NORM Issues in Oil and Gas Exploration

Ask the Experts Webinar Series
August 4th, 2011
1:30pm EST

With radiation in space and beneath the surface of the earth, we live our lives in peace and harmony with our environment while surrounded by radiation. However, what risks do we take when we drill into the earth's surface for precious natural resources such as shale oil and gas?

Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM) as well as a variety of radioactive elements are present within the earth's crust at a relatively shallow depth. When drilling and mining exploration activities take place, these radioactive elements enter our waste streams and present challenges for the operators and regulators alike.

Register Now for the presentation

Calculation of a Metals Oxide Compound using a Metals Analysis

Ask the Expert Question:
Can an Oxide of a metal (i.e. Barium Oxide) be determined by running a metals analysis for barium and then using a calculation to get barium oxide?

Experts Response:
The calculation is pretty straightforward, but it does involve some assumptions.

We will start with the example you cited with barium. Barium has an atomic weight of 137.34, and it normally has an oxidation state of +2. It is one of the alkaline earth metals in the second column of the periodic table, and all of these metals tend to have an oxidation state of +2. In minerals oxygen always has an oxidation state of -2. As a result, one barium atom will combine with one oxygen atom to create barium oxide, BaO. Barium oxide has a molecular weight of 137.34 + 16 (for the oxygen) which equals 153.34. If we assume that all the barium is in the oxide form, then the barium oxide concentration is as follows.

Ba concentration x (153.34/137.34) = BaO concentration

This case is pretty straightforward. With iron, however, you also end up making an assumption about the oxidation state of the metal. You could have Fe in either the +2 or +3 state. The resulting oxides would either be FeO (is Fe is in the +2 state) or Fe2O3 (if Fe is in the +3 state.). If you are calculating these as oxides, I think it is reasonable to assume that the metals are fully oxidized, so we will use the +3 state.

For iron, we will calculate the ratio of the molecular weight of Fe2O3 over the amount of iron in each molecule (2 atoms). Iron has an atomic weight of 55.847.

Molecular weight of Fe2O3 = (2 x 55.847) + (3 x 16) = 150.694

Weight of iron = 2 x 55.847 = 111.694

So, like the barium example above, here is the calculation to determine the amount of Fe2O3 based on the measured Fe concentration.

Fe concentration x (150.694 / 111.694) = Fe2O3 concentration

NOTE: These calculations would present the maximum possible concentration of barium oxide – for example if the sample contained barium sulfate or barium carbonate (or any other form of barium) then the concentration of barium oxide would be overstated.

View Dr. Charlie Carter's expert profile
View Dr. Richard Burrow's expert profile

Analysis of Flue Gas Desulfurization wastewaters b y Agilent 7700x ICP-MS

Application Note

Authors:
Richard Burrows – TestAmerica Laboratories Inc. USA
Steve Wilbur – Agilent Technologies Inc. USA

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is in the process of revising effluent guidelines for the steam electric power generating industry, due to increases in wastewater discharges as a result of Phase 2 of the Clean Air Act amendments. These regulations require SO2 scrubbing for most coal-fired plants resulting in “Flue Gas Desulfurization” (FGD) wastewaters. The revised effluent guidelines will apply to plants “primarily engaged in the generation of electricity for distribution and sale which results primarily from a process utilizing fossil-type fuel (coal, oil or gas) or nuclear fuel in conjunction with a thermal cycle employing the steam water system as a thermodynamic medium. “ [1]. This includes most large scale power plants in the United States. Effluents from these plants, especially coal-fired plants, can contain several hundred to several thousand ppm of calcium, magnesium, manganese, sodium, boron, chloride, nitrate and sulfate. Measurement of low ppb levels of toxic metals (including As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb Se, Tl, V and Zn) in this matrix presents a challenge for ICP-MS, due to the very high dissolved solids levels and potential interferences from matrix-based polyatomic ions. Furthermore, FGD wastewater can vary significantly from plant to plant depending on the type and capacity of the boiler and scrubber, the type of FGD process used, and the composition of the coal, limestone and make-up water used. As a result, FGD wastewater represents the most challenging of samples for ICP-MS; it is very high in elements known to cause matrix interferences, and also highly variable. To address this difficult analytical challenge, in 2009 the EPA commissioned the development of a new ICP-MS method specifically for FGD wastewaters. This method was developed and validated at TestAmerica Laboratories Inc. using an Agilent 7700x ICP-MS equipped with an Agilent ISIS-DS discrete sampling system.

Review the White Paper on this new method here >>>>

Petroleum Biomarker Analysis to Support Forensic and Risk Investigations

Ask the Expert Webinar Series
July 21, 2011
1:30pm EST

This presentation provides an introduction into the analytical methodologies used to detect petroleum biomarkers and a review of their utilization in supporting petroleum release forensics.

Nothing sparks concerns about contaminates in the environment quite like a petroleum release. Unfortunately, the events of 2010 served to heighten the awareness and need to have the capability to monitor and characterize the extent and breadth of the impact of these events.

Using Petroleum Biomarker analysis it is possible to accurately identify the source of contaminates back to the specific origin, as well as determining the absolute concentrations of priority pollutant PAHs. Both of these capabilities are important in assessing the human health risk and potential liability.

TestAmerica Laboratories has developed a suite of analytical methods to support petroleum release evaluations and the experience to analyze for petroleum biomarkers in all applicable matrices (water, soil/sediment, and bulk oils/waste).

Register Now for the presentation

What curve types are permitted by the EPA to generate calibration curves?

Ask the Expert Question:
We run several instruments like IC, ICP, GCMS, etc, for water analysis. What curve types are permitted (by EPA) to generate calibration curves. For example, EPA 300.1 ask for linear least squares fit. Can weighted models be use along with this?

Experts Response:
Tthe EPA method 300.1 does not allow any other calibration method other than linear regression. However, the EPA has been known to grant Alternative Test Protocol (ATP) status to use quadratic fit calibration models, but that is only granted on a case by case basis. You would need to apply for an ATP approval from EPA in order to use anything other than linear regression for method 300.1.

ICP, GCMS allow for linear regression models, as well as other calibration models. For GCMS it is most common to use Relative Percent Difference (RPD), weighted linear regression, and quadratic curves. I suggest that you read SW846 method 8000c for an explanation of the various calibration models acceptable for organic analysis.

View Ray Frderici's Expert profile here