of water studies were reported lately (Lise Torp and Pettersen, 2014; Okiemute
(injected and formation water), hydrocarbons, and chemicals and Brattebø, 2015). The treatment technologies examined by Lise Torp
(Strømgren et al., 1995). It accounts for a significant fraction (~70%) of and Pettersen (2014) are flotation and mechanically based separation
contaminated extracted fluids in O&G upstream processes (Ekins et al., technologies for offshore operations, and flocculation (with the usage of
2005). While little effort examined the environmental impacts of PW chemical additives) and TCC (Thermo-Mechanical Cuttings Cleaning
treatment technology and disposal options using an LCA approach with high-energy consumption) for onshore treatment that tends to
(AlEdan and Erfani, 2023; Chiavico et al., 2020; Vlasopoulos et al., exhibit a weaker environmental performance. In addition, the injection
2006), no other work has been reported that combines LCA and PW scenario (drilling an injection well) exhibits the least favorable envi­
treatment, management, or reuse despite the fact that PW is the largest ronmental option compared to offshore and onshore scenarios. In
wastewater stream in volume for upstream operations and contains a contrast, Okiemute and Brattebø (2015) employed filtration and dis­
significant number of hazardous elements. AlEdan and Erfani (2023) solved air flotation (with better performance, flexibility, and oil reuse),
utilized life cycle assessment to evaluate the environmental impacts of centrifuge-based treatment technologies for offshore drilling operations,
current PW treatment in Kuwait’s oil company, specifically focusing on and a combination of chemical and physical processes for onshore
CO2 emissions and global warming. A framework was developed to treatment. The study’s findings demonstrated that, in comparison to
integrate the environmental impacts along with multi-objective mix­ offshore injection and onshore treatment, offshore treatment of slop is
ed-integer linear programming model to investigate produced water preferable, with the DAF system emerging as the leading alternative
supply chain management including locations of the crude oil gathering overall. Naturally, onshore options are better alternatives when the
centers, treatment facility, disposal and reinjection wells, and water effluent stream cannot be treated and injected offshore.
reuse location. In addition, the model’s objective function included
operational and transportation expenses, in addition to emissions, to 3.1.2. Drilling and oily wastes
facilitate a tradeoff analysis between the economic and environmental Drilling waste (fluids and cuttings) constitute the second-largest
impacts of produced water management operations. The results indicate volume of waste in petroleum upstream processes (Ismail et al., 2017).
the 50% of the total cost is attributed to treatment expenses which in­ Drilling fluids (also known as drilling mud composed mainly of water,
cludes chemical additives and filtration costs. The chemical additives oil, synthetic and pneumatic substances (Ismail et al., 2017)) and the
used in this process include of sodium chloride (188217 G/m3), Calcium drilling cuttings (grinded fragments of the subterranean formation due

4
 H.M. Al Zarkani et al.
Table 2
Treatment Technologies in the O&G industry.
Reference Wastewater Type DAF UF RO CR EVP Ion TCC Thermal Solidification Landfilling Incineration Centrifugation Flocculation & Biological
exchange desorption flotation treatment

Upstream Vlasopoulos et al. Produced water ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

(2006)
Pettersen (2007) Drilling fluid ✓ ✓
Ghazi et al. Drilling mud ✓ ✓ ✓
(2011)
Ding et al. (2013) Drill cuttings ✓
Lise Torp and Slop water ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Pettersen (2014)
Okiemute and Slop water ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Brattebø (2015)
Puiseux et al. Drill cuttings ✓ ✓
(2020)
Hu et al. (2021) Drill cuttings ✓ ✓
5

Saleem et al. Oily waste ✓ ✓ ✓

(2022)

Downstream Tukker & TNO Oily sludge ✓

Strategie (1997)
Nouri et al. Used lubricating ✓ ✓
(2012) oils and sulfur
waste
Sakamoto et al. Refinery effluent ✓ ✓ ✓
(2019)
Ronquim et al. Refinery effluent ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
(2020)
Hu et al. (2020) Oily sludge ✓ ✓
Muñoz et al. Refinery effluent ✓ ✓ ✓
(2020)

Journal of Cleaner Production 408 (2023) 137196

Hashemi et al. Refinery effluent ✓ ✓
(2022)

*DAF: Dissolved Air Flotation; UF: Ultrafiltration; RO: Reverse Osmosis; CR: Crystallization; EVP: Evaporation; TCC: Thermo-Mechanical Cuttings Cleaning.
H.M. Al Zarkani et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 408 (2023) 137196

Table 3
Treatment technologies train and removal efficiency in the O&G industry.
Reference Wastewater Treatment technologies sequence Efficiency Influent

Vlasopoulos Produced DAF-CWL-DMF-RO 10,000 m3/day

et al. (2006) water DAF-CWL-DMF-RO and MF-ORG-RO
DAF-ABS-ORG
MF-ORG-RO-ION and DAF-CWL-DMF-RO-ION
Ghazi et al. Drilling mud First separation - stabilization/solidification – Water (873 t), BaSO4 (85 t), Bentoni (6 t),
(2011) online NaOH (1.05 t), organic chemicals (2.56 t),
First separation – Thermal desorption – formation losses (225 m3), residual fluids
(722 t), cuttings (256.46 t), and drilling
waste (978.5 t)
Lise Torp and Slop water Two phase decanter-centrifuge-filter Slop reduction 70% 80% water (1000 kg/m3) 10% oil (900 kg/
Pettersen Flocculation-DAF Slop reduction 80% m3) 10% solids (1200 kg/m3), and drilling
(2014) sludge/fluid, oil based (2200 kg/m3)
Okiemute and Slop water Coagulation and flocculation -DAF-filtration 50.35% Water, oil and solids
Brattebø Two phase decanter centrifuge-three phase 50.4%
(2015) decanter centrifuge -filtration
Sakamoto et al. Refinery S1: Pre-treatment with – Ba2+ (0.30 ppm), Ca2+ (53.1 ppm),
(2019) effluent Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) + RO Al3+(<0.01 ppm), Sr2+ (1.32 ppm),
+ EVP (multi-effect distillation) + CR SiO2(7.33 ppm), Fe(<0.01 ppm), Mg2+(6.56
S1 with pre-treatment by BaSO4 ppm), Na+(255 ppm), Cl∓(385 ppm),
S1 with Ca(OH)2/CaCO3/HCl HCO−3 (216 ppm), K+(7.76 ppm),
NH4+(4.56 ppm), PO3− 4 (2.12 ppm),
NO−3 (101 ppm), SO2−
4 (0.20 ppm), TDS(as,
NaCL, 762 ppm)
Ronquim et al. Refinery RO-EVP-EVCR -centrifuge Barium (0.60 ppm), Calcium (30.0 ppm),
(2020) effluent BaSO4 dessupersaturator – RO1- RO2-EVP- BaSO4 dessupersaturator (barium 96%), Strontium (2.20 ppm), Silicon (20.0 ppm),
EVCR- centrifuge BaSO4 dessupersaturator- Softening precipitation (calcium 96%, Magnesium (8.50 ppm), Sodium (625 ppm),
RO1- softening precipitator- RO2- EVP-EVCR- silicon 94%, magnesium 99.9% and Chloride (740 ppm) Bicarbonate (128 ppm),
centrifuge carbonate 83%), RO1 (85%), RO2 (75.5%) Potassium (20.0 ppm), Ammonium (1.71
ppm), Phosphate (4.50 ppm), Nitrate (40.0
ppm), Sulfate (300 ppm), Fluoride (0.75
ppm), TDS (1922 p.m.), pH (7.50)
Chiavico et al. Produced Separator-settling tank-activated charcoal Oil concentration (30 ppm) 1 m3
(2020) water Separator-settling tank-reinjection skid pumps- Oil concentration (5 ppm)
activated charcoal
Hu et al. (2020) Oily sludge Extraction tank – sludge decanter centrifuge – 12.5% wastewater separated, 5% solids 1000 kg
water/oil centrifuge separated, 82.5% oil & solvent separated
Muñoz et al. Refinery DAF-MBR, DAF-MBR-CWAO, DAF-MBR-CWAO- DAF (oil & grease removal efficiency Oil & grease (20 mg/L), SS (25 mg/L), COD
(2020) effluent AOP, and DAF-MBR-CWAO-AOP-RO1 43.5%), membrane bioreactor (oil & (370 mg/L), BOD (166 mg/L), TOC (85 mg/
grease removal efficiency 11.5%, COD L), phosphate (4 mg/L), ammonium (21 mg/
removal 24.8%, TOC 82%) L), and nitrate (2 mg/L)
DAF-MBR-RO1, and DAF-MBR-CWAO-RO1
DAF-MBR-CWAO-AOP-RO1- RO2
Hu et al. (2021) Drill cuttings TCC-conveyor (TPH <1% in final solids), 75% water 15% base oil (mineral oil), 15% water, and
RDD- conveyor separated, 75% solids separated. 70% solids, with a density of approximately
2.2 kg/L
Hashemi et al. Refinery UF-ION-MOX – –
(2022) effluent
Saleem et al. Oil spill Oil-water separation by centrifugation 92% Water (1620–3250 m3), oil (108–854 m3),
(2022) response Oil-water separation by chemical 97% sorbents(0.2–1.414 kg), oil fauna
waste demulsification (0.066–0.585 kg), oil PPE (0.035–0.479 kg)

*DAF: Dissolved Air Flotation; CWL: Constructed Wetlands; RO: Reverse Osmosis; ABS: Absorbents; DMF: Dual Media Filtration; ORG: Organoclay; ION: Ion Exchange;
MF: Microfiltration; EVP: Evaporation; CR: Crystallization; EDTA: Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid; TDS: Total Dissolved Solids; EVCR: Evaporative Crystallizer; COD:
Chemical Oxygen Demand; TOC: Total Organic Carbon; TPH: Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon; MBR: Membrane Bioreactor; CWAO: Catalytic Wet-Air Oxidation; AOP:
Advanced Oxidation Process; TCC: Thermo-Mechanical Cuttings Cleaning; RDD: Rotary Drum Dryer; UF: Ultrafiltration; MOX: Multioxidant.

to drilling bits (de Almeida et al., 2017)) are the two major wastes 2011), and low-temperature thermal desorption (Hu et al., 2021). Pet­
produced during the drilling of boreholes. The drilling fluids are tersen (2007) did not concentrate on creating scenarios to address the
continuously pumped down the well to carry the drill cuttings to the optimal treatment technology. Selected treatment options were based on
surface as well as cooling and lubricating the drilling bit, controlling the existing operational plants. The mineral agent used for water-based fluid
subsurface pressure, and stabilizing the borehole (Ball et al., 2012). The in offshore inventory is ilmenite (632 m3) and barite (632 m3) (Pet­
LCA application for drilling waste is also limited, covering the treat­ tersen, 2007). In contrast, Ghazi et al. (2011) considered five treatment
ment, technology, and management aspect (Ding et al., 2013; Ghazi scenarios to assess the environmental advantages and possible im­
et al., 2011; Hu et al., 2021). Tackling the management aspect of dis­ provements for drilling mud. They argued that solidification (best effi­
charging PW and drilling waste as well as the lack of particulate emis­ ciency in waste minimization) followed by thermal desorption
sion availability in LCA, Veltman et al. (2011) developed two distinct (reduction in hydrocarbons) has the lowest environmental impact score
characterization factors to be included in LCA’s impact categories. While in the carcinogen effects category. The quantities of drilling mud vary
they did not apply an LCA approach, they attempted to fill existing gaps depending on the drilling phases and the decline in the diameter of the
in LCA impact categories. borehole with more depth. Similarly, Hu et al. (2021) examined the life
The drilling waste treatment technologies include TCC (Pettersen,
2007), first separation (fluids-cuttings) shale shakers, high centrifuga­
tion vertical dryer, thermal desorption, solidification (Ghazi et al.,

6
H.M. Al Zarkani et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 408 (2023) 137196

Table 4
Treatment Technologies’ energy consumption.
Reference Wastewater Treatment technologies and Energy Consumption (kWh/m3, kWh/tonne, kWh, MJ/m3, MJ)

Vlasopoulos et al. Produced water AS (0.9 kWh/m3), AIR (0.662 kWh/m3), AL (0.60 kWh/m3), TF (0.230 kWh/m3), RBC (0.220 kWh/m3),
(2006) MF (0.2 kWh/m3), ABS (0.110 kWh/m3), CWL (0.0014 kWh/m3), OZO (1.530 kWh/m3), NF (0.553 kWh/
m3), UF (0.2 kWh/m3), GAC (0.164 kWh/m3), ORG (0.09 kWh/m3), DMF (0.027 kWh/m3), SSF (0.007
kWh/m3), EDR (3 kWh/m3), RO (1.27 kWh/m3), DAF (0.221 kWh/m3), HYDRO (0.307 kWh/m3)
Pettersen (2007) One metric tonne of cuttings treated, drilled TCC (117 kWh)
with the oil-based fluid system
Lise Torp and Slop water Flocculation and flotation (0.33 kWh/m3), biological treatment (2.12 kWh/m3), Decanter (3 kWh/m3),
Pettersen (2014) TCC –slop treatment (233 kWh/m3), TCC –sludge treatment (543.4 kWh/m3), Centrifuge - disc stack feed
pump (0.08 kWh/m3), Centrifuge - disc stack separation and heating (0.6 kWh/m3), DAF (0.207 kWh/m3),
Okiemute and Slop water Flocculation and flotation (0.33 kWh/m3), 3-phase decanter (2.12 kWh/m3), Centrifuge -3-phase decanter
Brattebø (2015) (2.5 kWh/m3), DAF (0.38 kWh/m3)
Sakamoto et al. Refinery effluent EVP (230 MJ/m3), CR (238 MJ/m3)
(2019)
Ronquim et al. (2020) Refinery effluent Desupersaturation unit (0.065 kWh/m3), softening precipitation (0.5 kWh/m3), RO1 (0.59, 0.46, 0.51
kWh/m3), RO2 (0.99, 3.33 kWh/m3), EV (11.5 kWh/m3), CR (34.5 kWh/m3)
Hu et al. (2020) Oily sludge Solvent extraction (3.17 MJ), sludge decanter centrifuge (73.80 MJ), water-oil centrifuge (13.68 MJ),
vacuum distillation (1188 MJ), drying (22.10 MJ), pyrolysis (96.10 MJ)
Muñoz et al. (2020) Refinery effluent MBR (2.09 kWh), CWAO (0.16 kWh), AOP (3.2 kWh), RO1 (0.42 kWh), RO2 (0.53 kWh)
Hu et al. (2021) Drill cuttings TCC (214,000 kWh), STD (125,000 kWh), RDD (64,800 kWh), product separation (scrubber 615 kWh, oil
condenser 2860 kWh, steam condenser 4020 kWh, water-oil separator 462 kWh)
Saleem et al. (2022) Oil spill response waste Incineration (66.8 kWh/tonne), Secure landfilling (0.963 kWh/tonne), oil-water separation by
centrifugation (3.8 kWh/m3)
AlEdan and Erfani Produced water Booster pumps (560 kWh), filters (185,000 kWh), disposal pumps (16,000 kWh), sludge separator (700
(2023) kWh), sludge pump (80 kWh)

AS: Activated Sludge; AIR: Air Stripping; AL: Aerated Lagoons; TF: Trickling Filters; RBC: Rotating Biological Contactor; MF: Microfiltration; ABS: Absorbents; DAF:
Dissolved Air Flotation; CWL: Constructed Wetlands; OZO: Ozone; NF: Nanofiltration; UF: Ultrafiltration; GAC: Granular Activated Carbon; ORG: Organoclay; DMF:
Dual Media Filtration; SSF: Slow Sand Filtration; EDR: Electrodialysis Reversal; DAF: Dissolved Air Flotation; RO: Reverse Osmosis; ION: Ion Exchange; EVP: Evap­
oration; CR: Crystallization; TCC: Thermo-Mechanical Cuttings Cleaning; MBR: Membrane Bioreactor; CWAO: Catalytic Wet-Air Oxidation; AOP: Advanced Oxidation
Process; RDD: Rotary Drum Dryer; STD: Screw-Type Dryer.

cycle impacts of three low-temperature thermal desorption (LTTD) to the cost analysis, the most economically favorable strategy is one that
systems1 for treating oil-based drill cutting with the objective to reduce combines centrifugation and landfilling, whereas the least favorable
the total petroleum hydrocarbon to less than one percent in final solids. strategy is one that combines chemical demulsification and incineration
They argued that the lowest life cycle impacts (human health, (Saleem et al., 2022).
ecosystem, and resources) belong to the RDD system when a diesel
generator supplies energy. However, when hydropower-based offsite 3.1.3. Oily sludge, used lubricating oils and sulfur waste
was used as an energy supply, the TCC generated the lowest impacts Oily sludge is the type of waste commonly targeted in the reported
demonstrating how renewable energy can reduce the impact of literature with various sources in downstream operations including
LTTD-based systems. residues from oil and water separator, slop oil emulsion solids, sedi­
Moreover, Ding et al. (2013) and Puiseux et al. (2020) examined the ments at the bottom of storage tanks or trucking vehicles, sludge from
drill cutting management options under the management category. Ding floatation units, excess activated sludge from biological treatment
et al. (2013) compared the life cycle inventory for offshore re-injection onsite, and heat exchange bundle cleaning slue (Murungi and Sulaimon,
and onshore solidification treatment and showed that CO2, chemical 2022). In refineries, crude oil is initially placed in storage tanks before
oxygen demand (COD), total organic carbon (TOC), NOx, and ammonia refining whereby heavier hydrocarbons settle to the bottom of the tank
nitrogen levels are higher when solidification is utilized, while the levels along with solid particles and water. This mixture is composed of oil,
of particulate matter PM2.5, PM10, and SOx are higher in the re-injection solids, and water and is known as oily sludge, which is removed during
scenario. In contrast, Puiseux et al. (2020) conducted an entire LCA, tank cleaning operations and sent for treatment or disposal (Murungi
comparing four drill cutting management options (with oil on cuttings and Sulaimon, 2022).
>5%): discharge at sea, re-injection, onshore landfill containment, and Early efforts about LCA applications for oily sludge refineries date
onshore thermo-desorption, and concluded that thermo-desorption back to 1997 (Hwm and Tukker, 1999) when a comparative assessment
treatment in onshore management had the highest impact on most in­ was conducted for various hazardous waste treatment technologies as
dicators. Last, the most recent management attempt linked with LCA and part of a strategic environmental impact assessment without following
oily waste was conducted by Saleem et al. (2022) to estimate the envi­ the IS0 14040 standard. Tukker and TNO Strategie (1999) examined
ronmental impact of management strategies related to oil spill response thermal treatment processes such as incineration, rotary and cement
waste (OSRW), including incineration (energy recovery efficiency of kilns. They reported minimal environmental scores between rotary kiln
18% of one tonne of oily waste), landfilling, oil-water separation by and incineration with preference for incineration while the cement kiln
centrifugation (separation efficiency 28% and energy required 3.8 performance depends on various factors that make it less desirable.
kWh), or chemical demulsification (propylamine (C3H9N, 59.11 g/mol), Later, Elektorowicz and Habibi, 2005 targeted greenhouse gases (GHGs)
propylene glycol (C3H8O2, 76.09 g/mol), and ethylene glycol (C2H6O2, mitigation through electrokinetic phase separation to treat oily sludge
62.07 g/mol). They reported that chemical demulsification exhibited with a reportedly significant decrease in emissions and energy con­
the highest environmental impact, especially on marine ecotoxicity and sumption while reducing the amount of waste sludge and recovering
human toxicity, followed by incineration and transportation. According fuels free from metals and water. Variations in electrical potentials did
not affect the efficiency of the system significantly (Elektorowicz and
Habibi, 2005). More recently, Hu et al. (2020) adopted emerging energy
1
Screw-type dryer (STD), Thermo-Mechanical Cuttings Cleaning (TCC), and recovery approaches, solvent extraction, and pyrolysis that exhibited
Rotary drum dryer (RDD). less environmental impacts when compared to traditional methods of

7
H.M. Al Zarkani et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 408 (2023) 137196

Fig. 2. Environmental impacts of treatment/disposal technologies for waste-wastewater in the petroleum industry.

incineration and landfilling. Similarly, Castillo Santiago et al. (2022) makeup water in the cooling tower (Sakamoto et al., 2019). Similarly,
compared oxygen-based gasification with air/steam systems to assess Ronquim et al. (2020) proposed three zero liquid discharge methods for
the impacts of oily sludge treatment. While both systems had a lower water reuse by maximizing water conversion in RO. The average
carbon footprint when compared to standard incineration processes, composition of the influent contains numerous metals including calcium
oxygen gasification had the lowest environmental impact. (30 ppm), barium (0.6 ppm), chloride (740 ppm), bicarbonate (128
On the other hand, used lubricating oils and sulfur wastes disposal ppm) (Ronquim et al., 2020). The treatment steps were not altered with
scenarios in oil refineries were considered using LCA to evaluate asso­ membrane separation as an initial step followed by an evaporative/CR
ciated environmental impacts (Nouri et al., 2012). Lubricating oils are process. The RO water recovery was obtained by adopting different
made from crude oil with a typical composition consisting of 80–90% precipitation processes and benchmarking the results. When the BaSO4
base oil and 10–20% chemical additives and other substances (Rincón desupersaturation unit was integrated into the RO operation with in­
et al., 2003). Whereas sulfur waste is generated as a by-product during termediate softening, it achieved water recovery up to 89.2% that was
the desulfurization unit process that aims to remove sulfur from raw raised to 96.3% with the addition of CaO and calcite seeding. The
material and recover it for reuse in other applications (Wongsirathat and environmental impacts of all scenarios reflected a considerable reduc­
Chavalparit, 2014). Nouri et al. (2012) compared the disposal options tion in the GW/freshwater ecotoxicity and water consumption with
for lubricating oils and sulfur using incineration and landfilling without chemical precipitation achieving high RO water recovery while being
specifying treatment technologies. They demonstrated that incineration environmentally and economically favorable (Ronquim et al., 2020).
is more efficient in achieving lower environmental impacts. Muñoz et al. (2020) presented a comparative assessment of current
O&G wastewater disposal practices against its reclamation and reuse in
3.1.4. Refineries effluent (wastewater) petroleum refineries along with environmental benefits of reuse for in­
Petroleum refineries consume much water in various operations, dustrial purposes. They argued that all reclamation scenarios provided
processes, and maintenance activities, with 80–90% of the supplied environmental benefits, especially in freshwater savings, marine eco­
water ending as wastewater containing varying levels of oil, grease, and toxicity, and aquatic eutrophication. Most recently, Hashemi et al.
toxic organic compounds (Siddiqui, 2015), depending on the process (2022) integrated ultrafiltration (recovery rate of 95%, filtration rate of
setup. When cooling water is recycled, ~3.5 × 105 m3 of effluent is 0.2 m3/h, and flux rate of 46 L/M2/h), ion exchange (SO3H and NH3OH)
generated for every ton of crude oil processed (Jafarinejad, 2017). and multi-oxidants (sodium hypochlorite (NaClO)) to recycle refinery
Several studies tested various treatment technologies to enhance effluent. They reported a high environmental impact associated with the
wastewater reuse. Sakamoto et al. (2019) utilized RO, evaporation consumption of electricity, raw material, condensed effluent, and con­
(EVP), and crystallization (CR) processes to reuse the refinery effluent struction that play a vital role in the treatment technology selection
and supply a cooling tower. While waste heat as a source for EVP had the process albeit recognizing that increasing the efficiency of a treatment
lowest primary energy demand (PED) and global warming (GW) impact, system (economically and environmentally) can be reached by using
this scenario depends on other refinery sectors and is not suitable as a renewable energy.
regular treatment option with preference to use co-precipitation as a
pretreatment for RO that meets the energy demand of EVP by stream
recompression. The primary effluent quality at the outlet of the tertiary 3.2. LCA application in wastewater treatment
industrial wastewater treatment plant requires the removal of certain
metals such as calcium (53.1 ppm), barium (0.3 ppm), chloride (385 Environmental impact assessment (EIA), Strategic Environmental
ppm) and carbonates (216 ppm) in order to recondition this flow as Assessment (SEA) and LCA are some techniques available to evaluate the
environmental effects of a given system. An EIA applies mandatory

8
H.M. Al Zarkani et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 408 (2023) 137196

assessment procedures for various types of projects, production and alongside other complementary information. Similarly, uncertainties
service processes to produce an environmental impact statement as a associated with data sources and deficient model assumption can lead to
deliverable (UNEP, 2002). While the SEA contains organized procedures flawed decision-making. Thus, conducting a sensitivity assessment is
that incorporates environmental and social concerns into programs, crucial to examine the potential effects of anticipated future scenarios
plans, or policies to help in the decision-making process (World Bank, (Wei et al., 2014). Decision-makers must be aware that it is the aim of a
2013). The LCA and EIA are most common assessment tools applied for project-specific EIA, not an LCA, to analyze local environmental impacts
WWTPs. While the LCA takes a more global approach and considers both while taking ecosystem specificity at the site into account. Recent efforts
direct and indirect impacts of a WWTP that affect a defined set of have shown that the LCA can be integrated into EIA processes as both
environmental indicators, an EIA takes a more local perspective and is tools can be highly complementary and synergistic when used in tandem
required for major WWTPs (Teodosiu et al., 2016). With the use of LCA to inform decision-making (Larrey-Lassalle et al., 2017). Additional
as a quantitative tool, it is possible to identify current trade-offs while challenges associated with LCA in WWTP include the difficulty in
also learning about unanticipated effects that, in many cases, are not obtaining data for new/emerging technologies, the variability and un­
immediately apparent before the investigation. certainty in some emission factors, the disregard of tertiary treatment
benefits in current toxicity models, and the limitation of extrapolating
3.2.1. Advantages pilot test data to provide adequate knowledge that is applicable across
Using a transparent, standardized methodology based on the best several locations and at a system scale (Corominas et al., 2020; Galle­
available knowledge, the LCA can provide decision-makers with infor­ go-Schmid and Tarpani, 2019).
mation about the environmental performance of wastewater systems.
Relevant authorities can equally gain a better understanding of their 3.2.3. Performance assessment in the petroleum industry
entire wastewater system including upstream (supply chain) and Much of the reported literature about the application of LCA on
downstream (disposal or reuse) components. Performance weaknesses waste-wastewater generated during the upstream or downstream oper­
and hot spots for targeted improvement-optimization can also be iden­ ations in the petroleum industry, targeted three main categories: man­
tified while informing decision-makers about the potential and other­ agement (Ding et al., 2013; Nouri et al., 2012; Okiemute and Brattebø,
wise unforeseen trade-offs/burden-shifting within their system (Ahmed, 2015; Puiseux et al., 2020; Saleem et al., 2022), treatment/technology
2007). (AlEdan and Erfani, 2023; Elektorowicz and Habibi, 2005; Ghazi et al.,
In addition, LCA for wastewater systems can be used at the planning, 2011; Chiavico et al., 2020; Hu et al., 2020, 2021; Lise Torp and Pet­
design, and operational levels, as well as during the development of new tersen, 2014; Pettersen, 2007; Tukker & TNO Strategie, 1999; Vlaso­
technologies. At the planning level, potential management plans, con­ poulos et al., 2006), and reclamation (Castillo Santiago et al., 2022;
ceptual designs, and future scenarios are examined such as choosing Hashemi et al., 2022; Muñoz et al., 2020; Ronquim et al., 2020; Saka­
between conventional (i.e. pollution prevention) and resource recovery moto et al., 2019) (Fig. 3). The midstream stage in the petroleum in­
systems (Kobayashi et al., 2020), or choosing between centralized and dustry, which involves the transportation of crude oil and gas processing
decentralized systems (Morera et al., 2020), or evaluating various levels activities were not part of this review analysis that focuses on treatment
of treatment quality to meet stringent nutrient discharge requirements and disposal.
(Zepon Tarpani and Azapagic, 2018), or assessing the effects of broader Table 5 summarizes reported work on such applications emphasizing
regulatory changes such as the evaluation of upgrading WWTPs at a various components of LCA stages. The in-depth analysis identified gaps
regional/national level (top-down tightening of regulatory water quality in the approach adopted and the need for future work.
criteria) (Zang et al., 2015). At the design level, preliminary designs of
WWTPs, unit operations, or collection/reuse systems can be developed 3.3. LCA stages in the context of the petroleum industry
and assessed using LCA. This level can be used to clarify environmental
hot spots (components driving environmental consequences) and better It is imperative at the onset to recognize that LCA cannot accurately
comprehend a system’s projected effects (Corominas et al., 2020). At the represent a system’s process because it is a simplification of the actual
operational level, the LCA can be used to operate, optimize, and retrofit system and its environmental implications. It is common and essential to
existing WWTPs, providing decision-makers with a tool to map out how assess the reliability of the values and results, their variance, and the
to enhance a system’s environmental performance such as bench­ model itself while analyzing the outcomes of an LCA. Quality checking is
marking of technological options (comparison of environmental critical throughout the LCA as an iterative process to ensure that the
impacts-inventory from WWTPs, in the same and/or different qualitative data complies with quality standards outlined in the project’s
regions-countries) for the evaluation of specific set-points for opera­ goal and scope (Finnveden and Lindfors, 1996). By standard definition
tional and design decision variables (Corominas et al., 2020; Padil­ (ISO 14040, 2004), a complete LCA entails four stages which are goal
la-Rivera and Güereca, 2019). Finally, at the developing new and scope definition, life cycle inventory (LCI) analysis, life cycle impact
technologies level, the LCA can be used to understand how to improve a assessment (LCIA), and life cycle interpretation (Fig. 4).
specific system, how the system’s parts and process parameters propa­ Fig. 5 depicts the literature coverage for various components of LCA
gate through the management process to influence the environmental stages, which are detailed below to identify gaps in methods and eval­
sustainability of a specific WWTP or wastewater management as a uate the transparency of delivery.
whole, and to what extent can technological improvements affect sus­
tainability. In short, the LCA can be used to define research needs and 3.3.1. First stage: Goal and scope
objectives and to map out the future of technology development The first stage identifies the goal with targeted audience, and the
(Corominas et al., 2020). application areas of LCA results as well as the scope that describes the
product system or process to be investigated, with its functions,
3.2.2. Limitations boundaries, and data category (Muralikrishna and Manickam, 2017).
While LCA for wastewater systems is often limited by the lack of The product system encompasses a cradle to grave process with elements
precise information on environmental or human health threats that (i.e. energy and transportation), material, manufacturing, distribution,
cannot be accurately measured, recent attempts combine LCA and risk and disposal. Upon identifying the product to be analyzed, its intended
assessment by feeding LCA’s input and output data to a risk assessment function is defined while assigning a quantitative functional unit (FU) to
tool to enhance accuracy (Harder et al., 2014; Heimersson et al., 2014). it. The latter denotes the product’s output performance and demon­
Moreover, LCA is not a unique decision-making tool in and by itself but strates the relationship between input and output (Nieuwlaar, 2004).
rather a tool to provide information for stakeholders to consider The system’s boundary specifies unit processes selected from the

9
H.M. Al Zarkani et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 408 (2023) 137196

Fig. 3. Categories of reported LCA of waste-wastewater from the Petroleum Industry.

Table 5
LCA on petroleum waste and wastewater.
Reference Category Country Waste type Functional Unit System LCA Methodology
Boundary Software

Upstream AlEdan and Erfani Treatment Kuwait Produced water NR B Simapro ReCiPe 2016 (v1.05)
(2023)
Saleem et al. Management Canada Oily waste Disposal/management of E Simapro v. ReCiPe 2016
(2022) 1 ton of OSRW 8.3.0.0
Hu et al. (2021) Treatment British Drill Cuttings 1000 metric tons of B+D+T SimaPro v. ReCiPe 2016 (v1.13) &
Columbia typical OBDCs 8.5.2.0 Impact 2002+ (v2.13)
Puiseux et al. Management NR Drill Cuttings one ton of drill cuttings D+T SimaPro v. ReCiPe
(2020) and produce 0.96 t of 8.5
road embankment
Chiavico et al. Treatment/ NR Produced water 1 m3 of treated/disposed B+D GaBi CML2001
(2020) disposal produced water
Okiemute and Management Norway Slop water Drilling of a well E+T SimaPro ReCiPe 2009
Brattebø (2015) 7.1.3
3
Lise Torp and Treatment Norway Slop water 1 m of slop water B+D+T SimaPro ReCiPe 2009
Pettersen (2014) 7.1.3
3
Ding et al. (2013) Management China Drill Cuttings 1 m drill cuttings. D NR E-balance
Veltman et al. NA Norway PW and drilling NA – NA –
(2011) waste
Ghazi et al. Process/ Algeria Drilling mud One well drilled on 4100 E SimaPro v. Impact 2002+
(2011) Treatment m deep. 7
Pettersen (2007) Treatment/ Norway Drilling fluid Defined from well E+T SimaPro CML 2 and
Technology characteristics 7.1.3 Ecoindicator99
Vlasopoulos et al. Treatment/ NR Produced water A process water flow of B SimaPro v. CML 2 baseline 2000
(2006) Technology 10,000 m3/day 6 v2.1

Downstream Hashemi et al. Reclamation NR Refinery effluent 1 m3 refinery effluent A+B+T SimaPro v. NR
(2022) 8.5
Castillo Santiago Treatment/ NR Oily sludge 1 ton of oil sludge treated B+R SimaPro v. Impact 2002 V2.11
et al. (2022) reuse 8.0.3
3
Muñoz et al. Treatment/ Turkey Refinery effluent 1 m refinery wastewater R SimaPro v. IPCC
(2020) Reclamation 8.5
Hu et al. (2020) Treatment Western Oily Sludge Treatment and/or B+D SimaPro v. TRACI impact
Canada disposal of 1000 kg of 8.3.0.0
oily sludge
Ronquim et al. Treatment/ Brazil Refinery effluent 1.0 m3 of water for reuse E SimaPro v. CML-IA baseline v.
(2020) Reclamation as cooling tower 8.3.0.0 3.04/EU25, CED v. 1.09,
ReCipe 2016
Sakamoto et al. Treatment/ Brazil Refinery effluent 1.0 m3 of water for reuse E NR CED v1.10, ReCipe 2016
(2019) Reclamation as cooling tower
Nouri et al. Management Iran Used lubricating Sulfur waste = 2,000 kg D Simapro v. EDIP-2003 and
(2012) oils and Sulfur Used Oils = 880 kg 7.1 Ecoindicator-99
wastes
Elektorowicz and Treatment/ Canada Oily Sludge NR A+B+T NR NR
Habibi, 2005 Technology
Tukker and TNO Treatment Netherlands Oily sludge 1 ton of waste with a B NR 1992 CML
Strategie (1999) specific composition

A = Production/Use; B = Treatment Process; D = Disposal; E = A + B + D; T = Transportation; R = Recycling; OSRW = Oil Spill Response Waste; OBDCs = Oil Based
Drill Cuttings; IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; CED = Cumulated Energy Demand; TRACI = Tool for Reduction and Assessment of Chemicals and
Other Environmental Impacts; EDIP = Environmental Development of Industrial Products; NR = Not Reported; NA = Not Applicable, ReCiPe: LCA methodology
created by IVM, CML, PRé Consultants, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen and CE Delft; CML: LCA methodology created by the University of Leiden, IMPACT 2002+:
impact assessment methodology originally developed at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne (EPFL).

10
H.M. Al Zarkani et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 408 (2023) 137196

Fig. 4. Stages in an LCA process.

Fig. 5. Percentages of LCA stages covered in reported studies.

product system as it is not practical to include processes associated with efficiency or influent loads, then the results and conclusion will not be
the product. Excluded processes have less environmental load signifi­ accurate (Corominas et al., 2013b). However, if PE is relied upon, then
cance when compared to others. Finally, the data category is a collection the quality of wastewater can be included, not just its quantity. In the
of input and output inventory parameters from unit processes that petroleum industry, PE is not commonly used in treating wastewater.
measure the data’s magnitude. Examples of input parameters include Only one study incorporated the initial influent quality (Muñoz et al.,
raw material and energy, while output parameters include types of 2020) in terms of SS, oil & grease, COD, and biochemical oxygen de­
products and emissions. Reported studies identified the corresponding mand (BOD) which is preferable for end-user reference and for opti­
goal, while the scope was either explicitly mentioned or generated in mizing the process. In addition, only three studies associated the FU with
illustrational form. The goal and scope were not mentioned in only one the plant’s life span (Hashemi et al., 2022; Muñoz et al., 2020; Vlaso­
study that did not execute the LCA but suggested enhancing the impact poulos et al., 2006) that reportedly ranged between 15 and 30 years.
category list of the LCIA (Veltman et al., 2011). Thus, in Fig. 4 it was
eliminated from the analysis. 3.3.1.2. System boundaries. Most studies identified the system bound­
aries explicitly or illustratively. Various approaches were adopted in this
3.3.1.1. Functional unit (FU). Reported studies quantified the FU of context including the cradle-to-grave (29%), gate-to-grave (29%) with
their systems with reference made to ensure comparability of LCA re­ consideration to the last step in the life cycle, namely discharging
sults (Table 4) with volume of a specific waste (in m3) or its mass (in Kg wastewater, while the remaining combined the stages of treatment &
or ton) considered as the FU depending on the waste type. In the reclamation-reuse, production & treatment, and transportation. Some
treatment category, either mass or volume were employed as the FU. studies did not consider the environmental impacts of the construction
Mass or volume were equally used in the management category, except and decommissioning stages while others (23%) failed to indicate the
in one study that indicated the FU as drilling well depth, formation data, geographic location of the waste type, precluding the need for items to
and location (Okiemute and Brattebø, 2015). Another study that based be transported to a specified area. Table 6 presents studies that explicitly
the FU on well characteristics, was categorized under the stated their limitations with categories excluded from their analysis. The
treatment-technology as it presented a comparative assessment of selected system boundaries for most studies did not provide a strong
offshore drilling fluid technology and corresponding treatment (Pet­ justification for the selection process and just presented them according
tersen, 2007). Moreover, the FU for the reclamation category was based to the objectives defined. The construction phase was considered only in
on volume (1 m3 of refinery effluent wastewater for reuse). few studies (Hashemi et al., 2022; Lise Torp and Pettersen, 2014; Muñoz
Using volume as the FU may not reflect the removal efficiency in et al., 2020; Vlasopoulos et al., 2006).
treatment operations, especially in WWTP (Gallego-Schmid and Tar­
pani, 2019). Instead, population or person equivalent (PE) can be used 3.3.2. Second stage: Life cycle inventory (LCI)
as an alternative, and defined clearly at the onset. If the volume unit was The inventory stage defines the input and output of energy and
used as a FU when comparing two systems with different removal materials compiled according to FUs and system boundaries. Some

11
H.M. Al Zarkani et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 408 (2023) 137196

Table 6 Table 7
Limitations and excluded categories. Life Cycle Inventory sources.
Reference Limitations and excluded categories Reference LCI Source

Vlasopoulos et al. Excluded: Geographic location and transport of material, Tukker and TNO Data available in project-EIA, license applications or
(2006) downstream impact of reuse activities, disposal of waste Strategie (1999) other readily available material, commonly used
from treatment (e.g sludge), and facility decommissioning databases such as ETH, Buwal, and earlier Dutch LCAs on
Pettersen (2007) Excluded: Occupational exposure to hazardous chemicals, waste
production and treatment of slop water, waste logistics, Elektorowicz and Emissions estimated according to guidelines of American
and rig energy use Habibi, 2005 and Canadian committees and provided by Canada’s
Ghazi et al. (2011) Limitation: Lacking data for atmospheric output from Greenhouse Gas Inventory
treatment processes and chemical composition of Vlasopoulos et al. (2006) Questionnaire administration to over 160 equipment
additives were 99% confidential designers, manufacturers and suppliers (only primary
Lise Torp and Pettersen Excluded: wastewater production, raw materials needed inputs of energy and materials)
(2014) for equipment, construction of machinery, and other types Pettersen (2007) Generic database sources, Ecoinvent, and reported
of offshore drilling waste literature.
Okiemute and Brattebø Limitation: Data quality and uncertainty Ghazi et al. (2011) Simapro database, measured cuttings in reserve pits, and
(2015) reported literature
Sakamoto et al. (2019) Excluded: plant construction environmental impacts, and Veltman et al. (2011) Government and reported literature
consumption and emissions from RO membrane Nouri et al. (2012) Field visits of oil refinery, Simapro database, and the
manufacturing handbook on LCA.
Ronquim et al., (2020) Excluded: environmental impacts associated to the plant Ding et al. (2013) eBalance Evaluation software and published studies
construction are not considered except for consumptions Lise Torp and Pettersen Ecoinvent 3.0 database, MiSA library, foreground data
and emissions related to manufacture of RO membrane (2014) and literature.
Puiseux et al. (2020) Limitation: Lacking reliable data for 15% of drilling fluid Okiemute and Brattebø Ecoinvent 3.0 database, MiSA library, foreground data
composition and pump energy consumption (2015) and literature.
Hu et al. (2020) Excluded: impacts of treatment infrastructure and period Sakamoto et al. (2019) Ecoinvent database, USLCI® database, primary data
of LCA from an oil refinery, and secondary government data
Hu et al. (2021) Excluded: impacts of pretreatment, equipment Hu et al. (2020) Experimental investigations, literature reviews, and
manufacturing, and infrastructure development Ecoinvent 3.3.
Saleem et al. (2022) Excluded: environmental impacts of equipment and Muñoz et al. (2020) Urban WWTPs in Ecoinvent, developer detailed bill of
infrastructure and duration of LCA material with characterization, components to be
AlEdan and Erfani Limitations: inaccessibility and confidentiality of Kuwait installed with expected life span
(2023) Oil Company data Ronquim et al. (2020) Ecoinvent database, USLCI® database, primary data
Excluded: construction of treatment facility from an oil refinery, and secondary government data
Chiavico et al. (2020) Available literature
Hu et al. (2021) Ecoinvent 3.3, reported literature, product information
challenges associated with this stage are data availability and quality, from equipment suppliers, and pilot-scale experiments
Saleem et al. (2022) Ecoinvent 3.3, published studies, reports by governments
which are often acknowledged as limitations (Table 6) that could hinder
and industries.
accuracy and efficiency. Most studies relied on LCI databases such as Castillo Santiago et al. IMPACT 2002+ V2.11 and reported literature
Ecoinvent from SimaPro to conduct their analysis, with some studies (2022)
mentioning the software utilized to conduct the analysis, and a few that AlEdan and Erfani Ecoinvent database, partially integrated with the
collected inventory data from experts, real plants, and relevant litera­ (2023) literature and the Kuwait oil company data
ture (Table 7). LCI databases are usually used to supply background LCA: Life Cycle Assessment; LCI: Life Cycle Inventory; EIA: Environmental
information such as electricity generation and chemical production Impact assessment; Buwal: Bundesamt für Umwelt Wald und Landschaft; USLCI:
whereas direct design measurements and vendor-supplied information United State Life Cycle Inventory; WWTP: Wastewater Treatment Plant, MiSa:
are part of the foreground LCI. Some studies integrated measured data consulting company (now part of Asplan Viak company) www.asplanviak.no.
into the next LCIA stage (Ghazi et al., 2011; Hu et al., 2020, 2021) while
others (58%) detailed their inventory sources (Castillo Santiago et al., uncertainty and associated inaccuracies.
2022; Ghazi et al., 2011; Hu et al., 2020, 2021; Lise Torp and Pettersen,
2014; Muñoz et al., 2020; Okiemute and Brattebø, 2015; Pettersen, 3.3.3. Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA)
2007; Ronquim et al., 2020; Saleem et al., 2022; Tukker & TNO Strat­ In the third stage, the LCI is translated into the LCIA to identify po­
egie, 1999), and the remaining were insufficiently characterized by not tential environmental impacts of the system using classification, char­
elaborating on the inventory process, or allowing reproducibility, or acterization, normalization, and weighting. Classification assigns the LCI
substantiating their results (AlEdan and Erfani, 2023; Ding et al., 2013; input and output to expected environmental impact types, then the
Elektorowicz and Habibi, 2005; Nouri et al., 2012; Puiseux et al., 2020; contribution of a given inventory parameter assigned to the impact
Sakamoto et al., 2019; Vlasopoulos et al., 2006). Evidently, a clear category is characterized. The optional normalization process divides the
description of the LCI is imperative as it will directly affect the next characterization impact value by a normalization reference (Mur­
phase of the analysis. In addition, interpretations will be based on the alikrishna and Manickam, 2017). In comparison, weighting assigns
LCI and poor data quality will inevitably lead to inaccurate conclusions. relative significance (termed weight) to impact categories. Table 8
Similarly, the reproducibility of LCIs is invariably constrained by the synthesizes LCIA studies by impact category while Table 9 summarizes
common practice of merging direct measurements, reported literature, important findings of the LCIA for upstream and downstream studies
and government data in the analysis without checking on representa­ noting that the Ding et al. (2013) study was eliminated from the analysis
tiveness or compatibility with LCA goals. Another concern is that LCA as it was limited to an LCI only and did not incorporate the next step of
cannot be reproduced because some studies failed to provide the name the process. The commonly used impact categories include Global
of background processes applied in the database. Furthermore, national warming potential (GWP-73.6%), Ozon layer depletion (OLD-52.6%),
databases and influent industrial waste quality, energy, and chemical Acidification Potential (AP-36.8%), Eutrophication potential
usage are inconsistent due to high geographic variability and lack of (EP-36.8%), Climate change (CC-31.5%), Marine ecotoxicity
regional-specific databases. Finally, only a few studies (Ghazi et al., (MET-31.5%), Aquatic eutrophication (AE-29%), and Freshwater eco­
2011; Hu et al., 2020; Lise Torp and Pettersen, 2014; Okiemute and toxicity (FET-21%).
Brattebø, 2015; Pettersen, 2007) recognized the qualitative uncertainty In the LCIA stage, classification and characterization are mandatory
related to the inventory data, while the remaining did not evaluate and have been practically applied in all reported studies while only a few

12
H.M. Al Zarkani et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 408 (2023) 137196

implemented normalizing (47%) and weighting (16%) which implied the

GWP: Global Warming Potential; CC: Climate change; AP: Acidification Potential; EP: Eutrophication Potential; OLD: Ozone Layer Depletion; PED: Primary Energy Demand; LU: Land Use; HT: Human Toxicity; WC:Water
Consumption; PMF: Particulate Matter Formation; OZ-HH: Ozon Formation- Human Health; IOR: Ionizing Radiation; CP: Carcinogenic Potential; RE: Respiratory Effects; NCP: Noncarcinogenic Potential; ECT: Ecotoxicity;
FFD: Fossil Fuel Depletion; TA: Terrestrial Acidification; FET: Freshwater Ecotoxicity; AE: Aquatic Eutrophication; MET: Marine Ecotoxicity; ME: Marine Eutrophication; FE: Freshwater Eutrophication; TET: Terrestrial
POCP absence of site-specific adapted factors (Niero et al., 2014), a drawback
associated with developing economies in particular. At the impact

✓
methodology level, most studies (90%) relied on tools (CML, EDIB,
GHG

ReCipe, Eco-indicator, Impact, 2002+, CED, and TRACI) that were

✓
mostly developed within the European and North American contexts
NRE

with ReCipe being the most used. However, impacts are often
✓

✓
✓
site-dependent and applying this methodology outside their geographic
TET

context can affect the results (Sakamoto et al., 2019) because of the lack
✓

✓
✓

✓
of regionalized characterization factors (CFs) such as eutrophication
FE

✓
✓
✓

potential (EP). Some studies combined two or more characterization

methods (Hu et al., 2021; Nouri et al., 2012; Ronquim et al., 2020;
ME

✓
✓

✓
✓

Sakamoto et al., 2019) to alleviate this constraint or applied the E-Bal­

MET

ance impact approach adopted in China (Bai et al., 2017). Indeed,

✓
✓
✓

✓
✓

✓
several studies highlighted the importance of calculating regional CFs
AE

for Eps, which are yet to be integrated into a commercial software

✓

✓
✓ (Gallego-Schmid and Tarpani, 2019). In the remainder of this section,
FET

we provide further analysis of the most critical impact categories namely

✓

✓
✓

Global warming potential (GWP), Ozon layer depletion (OLD), and Climate
TA

✓
✓

change (CC); Acidification Potential (AP); Aquatic eutrophication (AE);

Freshwater Ecotoxicity (FET) and Marine Ecotoxicity (MET).
FFD

✓
✓

✓
✓

✓
ECT

3.3.3.1. Global warming potential (GWP), ozone layer depletion (OLD),

✓

and climate change (CC). The GWP entails the political and social sig­
NCP

nificance of a given system and is considered an energy-dependent

✓

reference for other factors such as acidification potential (AP) or

RE

photochemical oxidation formation (POF) (Chow and Foo, 2022).

✓

Climate change is linked to the release of GHGs and GWP with a negative
CP

impact on human health and the environment. The OLD is an indicator

of air pollutants that induce stratospheric ozone layer depletion. Ac­
Ecotoxicity; NRE: Non-Renewable Energy; GHG: Greenhouse Gasses; POCP: Photochemical Oxidation Creation Potential.
IOR

cording to Pettersen (2007), the GWP is the only impact category in a life
cycle evaluation where consensus exists with 100 years’ time horizon
OF-HH

used as a midway indication for GWP. The majority of studies reported

✓

the impact of global warming and its interaction with treatment activ­
PMF

ities such as energy and thermal demand, electricity consumption, and

✓

GHG emissions. According to Sakamoto et al. (2019), GWP has the

WC

lowest impact scenario when steam recompression is adopted to meet

✓

evaporation demand and applying the co-precipitation as a pretreatment

HT

technique for RO-fed effluent. Similar findings were observed by Muñoz

✓

✓
✓

et al. (2020), who reported that recovered petroleum refinery waste­

LU

water reused for boiler feed water might counterbalance the global
warming impact due to steam replacement benefits and ion exchange
PED

✓
✓

freshwater substitution process. These findings are consistent with those

reported by Pintilie et al. (2016) about the intensity fluctuation of
OLD

✓
✓
✓
✓
✓

thermal demands being subject to higher global warming impacts than

the electrical requirements of treatment systems. Likewise, Ronquim
EP

✓
✓

et al. (2020) showed that adding an evaporative process in RO could

AP

✓
✓

lead to a reduction of ~51–52% in GWP impact. Additionally, the GWP

impact from oily sludge incineration accounts for 90% of CO2 emissions
CC

✓
✓

✓
✓

and the rest is for fossil emissions (Hu et al., 2020). Electricity con­
GWP

sumption from fossil fuels and condensed effluent contributed to the

✓
✓
✓

✓
✓

✓
✓

✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓

highest percentage of total impacts, especially for GWP, GHG, and

photochemical oxidants (PCO) (Hashemi et al., 2022). Additionally, the
Elektorowicz and Habibi, 2005
Lise Torp and Pettersen (2014)
Okiemute and Brattebø (2015)

Castillo Santiago et al. (2022)

consumption of electricity was identified as the most significant envi­

AlEdan and Erfani (2023)
Vlasopoulos et al. (2006)

Hwm and Tukker (1999)

ronmental factor for GWP, contributing to approximately 90% of the

Sakamoto et al. (2019)
Ronquim et al. (2020)

Hashemi et al. (2022)

Chiavico et al. (2020)
Puiseux et al. (2020)

environmental impact and thereby influencing the sustainability of the

Saleem et al. (2022)

Muñoz et al. (2020)

Ghazi et al. (2011)

Nouri et al. (2012)

Pettersen (2007)

produce water supply chain (AlEdan and Erfani, 2023). Equally signif­
Hu et al. (2021)

Hu et al. (2020)

icant is the transportation of the byproduct in the thermal treatment

Reference

process in impacting GWP and OLD (Hu et al., 2021). Finally, the oxygen
gasification system demonstrated a reduction of ~22% in the GWP
impact category (Castillo Santiago et al., 2022).
Impact categories.

On the other hand, Pettersen (2007) indicated that water-based mud

Downstream

is performing environmentally better during the production phase,

Upstream

especially in the OLD impact category with the oil-based alternative

Table 8

outperforming the water-based in the final stages as the environmental

13
H.M. Al Zarkani et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 408 (2023) 137196

Table 9
Summary of life cycle impact assessment results.
Impact Category Upstream Downstream

Global warming − Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) had lower GWP environmental impact than − Recovery of fuel from waste sludge can reduce the amount of GHG
potential (GWP) Hydrocyclones when treating PW (Vlasopoulos et al., 2006) emissions by a high percentage (Elektorowicz and Habibi, 2005)
− Oil-based drilling fluid has lower GWP impacts than water-based fluid − GWP has the lowest impact scenario when steam recompression is
system (Pettersen, 2007) adopted to meet evaporation demand and applying the co-precipitation
− For the end-of-life stage, the oil-based alternative is discernible as the best as a pretreatment technique for RO-fed effluent (Sakamoto et al., 2019)
alternative for GWP (Pettersen, 2007) − A comprehensive analysis of the research findings identified an intrinsic
− Onshore treatment of cuttings drilled with water-based (WB) fluid has correlation between water recovery rates in RO and overall GW
relatively large significance of global warming emissions (Pettersen, impacts in the arrangements that use heat and electricity for their
2007) operation (Sakamoto et al., 2019)
− Avoided GWP impacts occur when drilling waste treatment allows high − Proposed scenarios for maximizing water conversion in RO while using
centrifugation process to recover oil (Ghazi et al., 2011) membrane step followed by an evaporative process showed a decrease
− Cement used in stabilization/solidification process has the major of 52% in GWP (Ronquim et al., 2020)
contribution in GWP (Ghazi et al., 2011) − The incineration treatment approach has the highest impact on GWP
− Transportation in drill cutting treatment using low-temperature thermal due to the combustion of petroleum hydrocarbons in oily sludge and the
desorption (LTTD)-based systems generates significant impacts in GWP use of auxiliary fossil fuels. In comparison, landfilling has a much lower
category (Hu et al., 2021) impact on global warming (Hu et al., 2020)
− GWP is greater in the produced water reinjection scenario compared to − Refinery wastewater reclamation for cooling makeup water and fire
discharge in the sea because of the higher request of electricity caused by water application achieved impacts between 2 and 2.5 times higher in
the motor-generators for reinjection pumps (Chiavico et al., 2020). GWP when compared to wastewater disposal (Muñoz et al., 2020)
− Refinery wastewater reclamation boiler feed water was the only one
application that showed improvement in GWP (Muñoz et al., 2020)

Climate change (CC) − In drilling an injection well scenario, the drilling rig has a large presence in
all the impact categories, but greatest in CC (Lise Torp and Pettersen,
2014)
− Incineration causes the large impact in the CC category by burning oil,
which releases greenhouse gases in abundance for slop onshore treatment
(Lise Torp and Pettersen, 2014)
− The disposal processes in slop offshore treatment using flotation
separation are major contributors in CC (Lise Torp and Pettersen, 2014)
− The energy used for pumping slop water into well in the offshore injection
scenario has the largest contribution in most impact categories ranging
from ~35% to 80% in the CC category (Okiemute and Brattebø, 2015)
− In an offshore centrifuge treatment of slop water, a 50% reduction is
achieved in CC impact category when oil is recycled (Okiemute and
Brattebø, 2015)
− In comparison to offshore slop treatment, onshore treatment has higher
impact scores in CC (Okiemute and Brattebø, 2015)
− Recycling oil content in deep-water well for onshore slop treatment did
not show a corresponding benefit especially in the CC (Okiemute and
Brattebø, 2015)
− The impacts of thermal desorption in rotary drum dryer (RDD), as well as
in thermomechanical cuttings cleaner (TCC)-scenarios i were generally
higher in the damage categories of CC and resources due to using diesel
generator instead of hydro-based electricity (Hu et al., 2021)
− The impacts generated from screw-type dryer (STD) and TCC in CC cate­
gory was greatly reduced by the use of hydro-based electricity (Hu et al.,
2021)
− Chemical demulsification as oil spill response waste (OSRW) disposal
option by itself contributes to 11% of CC impacts (Saleem et al., 2022)
− OSRW landfilling shows significant impacts in the CC category (>80%)
(Saleem et al., 2022)

Ozone layer depletion − Transportation in drill cutting treatment using low-temperature thermal − Significant adverse impacts (85% in OLD) can be eliminated by the
(OLD) desorption (LTTD)-based systems generates significant impacts in OLD energy recovery process (Hu et al., 2020)
category (Hu et al., 2021).
− For the end-of-life stage, the oil-based alternative is discernible as the best
alternative for OLD (Pettersen, 2007).
− Drilling rig has a large presence in all the impact categories, but greatest
in OLD (Lise Torp and Pettersen, 2014).
− The oil recovered in the Thermo-Mechanical Cuttings Cleaning (TCC) unit
in slop onshore treatment shows negative impacts in OLD (Lise Torp and
Pettersen, 2014).
− The fossil fuel combustion in RDD generated the highest impacts in OLD
whereas the impacts of OLD in diesel generator-based thermal desorption
of screw-type dryer (STD) and TCC were much lower (Hu et al., 2021).
− The diesel used as blocking fluid in the TCC process, has the largest impact
in categories linked to the extraction of fossil fuels such as OLD (Lise Torp
and Pettersen, 2014).
− The process of operating the drilling rig influences the OLD category
greatly, with smaller contributions from operating the injection pump
(Lise Torp and Pettersen, 2014).

Acidification − DAF has lower AP environmental impact than Hydrocyclones − Improper discharge of condensed effluent (concentrate), contributes to
Potential (AP) (Vlasopoulos et al., 2006). AP (56%) adverse environmental effects (Castillo Santiago et al., 2022)

(continued on next page)

14
H.M. Al Zarkani et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 408 (2023) 137196

Table 9 (continued )
Impact Category Upstream Downstream

− Microfiltration and air stripping have the lowest AP in construction phase,

while activated sludge was the highest.
− Onshore treatment of cuttings drilled with water-based (WB) fluid has
relatively large significance of AP (Pettersen, 2007)

Human toxicity (HT) − Oil-based drilling fluid had lower HT impacts than water-based fluid − Significant adverse impacts (40% in HT) can be eliminated by utilizing
system (Pettersen, 2007) an energy recovery process (Hu et al., 2020)
− Cuttings stemming from vertical dryer for drilling waste treatment have a
major contribution in HT due to remaining oil and pollutants after high
centrifugation (Ghazi et al., 2011).
− Drilling mud stored in the reserve pit without treatment (burial option)
has the major contribution in HT (Ghazi et al., 2011).
− Onshore landfill (drill cutting management option) is the scenario with
most impact on HT (Puiseux et al., 2020).
− Hydro-based electricity for offsite oil-based drill cuttings treatment could
reduce the impact percentages of HT (Hu et al., 2021).
− The slop onshore treatment scores and TCC process impacts the HT
category negatively (Lise Torp and Pettersen, 2014).
− Both DAF and filtration-based slop water treatment systems in offshore
contribute to direct emissions to HT (Okiemute and Brattebø, 2015).
− In comparison to offshore slop treatment, onshore treatment has higher
impact scores in HT (Okiemute and Brattebø, 2015)
− The impacts generated from STD and TCC in HT category was greatly
reduced by the use of hydro-based electricity (Hu et al., 2021)
− Chemical demulsification as oil spill response waste (OSRW) disposal
option by itself contributes to all of the impacts in HT (Saleem et al., 2022)
− Incineration of oily solid waste shows higher environmental impacts than
landfilling especially in HT (25%) (Saleem et al., 2022)
− Impacts on human health have higher values for discharge of produced
water after a standard produced water treatment, mainly due to the
substances discharged in seawater and then assimilated by human beings
(Chiavico et al., 2020).

Eutrophication (EP) − Oil-based drilling fluid had lower EP impacts than water-based fluid − Significant adverse impacts (96% in EP) can be eliminated by utilizing
system (Pettersen, 2007) energy recovery process (Hu et al., 2020).
− Onshore treatment of cuttings drilled with water-based (WB) fluid has − Improper discharge of condensed effluent (concentrate), contributes to
relatively large significance of EP (Pettersen, 2007). EP (56%) adverse environmental effects (Castillo Santiago et al., 2022).
− EP effects are present only in the discharge scenarios (not reinjection
scenario) due to the presence of nitrogen in the discharged produced water
(Chiavico et al., 2020).

Terrestrial ecotoxicity − Cuttings stemming from vertical dryer for drilling waste treatment have a
(TET) major contribution in TET due to remaining oil and pollutants after high
centrifugation (Ghazi et al., 2011)
− Drilling mud stored in the reserve pit without treatment (burial option)
has the major contribution in TET (Ghazi et al., 2011).
− The fossil fuel combustion in RDD generated the highest impacts in TET
whereas the impacts of TET in diesel generator-based thermal desorption
of screw-type dryer (STD) and TCC were much lower (Hu et al., 2021).

Terrestrial − In comparison to onshore slop treatment, offshore centrifuge-based

acidification (TA) treatment has higher impact scores in TA (Okiemute and Brattebø, 2015).
− The impacts generated from STD and TCC in TA category was greatly
reduced by the use of hydro-based electricity (Hu et al., 2021).

Non-renewable − Avoided NRE impacts occur when drilling waste treatment allows high − Refinery wastewater reclamation for cooling makeup water and fire
energy (NRE) centrifugation process to recover oil (Ghazi et al., 2011). water application achieved impacts between 2 and 2.5 times higher in
− Cement used in stabilization/solidification process has the major NRE when compared to wastewater disposal (Muñoz et al., 2020).
contribution in NRE (Ghazi et al., 2011). − Refinery wastewater reclamation boiler feedwater was the only one
− Transportation in drill cutting treatment using low-temperature thermal application that showed improvement in NRE (Muñoz et al., 2020).
desorption (LTTD)-based systems generates significant impacts in NRE − Environmental impacts estimation of gasification/gas-microturbine
category (Hu et al., 2021). integration from oily sludge showed that oxygen gasification has higher
reduction of NRE (77%) in comparison to air/steam gasification (Cas­
tillo Santiago et al., 2022).

Carcinogenic − Aromatic hydrocarbons emitted to the soil from treated cuttings and − Environmental impacts estimation of gasification/gas-microturbine
potential (CP) reserve pits are mainly responsible for carcinogenic effects (Ghazi et al., integration from oily sludge showed that oxygen gasification has higher
2011) reduction of CP (85%) in comparison to air/steam gasification (Castillo
− Thermal desorption obtains the lowest impact score in carcinogen effects Santiago et al., 2022).
due to hydrocarbons reduction (Ghazi et al., 2011)

Respiratory effects − Avoided RE impacts occur when drilling waste treatment allows high
(RE) centrifugation process to recover oil (Ghazi et al., 2011).
− Cement used in stabilization/solidification process has the major
contribution in RE (Ghazi et al., 2011).

Marine ecotoxicity − Discharge at the sea (drill cutting management option) is the scenario with − Refinery wastewater reclamation for different industrial purposes
(MET) the greatest impact on MET (Puiseux et al., 2020). achieved beneficial results in MET, where impact is reduced up to 90%.
(Muñoz et al., 2020).

(continued on next page)

15
H.M. Al Zarkani et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 408 (2023) 137196

Table 9 (continued )
Impact Category Upstream Downstream

− While treating slop waste offshore and using flotation separation

technology, the direct emissions that takes place out at sea contribute
immensely in the MET impact category (Lise Torp and Pettersen, 2014).
− The TCC process has an immense impact on MET category (Lise Torp and
Pettersen, 2014).
− Both DAF and filtration-based slop water treatment system in offshore
contribute to direct emission to MET (Okiemute and Brattebø, 2015).
− Chemical demulsification as oil spill response waste (OSRW) disposal
option by itself contributes to all of the impacts in MET (Saleem et al.,
2022).
− Incineration of oily solid waste shows higher environmental impacts than
landfilling especially in MET (29.7%) (Saleem et al., 2022).

Marine − In comparison to onshore slop treatment, offshore centrifuge-based

eutrophication treatment has higher impact scores in ME (Okiemute and Brattebø, 2015).
(ME) − Chemical demulsification as oil spill response waste (OSRW) disposal
option by itself contributes to all of the impacts in ME (Saleem et al.,
2022).
− Incineration of oily solid waste shows higher environmental impacts than
landfilling especially in ME (52%) (Saleem et al., 2022).
− OSRW landfilling shows significant impacts in ME category (12%)
(Saleem et al., 2022).

Freshwater − Onshore landfill (drill cutting management option) is the scenario with − The proposed scenarios for maximizing water conversion in RO while
ecotoxicity (FET) most impact on FET (Puiseux et al., 2020). using membrane step followed by an evaporative process showed a
− In an offshore treatment of slop water using centrifuge-based, a reduction decrease of 30% in FET (Ronquim et al., 2020).
of 70% is achieved in FET impact category when oil is recycled (Okiemute
and Brattebø, 2015).
− In comparison to offshore slop treatment, onshore treatment has higher
impact scores in FET (Okiemute and Brattebø, 2015)

Freshwater − Onshore landfill (drill cutting management option) is the scenario with
eutrophication (FE) most impact on FE (Puiseux et al., 2020).
− The disposal processes in slop offshore treatment using flotation
separation are the major contributors in FE (Lise Torp and Pettersen,
2014).
− The TCC process has an immense impact on HT category (Lise Torp and
Pettersen, 2014).
− The fossil fuel combustion in RDD generated the highest impacts in FE
whereas the impacts of FE in diesel generator-based thermal desorption of
STD and TCC were much lower (Hu et al., 2021).

Green-houses gasses − Hydro-based electricity for offsite oil-based drill cuttings treatment could
(GHG) reduce the impact percentages of GHG (Hu et al., 2021).

Fossil fuel depletion − In drilling an injection well scenario, drilling rig has a large presence in all − Oily sludge treatment through pyrolysis had the highest FFD because it
(FFD) the impact categories, but greatest in FFD (Lise Torp and Pettersen, 2014). is an endothermal process that requires a considerable amount of energy
− The injection scenario in slop offshore treatment has the largest impact in input (Hu et al., 2020).
the FFD category (Lise Torp and Pettersen, 2014). − Solvent extraction treatment of oily sludge had the lowest FDD adverse
− The oil recovered in the TCC unit in slop onshore treatment shows effect on the environment (Hu et al., 2020).
negative impacts in FFD (Lise Torp and Pettersen, 2014).
− In an offshore treatment of slop water using centrifuge-based or DAF, a
reduction of 100% is achieved in FFD impact category when oil is recy­
cled (Okiemute and Brattebø, 2015)
− The impacts generated from STD and TCC in FDD category was greatly
reduced by the use of hydro-based electricity (Hu et al., 2021)
− The diesel used as blocking fluid in the TCC process, has the largest impact
in categories linked to the extraction of fossil fuels such as FFD (Lise Torp
and Pettersen, 2014).
− In comparison to offshore slop treatment, onshore treatment has higher
impact scores in FD (Okiemute and Brattebø, 2015)
− Recycling oil content in deep-water well for onshore slop treatment did
not show a corresponding benefit especially in the FFD unlike normal and
high-pressure high temperature wells (Okiemute and Brattebø, 2015).

Particulate matter − In drilling an injection well scenario, drilling rig has a large presence in all
formation (PMF) the impact categories, but greatest in PMF (Lise Torp and Pettersen, 2014).
− The injection scenario in slop offshore treatment has the largest impact in
the PMF category (Lise Torp and Pettersen, 2014).
− The impacts generated from STD and TCC in PMF category was greatly
reduced by the use of hydro-based electricity (Hu et al., 2021)

Ecotoxicity (ECT) − When disposing lubricating oils and sulfur waste, both landfilling and
incineration scenarios showed that ECT had a high impact category
percentage (Nouri et al., 2012).
− Solvent extraction treatment of oily sludge had the lowest ECT adverse
effect on the environment (Hu et al., 2020)

(continued on next page)

16
H.M. Al Zarkani et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 408 (2023) 137196

Table 9 (continued )
Impact Category Upstream Downstream

Primary energy − PED has the lowest impact scenario when steam recompression is
demand (PED) adopted to meet evaporation demand and applying the co-precipitation
as a pre-treatment technique for RO-fed effluent (Sakamoto et al., 2019)
− Identified an intrinsic correlation between water recovery rates in RO
and overall PED impacts in the arrangements that use heat and
electricity for their operation (Sakamoto et al., 2019)
− Maximization of RO recovery caused a decrease in PED demand by 60%
(Ronquim et al., 2020)

*DAF: Dissolved Air Flotation; GWP: Global Warming Potential; RO: Reverse Osmosis; CC: Climate Change; RDD: Rotary drum dryer; LTTD: Low-Temperature Thermal
Desorption; TCC: Thermomechanical Cuttings Cleaner; STD: Screw-Type Dryer; OSRW: Oil Spill Response Waste; OLD: Ozone Layer Depletion; AP: Acidification
Potential; EP: Eutrophication Potential; HT: Human Toxicity; TET: Terrestrial Ecotoxicity; NRE: Non-Renewable Energy; TA: Terrestrial Acidification; CP: Carcinogenic
potential; RE: Respiratory effects; MET: Marine Ecotoxicity; ME: Marine Eutrophication; FET: Freshwater Ecotoxicity; FE: Freshwater Eutrophication; GHG: Green-
houses gasses; FFD: Fossil fuel depletion; PMF: Particulate matter formation; ECT: Ecotoxicity; PED: Primary Energy Demand.

impacts of GWP and OLD are reduced. Similar to GWP, OLD’s high high impact scores caused by process-related emissions (Tukker & TNO
environmental performance is related to energy consumption processes. Strategie, 1999).
For example, during injection, the well drilling process, OLD, CC, fossil
depletion (FD), and particulate matter (PM) formation corresponds to 3.3.3.3. Aquatic eutrophication (AE). The AE occurs when over­
the highest impact category (Lise Torp and Pettersen, 2014) and the abundant nitrogen, phosphorus, and other nutrient sources cause
main pollution of the construction phase was related to the potential excessive phytoplankton development in eutrophied water reservoirs
OLD due to the usage of cooling and lighting systems (Hashemi et al., (Chow and Foo, 2022). At petroleum refineries, the release of treatment
2022). In addition, Hu et al. (2021) demonstrated that heavy fuel oil plants effluent into the marine environment has impacted aquatic
combustion has significant impact on OLD and Nouri et al. (2012) eutrophication significantly when the effluent contained primary pol­
revealed that the incineration scenario of sulfur waste accounts for 70% lutants, nitrogen compounds, and phosphate (Liu et al., 2020; Muñoz
of the OLD impact. However, when solvent extraction and pyrolysis et al., 2020). This can be mitigated by adopting an effective wastewater
disposal processes were used instead of incineration, a negative impact reuse strategy such as boiler and cooling systems (Muñoz et al., 2020;
score for OLD with a relatively insignificant impact on the environment Vlasopoulos et al., 2006). Hybrid hydro cyclones, microfiltration, and
was reported (Hu et al., 2020). In addition, the onshore treatment sce­ organoclay treatment processes are associated with the least AE impact
nario revealed that all the environmental impact categories were when used in a cooling system (Vlasopoulos et al., 2006). The inciner­
reduced during the oil recycling process in the thermo-mechanical cut­ ation scenario for sulfur waste accounted for 96% of the AE impact
tings cleaning unit except for OLD impact due to extraction of crude oil (Nouri et al., 2012) and together with OLD and ionizing radiation, they
and refining processes (Lise Torp and Pettersen, 2014). constitute the highest impact categories contributing to the environment
The relationship between the environmental performance of CC was during the combustion process of heavy fuel oil (Hu et al., 2021).
inversely proportional to energy consumption (Lise Torp and Pettersen,
2014; Okiemute and Brattebø, 2015; Hu et al., 2021; Saleem et al., 3.3.3.4. Freshwater ecotoxicity (FET) and marine ecotoxicity (MET).
2022). Drilling an injection well, the incineration process, the energy Emissions of hazardous substances to air, water, and soil and their effect
consumed to pump slop water into wells, using diesel generators for on the freshwater or marine ecosystems are represented through fresh­
RDD and TCC treatment technologies, and the landfilling process water and marine ecotoxicity factors (Chow and Foo, 2022). The pri­
contribute significantly to CC. However, when a hydro-based sustain­ mary sources of ecotoxicity in petroleum wastewater treatment are
able alternative was utilized to generate electricity, the CC score reduced crystallization and desupersaturation units in the water recovery process
significantly (Hu et al., 2021). In addition, centrifuge-based treatment and the catalytic cracking process, which causes nickel emissions (Chow
for slop water showed a reduction of 50% in CC impact score when oil and Foo, 2022). The only study about FET in downstream operations
content is recycled (Okiemute and Brattebø, 2015). Thus, recycling and (Ronquim et al., 2020) reported an increase in RO water recovery to
using sustainable energy options or increasing the variety of energy 96.3% by including chemical additives and achieved a reduction of
mixes will help reduce the environmental impact of global warming, ~30% in FET impact. A considerable, although not dominant, impact of
OLD and CC. organics on oil-based fluid freshwater ecotoxicity has been reported
while organic leaching did not affect other ecotoxic effects (Pettersen,
3.3.3.2. Acidification potential (AP). The AP reflects the effect of acid­ 2007). In addition, marine and freshwater impact categories are affected
ifying compounds on soil, water, organisms, and the ecosystem. It is by the recycling or oil recovery process in TCC (Lise Torp and Pettersen,
observed mainly during the construction phase, especially in activated 2014). In another study by Okiemute and Brattebø (2015), DAF and
sludge, with the highest operational energy consumption (0.920 kWh/ centrifuge-based treatment systems exhibited a 70% reduction in FET
m3) associated with the highest acidification score while microfiltration when oil waste is incinerated and recycled while offshore injection is
and air stripping having the least AP (Vlasopoulos et al., 2006). In the affected by energy use contributing an average of 40% to FET scores and
construction and use phase, dissolved air flotation (0.221 kWh/m3) 80% to marine eutrophication (Okiemute and Brattebø, 2015). The in­
shows a slightly lower acidification impact than hydro-cyclone (0.307 jection well construction affects FET and MET scores by ~60%. Even­
kWh/m3) due to its lower energy consumption (Vlasopoulos et al., tually, a comparison between offshore and onshore slop water treatment
2006). The onshore treatment of drill cuttings reduces marine envi­ options showed that onshore treatment has a high impact on FET (Pui­
ronmental impacts but at the cost of GW, AP, and terrestrial ecotoxicity, seux et al., 2020). Puiseux’s LCA analysis on drill cuttings management
as it involves transport and treatment processes (Pettersen, 2007). options demonstrated that the discharge at the well had the highest
During the incineration process of oily sludge, NO2 and SO2 emissions impact on MET and, onshore landfill had highest impacts on the FET.
contributed to the AP with 14 and 82% of impacts, respectively, which
could be reduced by introducing a wet flue gas scrubber and low-dust 3.3.4. Fourth stage: Life cycle interpretation
selective catalytic reduction (Hu et al., 2020). Note that an early study The final stage in conducting the LCA is the life cycle interpretation
reported that the AP, eutrophication, and smog formation impacts had of the results that addresses the most critical findings from earlier phases

17
H.M. Al Zarkani et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 408 (2023) 137196

Table 10
Knowledge gaps in LCA studies targeting petroleum industrial waste-wastewater.
Category Description

Technical parameters − Lack of studies evaluating PW treatment and management

− Lack of studies merging petrochemical wastes and LCA
− Lack of studies assessing the economic aspect alongside LCA
− Lack of specific information about the influent, effluent, and sludge production
− Lack of studies examining wastewater reuse in upstream petroleum operations
− Lack of studies incorporating different combinations of WWT technologies, focusing on adopting new emerging technologies and contaminants is
lacking

Goal and Scope − Minimal use of the person equivalent (PE) concept with predominant reliance on the volume as the Functional Unit (FU)
− Minimal studies associated FU and plant’s life span
− Lack of system boundary justification
− Minimal integration of the construction, logistics, and infrastructure development phase

Life cycle inventory − Data availability limitations not recognized with a general lack of primary data
− Some studies failed to sufficiently describe inventory details and background information which reduced reproducibility
− Lack of region-specific and national databases, industrial wastewater quality, energy, and chemical usage

Life cycle impact − Minimal analysis targeting several influential impact categories such as land use, photochemical smog formation, water depletion, and photochemical
assessment oxidation potential
− Lack of applications on normalization and weighting values particularly in developing economies
− Lack of regionalized site-specific characterization factors (CF) for non-developed impact categories

Interpretation − Lack of uncertainty analyses (sensitivity analysis) for downstream petroleum operations

and checks for consistency, completeness, and sensitivity and provides a the LCA methodology while the sensitivity analysis targeted energy
way forward to stakeholders based on the findings (ISO 14040 Series, carriers and choice of drilling fluid in the injection scenario (Lise Torp
2004). Many studies discussed assessment limitations and provided an and Pettersen, 2014). The sensitivity analysis demonstrated the critical
uncertainty analysis (e.g., sensitivity analysis). Some limitations and significance of the drilling fluid selection with adding the least amount
exclusion categories were mentioned in the LCI phase and were of chemicals and water-based mud is preferred to oil-based mud.
emphasized again in the interpretation of the results phase as data un­ Additionally, the environmental performance of the offshore slop
certainty. Associated risks, socio-economic perspectives, as well as po­ treatment scenario will be improved if rig electrification was utilized to
litical and economic constraints constitute main limitations in applying supply energy instead of fossil fuels (Lise Torp and Pettersen, 2014).

Fig. 6. LCA-based systematic framework for improved PW treatment and management.

18
H.M. Al Zarkani et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 408 (2023) 137196

correlations) that were assigned an uncertainty score (Petri et al., 2015).

Standard deviations coupled with a Monte Carlo simulation were used to
obtain the probability distribution of endpoint impacts. On the other
hand, the error margins of several extractions and emissions were esti­
mated using uncertainty factors in a qualitative uncertainty analysis
with limitations associated with the LCI data availability for mud ad­
ditives and atmospheric emissions from treatment processes as well as
pollutants transfer and population exposure (Ghazi et al., 2011). The
LCA results can significantly be impacted by the assumptions made in
inventory data and assumption methods. Thus, Hu et al. (2021) & Ghazi
et al., 2011 managed to successfully conduct an uncertainty analysis for
Fig. 7. Offshore PW management scenarios. the inventory data set. Additionally, the design of experiment (DOE) tool
was implemented to detect the uncertainty in various scenarios and
While, Okiemute’s (2015) conducted sensitivity analysis on offshore determine parameter dependency which is considered a unique
energy and improved efficiency of slop transport to shore. The results approach (Saleem et al., 2022).
showed a reduction of 41% across all impact categories when a natural In short, unlike downstream studies, upstream ones demonstrate a
gas-based electricity was used instead of diesel-based electricity during high percentage of uncertainty analysis with best interpretations asso­
slop injection energy process on (Okiemute and Brattebø, 2015). ciated with studies that have conducted sensitivity analysis most of
Whereas, increasing the efficiency of slop transport by 50% did not have which dealt with iterating mixes of energy supply.
a major impact on the environmental category results.
Similarly, a sensitivity analysis was conducted for different elec­ 4. Research gaps and future needs
tricity production profiles in Europe by replacing the Turkish electricity
mix in an oil refinery plant (Muñoz et al., 2020). It showed that altering LCA studies targeting waste-wastewater from the petroleum industry
the choice of electricity supply mix did not improve several impact unveil several environmental impacts regarding their treatment, man­
categories such as ME, AE, and freshwater consumption, while other agement, and recycling with corresponding knowledge gaps highlighted
indicators were reduced significantly such as particulate matter emis­ in Table 10.
sions. Another study with a sensitivity analysis targeted different pa­ Future efforts are imperative in a direction to address existing gaps
rameters such as electricity from a coal power plant, heat production towards improving the sustainable management of petroleum industrial
with an oil furnace, quality of rotary kiln and avoided fuels, and real­ waste-wastewater. Most noticeable is the fact that while produced water
location (Tukker & TNO Strategie, 1999). The corresponding results (PW) constitutes the most significant amount of wastewater generated in
showed that differences in flue gas cleaning quality for rotary kilns affect upstream operations, it is the least examined. Incorporating PW efflu­
the human toxicity and acidification scores when contaminated waste is ents in LCA studies require influent characterization and information
incinerated. For instance, avoiding electricity from coal power plants about reuse-recycling efforts in upstream activities, as well as employing
and energy from oil furnaces considerably enhanced the rotary kiln’s advanced WWT technologies in the LCA analysis. While current options
scores. for PW reuse in enhanced oil recovery (EOR) can be effective, however it
In one study (Hu et al., 2021), limited data about processes employed is associated with high environmental footprint. Thus, exploring new
in low-temperature thermal desorption-based systems and the quality of and sustainable techniques such as electrical heating and magnetic field
products and by-products are part of the limitations for which the (Amrouche et al., 2019, 2022) to enhance oil recovery from mature oil
Ecoinvent’s default uncertainty analysis (pedigree matrix) was con­ fields can reduce the environmental footprint. Integrating these methods
ducted. The inventory data was subject to qualitative analysis with five with existing sustainable practices can improve the efficiency of oil re­
elements (reliability, completeness, temporal, spatial & technologic covery and contribute to a more sustainable petroleum management

Fig. 8. Strategies for treatment technologies.

19
H.M. Al Zarkani et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 408 (2023) 137196

system. Future work may consider the LCA process to evaluate the treatment technologies is equally considered. Ecoinvent 3.3 database in
environmental impacts of various EOR techniques and assist the SimaPro software provides input parameters for electricity, fuel
decision-making. Furthermore, LCA technicality challenges must be consumption, transport, etc. After establishing the inventory input data,
addressed in future studies like exploring alternative options for Func­ the LCI is translated into LCIA.
tional Units (FU) such as the Person Equivalent (PE), ensuring clarity in The fourth phase applies stepwise linear regression models to further
the FU definition, assuming a plant’s life span, and associating it with analyze the output obtained from the LCA analysis (environmental
the FU. Thus, building on the reported literature, an LCA-based frame­ impact category score). The model’s objective is to predict the rela­
work was developed (Fig. 6) targeting identified gaps and future needs tionship between PW characteristics and treatment technologies as input
with emphasis on selecting and evaluating effective offshore PW treat­ variables and selected environmental impact category. In the fifth phase,
ment and management strategies to minimize corresponding environ­ a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is applied to provide a
mental impacts. It is imperative to recognize, although not part of this comprehensive evaluation of the PW management strategies based on
paper, the importance of regulatory compliance and institutional multiple-criteria including environmental impacts of developed sce­
strengthening in the successful implementation process of any frame­ narios. To rank the environmental impacts of these scenarios, the
work. Proper regulations and competent institutions are key in this technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS)
context. is adopted. TOPSIS selects PW management scenarios based on their
The framework is composed of six phases. In the first phase, relevant similarities to the ideal solution with minimum environmental impacts.
data about PW characteristics, treatment technologies, and management While the input criterion utilized in TOPSIS is the results of selected
strategies as well as guidelines and regulations of offshore drilling op­ impact categories from LCA, integrating the LCA results into TOPSIS
erations are compiled from the reported literature and government re­ ensures environmental sustainability by providing more robust results
ports. Based on the collected data, two hypothetical PW scenarios are than LCA impact methods (ReCiPe midpoint). Overall, the integration of
considered (Fig. 7). The first scenario assumes an average of 10,000 m3/ MCDA with LCA in this framework provides decision-makers with a
day of PW is generated at an offshore facility then transported to an holistic approach to select the most sustainable PW management strat­
onshore facility for further treatment. While, the second scenario treats egy. Finally, the sixth and last phase targets the economic attractiveness
the PW offshore eliminating the transportation cost. through life cycle cost analysis and decision matrix techniques. The life
Two strategies are proposed to handle each hypothetical scenario in cycle cost (LCC) of PW management methods is computed and included
terms of treatment technologies and disposal options (Fig. 8A and B). to the decision matrix (normalized cost vs normalized environmental
The first strategy included combinations of PW treatment technologies score). The objective of the decision matrix is to prioritize and rank the
that had the least environmental impact (Vlasopoulos et al., 2006) PW management strategies based on their environmental and economic
which are gravity sedimentation, dissolved air flotation (DAF), absor­ impacts. The LCC analysis provides stakeholders with economic results
bents (ABS), and dual media filtration (DMF). For a comparative to aid in their decision-making process and the types of costs included
assessment, new technologies include tubular separation, combined fi­ are capital expenditure (CAPEX) and operational expenditure (OPEX).
bers coalescence and membrane technology.
The second phase utilizes the design of experiment (DOE) technique 5. Conclusion
to identify relationships between input parameters (PW characteristics)
and process output (environmental impacts). interactions between input This study presented a critical analysis and synthesis of the life cycle
and output are examined in the context of a factorial design to aid in assessment (LCA) for waste-wastewater management in the petroleum
creating scenarios based on PW composition. The DOE approach is also industry. An in-depth analysis was conducted on the waste-wastewater
useful in identifying scenario uncertainties. Fractional factorial design type, treatment technologies utilized, their efficiencies, energy con­
with resolution IV2 is used to examine the main effects and desired sumption and environmental impacts. The predominant treatment
interaction effects in a minimum number of trials or experimental runs technologies in upstream operations include centrifugation followed by
that generate PW management scenarios as possible combinations of PW dissolved air flotation (DAF), thermo-mechanical cuttings cleaning
compositions for each strategy. (TCC), thermal desorption, and biological treatment. On the other hand,
The third phase implements a cradle-to-grave LCA approach to reverse osmosis (RO) and incineration are reportedly dominant in
analyze the potential environmental impacts of PW management stra­ downstream operations. In addition, the DAF technology is reported to
tegies and scenarios. The latter applies LCA to fill the gap in the existing achieve minimal environmental impacts when applied in upstream
literature by encompassing combinations of unexplored treatment treatment for PW and slop wastewater, while incineration techniques
technologies including recycling/reuse and discharging as a disposal were associated with minimal environmental impacts in downstream
option while examining associated environmental impacts towards a treatment for most scenarios. We also examined the various LCA stages
most effective scenario. Based on the inventory data, the environmental (goal and scope, life cycle inventory, life cycle impact assessment, and
impacts of the various scenarios are assessed using SimaPro software. interpretation) to identify methodological gaps which, besides the
The main goal is to estimate the lifecycle environmental impacts of the limited data availability, included a lack of studies on PW management
two management strategies under different scenarios (compositions). especially reuse options, lack of uncertainty analyses, lack of regional­
The quantified lifecycle environmental impacts can provide decision- ized site-specific characterization factors (CF) for non-developed impact
makers with interpretable feedback about the environmental perfor­ categories. The study concludes by proposing a systematic LCA-based
mance of PW management strategies while identifying the lowest im­ framework to address these gaps and improve the sustainable manage­
pacts. The functional unit is defined as the treatment/disposal of 10,000 ment of petroleum industrial waste-wastewater. Besides emphasizing
m3/day. Based on the specified functional unit, the required energy and the importance of incorporating produced water (PW) in future studies,
material flows for each strategy are calculated and inputted to the LCA the framework highlighted the necessity of regulatory compliance and
to obtain the environmental impact as an output. LCA will consider the institutional strengthening.
construction and operation phase of both strategies. In addition, the
system will be modelled according to Arabian Gulf region while
including transportation of materials. Disposal of sludge from the Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial

2
Resolution IV means estimates of the main effects are clear of each other interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
and 2-factor interactions. the work reported in this paper.

20
H.M. Al Zarkani et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 408 (2023) 137196

Data availability Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55 (12), 1222–1231. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.

RESCONREC.2011.05.016.
Harder, R., Heimersson, S., Svanström, M., Peters, G.M., 2014. Including pathogen risk in
Data included in the manuscript life cycle assessment of wastewater management. 1. Estimating the burden of disease
associated with pathogens. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48 (16), 9438–9445. https://doi.
Acknowledgements org/10.1021/ES501480Q/SUPPL_FILE/ES501480Q_SI_001.PDF.
Hashemi, F., Hashemi, H., Abbasi, A., Schreiber, M.E., 2022. Life cycle and economic
assessments of petroleum refineries wastewater recycling using membrane, resin and
Special thanks are extended to Khalifa University for its support to on site disinfection (UF-IXMB-MOX) processes. Process Saf. Environ. Protect. 162,
the PhD programs in Engineering. This study was partially funded by the 419–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PSEP.2022.04.027.
Heimersson, S., Harder, R., Peters, G.M., Svanström, M., 2014. Including pathogen risk in
Office of Internal Research through grant number 5776 FSU-2021-009. life cycle assessment of wastewater management. 2. Quantitative comparison of
pathogen risk to other impacts on human health. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48 (16),
References 9446–9453. https://doi.org/10.1021/ES501481M/SUPPL_FILE/ES501481M_SI_
001.PDF.
Hernández-Padilla, F., Margni, M., Noyola, A., Guereca-Hernandez, L., Bulle, C., 2017.
Ahmed, M.T., 2007. Life cycle assessment, a decision-making tool in wastewater
Assessing wastewater treatment in Latin America and the Caribbean: enhancing life
treatment facilities. NATO Secur. Sci. Series C.: Environ. Secur. 305–314. https://
cycle assessment interpretation by regionalization and impact assessment sensibility.
doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6027-4_30/COVER.
J. Clean. Prod. 142, 2140–2153. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2016.11.068.
AlEdan, A.B., Erfani, T., 2023. Sustainable produced water supply chain design and
Hu, G., Feng, H., He, P., Li, J., Hewage, K., Sadiq, R., 2020. Comparative life-cycle
optimisation: trading-off the economic cost and environmental impact in Kuwait oil
assessment of traditional and emerging oily sludge treatment approaches. J. Clean.
company. J. Clean. Prod. 391 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136185.
Prod. 251, 119594 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2019.119594.
Elsevier Ltd.
Hu, G., Li, J., Zeng, G., 2013. Recent development in the treatment of oily sludge from
Amrouche, F., Gomari, S.R., Islam, M., Donglai, X., 2019. New insights into the
petroleum industry: A review. J. Hazard Mater. 261, 470–490. https://doi.org/10.10
application of a magnetic field to enhance oil recovery from oil-wet carbonate
16/J.JHAZMAT.2013.07.069.
reservoirs. Energy Fuel. 33 (11), 10602–10610. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.
Hu, G., Liu, H., Rana, A., Li, J., Bikass, S., Hewage, K., Sadiq, R., 2021. Life cycle
energyfuels.9b02296.
assessment of low-temperature thermal desorption-based technologies for drill
Amrouche, F., Xu, D., Short, M., Iglauer, S., Vinogradov, J., Blunt, M.J., 2022.
cuttings treatment. J. Hazard Mater. 401, 123865 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
Experimental study of electrical heating to enhance oil production from oil-wet
JHAZMAT.2020.123865.
carbonate reservoirs. Fuel 324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2022.124559.
Hwm, N., Tukker, A., 1999. Life cycle assessments for waste, part I: overview,
Azetsu-Scott, K., Yeats, P., Wohlgeschaffen, G., Dalziel, J., Niven, S., Lee, K., 2007.
methodology and scoping process. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 4 (5), 275–281. https://
Precipitation of heavy metals in produced water: influence on contaminant transport
doi.org/10.1007/BF02979180, 1999 4:5.
and toxicity. Mar. Environ. Res. 63 (2), 146–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
Ismail, A.R., Alias, A.H., Sulaiman, W.R.W., Jaafar, M.Z., Ismail, I., 2017. Drilling fluid
MARENVRES.2006.08.001.
waste management in drilling for oil and gas wells. Chem. Eng. Trans. 56,
Bai, S., Wang, X., Zhang, X., Zhao, X., Ren, N., 2017. Life cycle assessment in wastewater
1351–1356. https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1756226.
treatment: influence of site-oriented normalization factors, life cycle impact
ISO (International Organization for Standardization) 14040 Series, 2004. Life cycle
assessment methods, and weighting methods. RSC Adv. 7 (42), 26335–26341.
assessment: best practices. https://www.apec.org/Publications/2004/02/Life-Cycle-
https://doi.org/10.1039/C7RA01016H.
Assessment-Best-Practices-of-International-Organization-for-Standardization-ISO-
Ball, A.S., Stewart, R.J., Schliephake, K., 2012. A review of the current options for the
14040-Ser.
treatment and safe disposal of drill cuttings. Waste Manag. Res.: J. Int. Solid Waste.
Jafarinejad, S., 2017. Introduction to the petroleum industry. Petrol. Waste Treat. Pollut.
Publ. Cleansing Assoc. ISWA 30 (5), 457–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/
Control. 1–17 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809243-9.00001-8.
0734242X11419892.
Jafarinejad, S., Jiang, S.C., 2019. Current technologies and future directions for treating
Castillo Santiago, Y., Martínez González, A., Venturini, O.J., Sphaier, L.A., Ocampo
petroleum refineries and petrochemical plants (PRPP) wastewaters. J. Environ.
Batlle, E.A., 2022. Energetic and environmental assessment of oil sludge use in a
Chem. Eng. 7 (5), 103326 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JECE.2019.103326.
gasifier/gas microturbine system. Energy 244, 123103. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
Jain, M., Majumder, A., Ghosal, P.S., Gupta, A.K., 2020. A review on treatment of
ENERGY.2022.123103.
petroleum refinery and petrochemical plant wastewater: a special emphasis on
Chiavico, M., Cova, C.A., Buffagni, M., Pavanel, E., Pedullà, M., Florio, M., 2020.
constructed wetlands. J. Environ. Manag. 272 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
Comparative analysis of alternative solutions for produced water management in
JENVMAN.2020.111057.
offshore environment based on life cycle assessment and biodiversity impact
Kaur, G., Mandal, A.K., Nihlani, M.C., Lal, B., 2009. Control of sulfidogenic bacteria in
assessment. In: Society of Petroleum Engineers - SPE International Conference &
produced water from the Kathloni oilfield in northeast India. Int. Biodeterior.
Exhibition on Health. Safety, Environment, & Sustainability 2020, HSE and
Biodegrad. 63 (2), 151–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IBIOD.2008.07.008.
Sustainability 2020. https://doi.org/10.2118/199431-MS.
Kobayashi, Y., Ashbolt, N.J., Davies, E.G.R., Liu, Y., 2020. Life cycle assessment of
Chow, Y.N., Foo, K.Y., 2022. Life-cycle Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis of
decentralized greywater treatment systems with reuse at different scales in cold
Petroleum Industry Wastewater Treatment. Petroleum Industry Wastewater,
regions. Environ. Int. 134 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVINT.2019.105215.
pp. 205–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-85884-7.00005-9.
Larrey-Lassalle, P., Catel, L., Roux, P., Rosenbaum, R.K., Lopez-Ferber, M., Junqua, G.,
Corominas, L., Foley, J., Guest, J.S., Hospido, A., Larsen, H.F., Morera, S., Shaw, A.,
Loiseau, E., 2017. An innovative implementation of LCA within the EIA procedure:
2013a. Life cycle assessment applied to wastewater treatment: State of the art. Water
lessons learned from two Wastewater Treatment Plant case studies. Environ. Impact
Res. 47 (15), 5480–5492. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WATRES.2013.06.049.
Assess. Rev. 63, 95–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EIAR.2016.12.004.
Corominas, L., Byrne, D.M., Guest, J.S., Hospido, A., Roux, P., Shaw, A., Short, M.D.,
Lise Torp, A., Pettersen, J., 2014. Life Cycle Assessment of Wastewater Treatment for Oil
2020. The application of life cycle assessment (LCA) to wastewater treatment: a best
and Gas Operations. Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
practice guide and critical review. Water Res. 184 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
Liu, Y., Lu, S., Yan, X., Gao, S., Cui, X., Cui, Z., 2020. Life cycle assessment of petroleum
WATRES.2020.116058.
refining process: a case study in China. J. Clean. Prod. 256, 120422 https://doi.org/
Ding, X., Li, H., Xiong, S., 2013. Life cycle inventory analysis of offshore drill cuttings
10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2020.120422.
management options. Adv. Mater. Res. 610–613, 1117–1120. https://doi.org/
Massam, K., Andrade, D., Mueller, F., 2013. Optimizing drilling waste treatment to meet
10.4028/WWW.SCIENTIFIC.NET/AMR.610-613.1117.
discharge criteria. In: Society of Petroleum Engineers - SPE Americas E and P Health,
Finnveden, G., Lindfors, L.G., 1996. On the nordic guidelines for life cycle assessment.
Safety, Security, and Environmental Conference 2013, pp. 402–413. https://doi.org/
Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 1 (1), 45–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978635, 1996 1:
10.2118/163785-MS.
1.
Morera, S., Santana, M.V.E., Comas, J., Rigola, M., Corominas, L., 2020. Evaluation of
Ekins, Paul, Vanner Robin, Firebrace, James, 2005. (PDF) Management of Produced
different practices to estimate construction inventories for life cycle assessment of
Water on Offshore Oil Installations: A Comparative Assessment Using Flow Analysis.
small to medium wastewater treatment plants. J. Clean. Prod. 245 https://doi.org/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237565412_Management_of_Produc
10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2019.118768.
ed_Water_on_Offshore_Oil_Installations_A_Comparative_Assessment_Using_Flow_Anal
Muñoz, I., Aktürk, A.S., Ayyıldız, Ö., Çağlar, Ö., Meabe, E., Contreras, S., Toscano, A.,
ysis.
Torné, V., Llopart, N., San Romà, C., Ferrer, O., Jiménez-Banzo, A., 2020. Life cycle
Elektorowicz, M., Habibi, S., 2005. Sustainable waste management: recovery of fuels
assessment of wastewater reclamation in a petroleum refinery in Turkey. J. Clean.
from petroleum sludge. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 32 (1), 164–169. https://doi.org/10.1139/
Prod. 268, 121967 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2020.121967.
L04-122.
Muralikrishna, I.v., Manickam, V., 2017. Life Cycle Assessment. Environmental
Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M.Z., Ekvall, T., Guinée, J., Heijungs, R., Hellweg, S.,
Management, pp. 57–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811989-1.00005-1.
Koehler, A., Pennington, D., Suh, S., 2009. Recent developments in life cycle
Murungi, P.I., Sulaimon, A.A., 2022. Petroleum sludge treatment and disposal
assessment. J. Environ. Manag. 91 (1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
techniques: a review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 29 (27) https://doi.org/10.1007/
JENVMAN.2009.06.018.
S11356-022-19614-Z.
Gallego-Schmid, A., Tarpani, R.R.Z., 2019. Life cycle assessment of wastewater treatment
Niero, M., Pizzol, M., Bruun, H.G., Thomsen, M., 2014. Comparative life cycle assessment
in developing countries: a review. Water Res. 153, 63–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/
of wastewater treatment in Denmark including sensitivity and uncertainty analysis.
J.WATRES.2019.01.010.
J. Clean. Prod. 68, 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2013.12.051.
Ghazi, M., Quaranta, G., Duplay, J., Hadjamor, R., Khodja, M., Amar, H.A., Kessaissia, Z.,
Nouri, J., Nouri, N., Moeeni, M., 2012. Development of industrial waste disposal
2011. Life-Cycle Impact Assessment of oil drilling mud system in Algerian arid area.
scenarios using life-cycle assessment approach. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 9 (3),
417–424. https://doi.org/10.1007/S13762-012-0076-0.

21
H.M. Al Zarkani et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 408 (2023) 137196

Okiemute, A., Brattebø, H., 2015. Life Cycle Assessment of Slop Water Management in Strømgren, T., Sørstrøm, S.E., Schou, L., Kaarstad, I., Aunaas, T., Brakstad, O.G.,
Challenging Offshore Drilling Operations. Norwegian University of Science and Johansen, 1995. Acute toxic effects of produced water in relation to chemical
Technology. composition and dispersion. Mar. Environ. Res. 40 (2), 147–169. https://doi.org/
Padilla-Rivera, A., Güereca, L.P., 2019. A proposal metric for sustainability evaluations 10.1016/0141-1136(94)00143-D.
of wastewater treatment systems (SEWATS). Ecol. Indicat. 103, 22–33. https://doi. Teodosiu, C., Barjoveanu, G., Sluser, B.R., Popa, S.A.E., Trofin, O., 2016. Environmental
org/10.1016/J.ECOLIND.2019.03.049. assessment of municipal wastewater discharges: a comparative study of evaluation
Petri, I., Pereira, M.S., dos Santos, J.M., Duarte, C.R., Ataíde, C.H., Panisset, C.M. de Á., methods. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 21 (3), 395–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/
2015. Microwave remediation of oil well drill cuttings. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 134, S11367-016-1029-5, 2016 21:3.
23–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PETROL.2015.07.022. Tian, X., Song, Y., Shen, Z., Zhou, Y., Wang, K., Jin, X., Han, Z., Liu, T., 2020.
Petroleum refinery waste management and minimization, 2014. International petroleum A comprehensive review on toxic petrochemical wastewater pretreatment and
industry environmental conservation association. https://www.ipieca.org/resource advanced treatment. J. Clean. Prod. 245 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
s/good-practice/petroleum-refinery-waste-management-and-minimization/. JCLEPRO.2019.118692.
Pettersen, J., 2007. (5) overall evaluation of offshore drilling fluid technology: Tukker, A., TNO Strategie, T. en B., 1999. A comparison of thermal treatment processes
development and application of life- cycle inventory and impact assessment methods for hazardous waste: strategic EIA for the Dutch national hazardous waste
| request PDF. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277758661_Overall_Eva management plan 1997- 2007. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 4 (6), 341. https://doi.org/
luation_of_Offshore_Drilling_Fluid_Technology_Development_and_Application_of_Life 10.1007/BF02978525.
-_cycle_Inventory_and_Impact_Assessment_Methods. UNEP, 2002. Environmental Impact Assessment Training Resource Manual This Is the
Pintilie, L., Torres, C.M., Teodosiu, C., Castells, F., 2016. Urban wastewater reclamation Second Edition of the EIA Training Resource Manual Prepared by. The Institute of
for industrial reuse: an LCA case study. J. Clean. Prod. 139, 1–14. https://doi.org/ Environmental Management and Assessment Centre for Environmental Assessment
10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2016.07.209. and Management United Nations Environment Programme UNEP. http://www.un
Puiseux, A., Guillou, A., Merzi, T., 2020. Overview of drill cuttings management options ep.ch/etu.
through modeling, monitoring and life cycle assessment. In: Society of Petroleum Veltman, K., Huijbregts, M.A.J., Rye, H., Hertwich, E.G., 2011. Including impacts of
Engineers - SPE International Conference and Exhibition on Health. Safety, particulate emissions on marine ecosystems in life cycle assessment: the case of
Environment, and Sustainability 2020, HSE and Sustainability 2020. https://doi.org/ offshore oil and gas production. Integrated Environ. Assess. Manag. 7 (4), 678–686.
10.2118/199403-MS. https://doi.org/10.1002/IEAM.246.
Rincón, J., Cañizares, P., García, M.T., Gracia, I., 2003. Regeneration of used lubricant Vlasopoulos, N., Memon, F.A., Butler, D., Murphy, R., 2006. Life cycle assessment of
oil by propane extraction. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 42 (20), 4867–4873. https://doi.org/ wastewater treatment technologies treating petroleum process waters. Sci. Total
10.1021/IE030013W. Environ. 367 (1), 58–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2006.03.007.
Ronquim, F.M., Sakamoto, H.M., Mierzwa, J.C., Kulay, L., Seckler, M.M., 2020. Eco- Wei, W., Larrey-Lassalle, P., Faure, T., Dumoulin, N., Roux, P., Mathias, J.-D., 2014. How
efficiency analysis of desalination by precipitation integrated with reverse osmosis to conduct a proper sensitivity analysis in life cycle assessment: taking into account
for zero liquid discharge in oil refineries. J. Clean. Prod. 250, 119547 https://doi. correlations within LCI data and interactions within the LCA calculation model. http
org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2019.119547. s://doi.org/10.1021/es502128k.
Sakamoto, H., Ronquim, F.M., Martins Seckler, M., Kulay, L., 2019. Environmental Wongsirathat, C., Chavalparit, O., 2014. Utilization of sulfur waste from petroleum
performance of effluent conditioning systems for reuse in oil refining plants: a case refinery for sulfur concrete. Adv. Mater. Res. 856, 113–117. https://doi.org/
study in Brazil. Energies 12 (2), 326. https://doi.org/10.3390/EN12020326. Page 10.4028/WWW.SCIENTIFIC.NET/AMR.856.113.
326, 12. World Bank, 2013. Strategic environmental assessment. https://www.worldbank.org/
Saleem, S., Hu, G., Li, J., Hewage, K., Sadiq, R., 2022. Evaluation of offshore oil spill en/topic/environment/brief/strategic-environmental-assessment.
response waste management strategies: a lifecycle assessment-based framework. Zang, Y., Li, Y., Wang, C., Zhang, W., Xiong, W., 2015. Towards more accurate life cycle
J. Hazard Mater. 432 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JHAZMAT.2022.128659. assessment of biological wastewater treatment plants: a review. J. Clean. Prod. 107,
Shrivastava, S., Unnikrishnan, S., 2019. Review of life cycle assessment and 676–692. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2015.05.060.
environmental impacts from the oil & gas sector. https://doi.org/10.4172/2472-051 Zepon Tarpani, R.R., Azapagic, A., 2018. Life cycle environmental impacts of advanced
8.1000164. wastewater treatment techniques for removal of pharmaceuticals and personal care
Siddiqui, T.F., 2015. Environmental pollution in petroleum refineries. https://www. products (PPCPs). J. Environ. Manag. 215, 258–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
academia.edu/11539285/ENVIRONMENTAL_POLLUTION_IN_PETROLEUM JENVMAN.2018.03.047.
_REFINERIES.

22