Nature can heal itself after an oil spill, it just needs a little help

July 18, 2018 by Steven D Siciliano, The Conversation
A freight train curves past a line of waiting tanker cars in California. Credit: Shutterstock

Moving oil across the Rockies is dangerous.

No matter the safety precautions, spills will sometimes occur. Cleaning the soil afterwards is difficult, expensive and time-consuming.

If you don't clean the soil, the gas and oil will move from the soil and pollute nearby streams, rivers and lakes. Site owners often resort to digging up soil and dumping it an landfill.

The digging approach is hugely destructive. Above-ground buildings and plants are destroyed to dig massive holes in the ground. The contaminated soil is hauled to a treatment facility or, more commonly, a secure landfill.

Companies, government and the public like digging because it solves the local problem with a week or two of intensive activity. It's also a visible commitment by the company and the government to manage the environment.

What people don't see is the environmental damage caused by removing the foundation of an ecosystem —the soil. They also don't see the dangers to the workers and communities as toxic soil is moved through their towns and communities on the way to a landfill.

Time and patience

As we see in other spheres, individuals promoting simple solutions to complex problems are often lauded. But ecology is complex and it's subtle. And the quick way to do things is often the wrong way to do things.

Instead, why not nudge the natural soil ecosystem to clean itself?

"In situ" remediation of an oil or gas spill —doing it on site —is not difficult, but there is a delicate art to achieving success.

Soil bacteria and fungi will naturally degrade oil and gas if they have two things: fertilizer and energy.

A mixture of nitrate and phosphate agricultural fertilizers used at very low concentrations is usually enough to meet the first requirement. For energy, bacteria use fertilizers like nitrate, iron or sulfate.

The combination of these energy sources, along with the naturally occurring oxygen, provides the bacteria and fungi all they need to degrade almost all of the oil or gas —as long as the temperature is above freezing.

By adding a bit of this mixture over a few years, polluted soils will often restore themselves. Depending on where you are, this can be easy, if the soil is sandy, or very difficult, if the site is full of clay.

Restoration over remediation

Most surface spills —from gas stations with leaking tanks or at facilities where oil and gas may be transferred between vehicles —typically only pollute the upper six to eight metres of soil. There are plenty of natural organisms there ready to degrade these pollutants, and plenty of engineering solutions to get the nutrients to these organisms.

The soil and ecosystem can heal itself over time if you've given it the right ingredients. It's not unlike baking a cake: mixing the right proportions of the right ingredients and giving it time to bake.

For example, slowly injecting low concentrations of fertilizers into an urban soil site degraded the gasoline.

We've done this at six sites in Saskatchewan that have been polluted for over 20 years. We added very small amounts of fertilizers at a slow and steady pace across the sites for the past three years.

After only two years, the amount of gasoline in the soil has been reduced by 90 per cent at all of the sites. Groundwater concentrations of gasoline are close to background levels in the nearby environment. We're now adapting this approach for use in northern territories and provincial areas.

But in situ remediation does take longer. A typical project will last two to four years —and, sometimes, it doesn't work, which can add to the timeline or cost.

Risk, tricks and money

In situ remediation is not widely used because many companies feel it carries business risks and strains relationships.

From an accounting perspective, it's better for a company to postpone an expense, like cleaning a site, thanks to the "discount rate."

For example, spending $100,000 in the first year of an in situ remediation project and then monitoring it at a cost of $40,000 per year for the next three years is more expensive than spending $300,000 in the fifth year to dig up the site after the regulatory pressure has become too great.

This accounting trick only works if the accounting team then ignores the remainder of the site liabilities a company holds, or assumes that they will clean up the site over a very long time frame so that the magic of discount rates can make their environmental liability manageable.

The second risk is a relationship risk. Digging up is 100 per cent effective because it is possible to excavate directly to the property line, install a geo-technical membrane to stop pollutants from migrating. Although there is only limited data so far, in situ remediation is not 100 per cent effective.

It's easy to see why senior leadership teams often vote for the 100 per cent effective solution and then, using the right discount rate, their accounting teams can make it seem cheaper. This way, companies can assure the public, government and shareholders that the remediation plans will work.

Lower costs

Yet in situ remediation can be far less pricey than excavation.

"Dig and dump," as it is often called, can cost $150 per cubic yard of soil or more ($300 per cubic yard) in remote areas. Others have found even higher costs. The pricetag for in situ remediation, on the other hand, can be as little as $20 to $80 per cubic yard.

In addition, in situ remediation does not require the demolition of buildings or forests. Often only a small cargo container is all that's needed to distribute the fertilizer and to a of 10,000 square metres for three years.

Such a small and portable option makes in situ remediation a promising technology for sites located along pipelines, railways or highways in the Rockies.

While much attention is focused on the disastrous potential of spills into the tidewater, mountainous terrain is sensitive and difficult to preserve. There's real potential for spills on land, but in situ remediation can mitigate those risks and help nature heal itself.

Explore further: Using organic waste to fight soil contamination by heavy metals

Related Stories

Restoring contaminated soil

February 6, 2013

Land contaminated with substances in or under the land can be potentially hazardous to health or the environment. However, in many cases there is minimal risk from living or working on contaminated ground and many c sites ...

Five ways scientists can make soil less dirty

May 24, 2016

It may be hard to imagine, but soil gets dirty. Soil can become contaminated with oil, grease, heavy metals or pesticides through urban and agricultural runoff as well as industrial spills or precipitation.

Faster groundwater remediation with thermal storage

December 9, 2015

Aquifer thermal energy storage (ATES) is more than a renewable energy source. The storage and extraction of heat and cold can remediate polluted groundwater ten times faster than existing technologies. PhD candidate Zhuobiao ...

Recommended for you

Oceans of garbage prompt war on plastics

December 15, 2018

Faced with images of turtles smothered by plastic bags, beaches carpeted with garbage and islands of trash floating in the oceans, environmentalists say the world is waking up to the need to tackle plastic pollution at the ...

A damming trend

December 14, 2018

Hundreds of dams are being proposed for Mekong River basin in Southeast Asia. The negative social and environmental consequences—affecting everything from food security to the environment—greatly outweigh the positive ...

Data from Kilauea suggests the eruption was unprecedented

December 14, 2018

A very large team of researchers from multiple institutions in the U.S. has concluded that the Kilauea volcanic eruption that occurred over this past summer represented an unprecedented volcanic event. In their paper published ...

The long dry: global water supplies are shrinking

December 13, 2018

A global study has found a paradox: our water supplies are shrinking at the same time as climate change is generating more intense rain. And the culprit is the drying of soils, say researchers, pointing to a world where drought-like ...

Death near the shoreline, not life on land

December 13, 2018

Our understanding of when the very first animals started living on land is helped by identifying trace fossils—the tracks and trails left by ancient animals—in sedimentary rocks that were deposited on the continents.


Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.