DOCSLIB.ORG

Flare Efficiency & Emissions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Flare Efficiency & Emissions Flare Efficiency & Emissions: Past & current research Matthew Johnson, Ph.D., P.Eng. Canada Research Chair in Energy & Combustion Generated Air Emissions, Associate Professor Carleton University Ottawa, ON, CANADA The Ubiquitous Gas Flare • What are flare efficiencies? What is emitted? How can we quantify? • Can we model emissions to support GGFR related initiatives & economic opportunities? -2- Emissions from flares • “Flare efficiency” (Carbon conversion efficiency): ofMass CarbonConverted to CO η = 2 ofMass OriginallyCarbon as Fuel • Speciated emissions: – Key greenhouse gases • CH4, CO2 – Priority pollutants • Soot (carbon based PM), SO2, NOx • Soot has recently been implicated as a key climate forcer (e.g. Ramanathan & Carmichael, 2008; IPCC AR4, 2007) – Minor species • Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) -3- Flow Regimes of Flares 2 2 • Two very different regimes (R = ρjVj / ρ∞U∞ ): – High R, “lifted jet flames”; Low R, “wake-stabilized flames” • Primarily have been interested in solution gas flares, low R • Highly variable among installations • Solution gas flares account for 60-70% of flaring in Alberta -4- Early Research on Flaring • Limited scientific understanding of this flow • Brzustowski (1976) – general description but no consideration of emissions • Seigel (1980) – Ph.D. thesis looking at single point sampling from industrial size flares with & without steam • Pohl et al. (1986) – EPA study of emergency scale flares in quiescent conditions • Limited other studies using single point sampling • Most previous attempts were focused solely on large scale, high-momentum flares – Very limited exploration of crosswind effects – No accepted efficiency models -5- Quantifying Flare Efficiency • Accumulate emissions from combusting jets in a closed-loop windtunnel • Test scaled-down flares (1/8 - 1/2 scale) while varying multiple flow parameters 5.5 Detailed methodology: Bourguignon et al., 22.6 Combustion & Flame, 1998. M MAIN 7.3 IXIN F G FAN ANS 2.4 1.2 SAMPLE POINT FLARE -6- Windtunnel Experiments at U of A -7- Larger scale testing at NRC • Full-scale solution gas flares • “Small scale” emergency / production flares -8- Quantifying Flare Efficiency Focus was on solution gas flaring •Low momentum • Flares typically 3-8” diameter • Typical volumes of up to ~106 m3 per year (<2000 SLPM) • Variable composition • ~60-70% of flaring/venting in Alberta, Canada Methodology • Mass balance on combustion products • Closed-loop windtunnel testing as well as multipoint sampling in large open-loop windtunnel • 1” to 4” scale flares -9- Flare efficiency in a crosswind 12.0 Lab-flares burning Natural Gas, 25mm Dia. 11.0 sales-grade natural gas Vj 0.5 m/s 10.0 Vj 1.0 m/s Vj 2.0 m/s 9.0 • (In)efficiency is Vj 4.0 m/s ) (%) 8.0 strongly dependent on η crosswind speed 7.0 • Previous research, 6.0 Pohl et al. (1986), 5.0 Seigel (1980), only 4.0 looked at zero 3.0 Inefficiency, (1- crosswind case 2.0 • Analysis shows 1.0 inefficiencies primarily 0.0 \EffTests\EN0D-Poster1.GRF un-burned fuel + CO 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 Crosswind Speed, U (m/s) -10- Flare efficiency in a crosswind 12 Initial Steps toward Natural Gas 11 efficiency models do=24.7 mm V 0.5 m/s 10 j • Can correlate velocity Vj 1.0 m/s 9 V 2.0 m/s j dependencies with (%) V 4.0 m/s 1/3 η) 8 j parameter U∞ / Vj (1- • Parameter can be 7 related to a 6 Richardson number 5 and non- 4 dimensionalized as 3 1/3 U∞ / (g Vj d) Flare Inefficiency, 2 1 0 IR-J99-EDNXX-UV13.GRF 024681012 Johnson & Kostiuk, Combustion 1/3 2/3 & Flame 123:189-200 (2000) U∞ / Vj (m/s) -11- Energy Density & Efficiency Identification of critical 36 Propane, do=24.7 mm, Vj = 2m/s role of heating value on 0% Diluent, 94.5/87.0 MJ/m3 32 20% Diluent, 75.2/69.3 MJ/m3 flare efficiency ))))) ηηηηη 40% Diluent, 56.2/51.7 MJ/m3 1-1-1-1-1- 28 •Blends of propane 60% Diluent, 37.4/34.4 MJ/m3 and CO maintain 80% Diluent, 18.7/17.2 MJ/m3 2 24 constant mass Nitrogen Diluent Carbon Dioxide Diluent density while varying 20 energy density 16 • Can no longer explain this result in terms of 12 a simple Richardson number 8 Conversion Inefficiency, ( ( ( ( ( Conversion Inefficiency, Conversion Inefficiency, Conversion Inefficiency, Conversion Inefficiency, Conversion Inefficiency, 4 0 EDPXXCXXNXXV02UXXLAM-QORF.GRF Johnson & Kostiuk, Combustion 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 & Flame 123:189-200 (2000) U∞ (m/s) -12- Key Outcomes: Directive 60 36 Natural Gas / Diluent • Natural gas based do=24.7 mm, Vj = 2m/s flames seem more 32 0% Diluent, 37.5/33.8 MJ/m3 ) 3 susceptible to effects η 20% Diluent, 30.7/27.7 MJ/m 1- 28 40% Diluent, 23.2/20.9 MJ/m3 of added CO2 60% Diluent, 15.3/13.8 MJ/m3 24 • Curves are displaced 80% Diluent, 7.7/7.0 MJ/m3 upward as well as to 20 Nitrogen Diluent the left Carbon Dioxide Diluent 16 • Important result for industry which lead 12 directly to a 8 regulatory change in ( Inefficiency, Conversion Alberta via ERCB 4 Directive 60 EDNXXCXXNXXV02UXXLAM-QORF.GRF 0 0 2 4 6 8 10121416 U∞ (m/s) -13- “Fuel Stripping Mechanism” Zone 2: Non-reacting Junction Region Mixing Layer Unburned Fuel Region Zone 3: Axisymmetric Main Tail of Flame Zone 1: Recirculation • Interaction of wake and Zone shear layer vortices pulls unburned fuel through zone 2 of wake-stabilized flame Johnson et al., Comb. Sci. Tech 169:155-174 (2002) -14- Laser Sheet Imaging • Fuel jet is seeded with fine oil mist (~5 µm mass mean dia.) • Mie scattering of laser sheet illuminates unburned fuel (green) • Unburned fuel is drawn through “Zone 2” and ejected from the flame -15- Modelling Efficiency • Model seems to hold for 25000 Johnson/UofA data data at over factor of 8 Y=146.5e(0.175 X) Natural Gas, 1 in (26.9 mm) scaling 3 diameter Stack 20000 Natural Gas, 2 in (52.6 mm) • Natural gas correlates diameter Stack Natural Gas, 4 in (102.3mm) 1/2 better with do , but (MJ/kg) diameter Stack 15000 Y=59.8e(0.222X) strange units 3 ) 1/3 •C3H8 varies with do mass 10000 • Major result for simple LHV fuels and efficiency η)( 5000 • Key questions remain (1- for extending results to 0 GHG emissions factors 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 1/3 1/2 -1/6 U∞/((gVj) do ) (m) Johnson & Kostiuk, P. Comb. Inst. 29:1943-1950 (2002) -16- “Yearly Averaged Efficiency” • Useful to convert instantaneous efficiency at one wind- speed to meaningful “average” value • Concept of “Yearly Averaged Efficiency” and “Yearly Averaged GHG Equivalent Emission” – Statistically weighted average of efficiency taking into account widely varying wind conditions – Calculate using parametric data set and models ∞ P Uη =()(,,,) Uη V D HV dU ∫ ∞ ∞ j ∞ 0 where P(U∞) = probability dist. function of wind speed, U∞ η(U∞,D, Vj, HV,) = efficiency of flare as function of wind speed and operating parameters -17- Concept for GHG Quantification • Required data inputs: Flare Volumes / flow Flare exit velocities rates & diameters Statistical wind Flare efficiency speed distributions model (Met. stations) GHG Emission Emissions sub- in tonnes model Gas Composition CO2 Eq. Details (Site data) GWP / CO2 Equiv. Coefficients (IPCC) -18- Integration of Data & Model • Relational database • 9767 Battery sites that reported flaring and/or venting during Jan. 2002- Dec.2005 • Composition data from 2908 distinct locations • Detailed statistical wind speed data from 107 Environment Canada meteorological stations -19- Quantification of GHG Emissions • Major Results: # Yearly- GHG GHG Total # of flaring Gas. Gas Tot. averaged from from GHG Active or Flared Vented F+V efficiency flaring venting (tonnes 3 3 3 Year Btys venting (1000m ) (1000m ) (1000m ) (%) (tonnes) (tonnes) CO2 eq.) 2002 9427 6025 508349500990 500990 1009339 95.1 1091382 7877467 8968849 2003 9699 6255 412937378157 378157 791094 95.1 821682166666 5933247 6754913 2004 9864 6079 372903 355969.3 728877288722 94.9 766745 5553294 6320039 2005 9716 5531 375518291137 291137 666655 95.1 627962797878 4548395 5176373 • Total GHG emissions of 5.2 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent from flaring and venting at Alberta conventional oil batteries in 2005 (does not include well testing, gas plants etc.) -20- Summary of Flare Efficiency Research Key Outcomes to Date • Implementation of regulatory limits in ERCB Directive 60 (Alberta, Canada) – Adoption/adaptation of ERCB Directive results into World Bank Voluntary Standard for GGFR partnership • Identification of fuel stripping mechanism as primary cause for flare inefficiency • Development of semi-empirical model to predict efficiency in low heating value flares • Preliminary development of models to predict gas-phase GHG equivalent emissions -21- Summary of Flare Efficiency Research Some Challenges Ahead • Desire quantitative models based on realistic (e.g. multi- component) flare gas composition data – If national and international entities (World Bank & Methane to Markets) are to put a price on carbon / enable cap and trade, we need sufficiently accurate GHG models for flares • Soot (PM) and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) have not been quantified • High momentum flares (relevant to well test flaring, offshore flaring, etc.) largely unexplored -22- Brief Notes on Soot / PM Emissions • Accurately quantifying PM emissions from combustion is a significant engineering challenge • Formation exceedingly complex; entails: – Chemical composition of fuel – Turbulent mixing & diffusion of air and fuel species – Rate of heat transfer from flame – Residence time / temperature history through flame • No existing practical approaches for quantifying PM in plumes of flares -23- Current Research Initiatives Four interrelated projects: 1. Fundamental study of sooting propensity of binary fuel mixtures 2.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Gas Flaring Emission Contributes to Global Warming
    Département de Department of Civil and Environmental Génie Energétique et Environnement Engineering INSA Luleå University of Technology Lyon, France Luleå, Sweden Gas Flaring Emission Contributes to Global Warming Bruno GERVET Supervisor: Prof. Bo Nordell March 2007 Renewable Energy Research Group Division of Architecture and Infrastructure Luleå University of Technology SE-97187 Luleå, Sweden Gas Flaring Emission Contributes to Global Warming 1. Net Heat Generation from Gas Flaring 1.1. Background Although global warming is scientifically accepted, its cause is still disputed. Nordell (2003) suggested a most natural explanation; that this warming is a result of heat emissions from the global consumption of non-renewable energy. Global warming means that heat has been accumulating in air, ground, and water since 1880. During the same period heat was released into the atmosphere by heat dissipation from the global use of fossil fuel and nuclear power. Any such thermal pollution must contribute to the warming. A comparison of accumulated and emitted heat show that heat emissions explains 55% of the global warming. Moreover, the amount of emitted heat is underestimated, since the non-commercial use of fossil fuel is not included, e.g. gas flares, underground coal fires, oil used in production of plastics, and also biofuel (wood) consumed at a greater rate than the growth. Here, the task was to estimate the heating caused by one of the non-commercial energy sources, the flaring of gas. 1.2. Definition The flared gas is gas burnt off as unusable waste gas or flammable gas, which is released by pressure relief valves during unplanned over-pressuring of plant equipment.
    [Show full text]
  • The Economics of Natural Gas Flaring in US Shale
    Working Paper The Economics of Natural Gas Flaring in U.S. Shale: An Agenda for Research and Policy Mark Agerton, Ph.D. Nonresident Scholar, Center for Energy Studies, Baker Institute for Public Policy Assistant Professor, Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Davis Ben Gilbert, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Economics and Business, Colorado School of Mines Faculty Fellow, Payne Institute for Public Policy Gregory B. Upton Jr., Ph.D. Assistant Professor-Research Center for Energy Studies, Louisiana State University © 2020 by Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. This material may be quoted or reproduced without prior permission, provided appropriate credit is given to the author and the Baker Institute. Wherever feasible, papers are reviewed by outside experts before they are released. However, the research and views expressed in this paper are those of the individual researcher(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the Baker Institute for Public Policy. July 22, 2020 Abstract Flaring of natural gas associated with U.S. unconventional tight oil production is a significant environmental and policy issue for the sector. We marshal granular data to identify the bottlenecks in the oil and gas value chain that physically cause upstream flaring at the well. Motivated by this descriptive analysis, we further analyze the economic reasons for flaring, market distortions that could exacerbate it, and the cost to society of flaring. We lay out an agenda for researchers and policymakers charged with understanding and regulating flaring. ‡ 1 1 Introduction When and why do companies flare natural gas? In this paper, we lay out a research and policy agenda around natural gas flaring by U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Gas Flaring Reduction in the Indonesian Oil and Gas Sector – Technical and Economic Potential of Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Projects
    Gas Flaring Reduction in the Indonesian Oil and Gas Sector – Technical and Economic Potential of Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects Gustya Indriani HWWA-Report 253 Hamburgisches Welt-Wirtschafts-Archiv (HWWA) Hamburg Institute of International Economics 2005 ISSN 0179-2253 The HWWA is a member of: • Wissenschaftsgemeinschaft Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (WGL) • Arbeitsgemeinschaft deutscher wirtschaftswissenschaftlicher Forschungsinstitute (ARGE) • Association d‘Instituts Européens de Conjoncture Economique (AIECE) Gas Flaring Reduction in the Indonesian Oil and Gas Sector – Technical and Economic Potential of Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Projects Gustya Indriani I thank Dr. Axel Michaelowa of the Programme International Climate Policy for re- search supervision. The CDM Capacity Building Programme of GTZ provided travel funding for data collection in Indonesia. The report was submitted as Masters Thesis under the International Master Program in Environmental Engineering at Technical University of Hamburg-Harburg under the supervision of Prof. Dr. rer. Nat. Ulrich Förstner and Prof. Dr.-Ing. Wilfried Schneider. HWWA REPORT Editorial Board: Prof. Dr. Thomas Straubhaar Dr. Klaus Kwasniewski Dr. Konrad Lammers Dr. Eckhardt Wohlers Hamburgisches Welt-Wirtschafts-Archiv (HWWA) Hamburg Institute of International Economics Öffentlichkeitsarbeit Neuer Jungfernstieg 21 20347 Hamburg Phone: +49-040-428 34 355 Fax: +49-040-428 34 451 e-mail: hwwa@hwwa.de Internet: http://www.hwwa.de/ Gustya Indriani Gang Repeh-rapih no 28, Muararajeun Beun Bandung 40122, Indonesia Phone: +62 22 7207507 e-mail: gustya.indriani@nithh.de Abstract Indonesia currently ranks as the world’s 17th oil and 6th gas producer, but its production levels are slowly declining. In Indonesia, the oil companies may extract, process and market associated gas jointly with the State Oil and Gas Board.
    [Show full text]
  • Noaa 21009 DS1.Pdf
    Energy Strategy Reviews 20 (2018) 156e162 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Energy Strategy Reviews journal homepage: www.ees.elsevier.com/esr The potential role of natural gas flaring in meeting greenhouse gas mitigation targets * Christopher D. Elvidge a, , Morgan D. Bazilian b, Mikhail Zhizhin c, d, Tilottama Ghosh c, Kimberly Baugh c, Feng-Chi Hsu c a Earth Observation Group, NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, United States b Payne Institute, Colorado School of Mines, United States c Cooperative Institute for Research in the Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, United States d Russian Space Science Institute, Moscow, Russian Federation article info abstract Article history: In this paper, we compare 2015 satellite-derived natural gas (gas) flaring data with the greenhouse gas Received 2 May 2017 reduction targets presented by those countries in their nationally determined contributions (NDC) under Received in revised form the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Paris Agreement. Converting 22 December 2017 from flaring to utilization is an attractive option for reducing emissions. The analysis rates the potential Accepted 29 December 2017 role of reduction of gas flaring in meeting country-specific NDC targets. The analysis includes three Available online 8 March 2018 categories of flaring: upstream in oil and gas production areas, downstream at refineries and transport facilities, and industrial (e.g., coal mines, landfills, water treatment plants, etc.). Upstream flaring dom- Keywords: fl fl VIIRS inates with 90.6% of all aring. Global aring represents less than 2% of the NDC reduction target. fl fl Gas flaring However, most gas aring is concentrated in a limited set of countries, leaving the possibility that aring Nightfire reduction could contribute a sizeable portion of the NDC targets for specific countries.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Gas Flaring and Venting: State and Federal Regulatory Overview, Trends, and Impacts
    Office of Oil and Natural Gas Office of Fossil Energy Natural Gas Flaring and Venting: State and Federal Regulatory Overview, Trends, and Impacts June 2019 NATURAL GAS FLARING AND VENTING: STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATORY OVERVIEW, TRENDS, AND IMPACTS 1 Executive Summary The purpose of this report by the Office of Fossil that is permitted, as described in the “Analysis of Energy (FE) of the U.S. Department of Energy State Policies and Regulations” section of this report. (DOE) is to inform the states and other stakeholders Domestically, flaring has become more of an issue on natural gas flaring and venting regulations, the with the rapid development of unconventional, level and types of restrictions and permissions, tight oil and gas resources over the past two and potential options available to economically decades, beginning with shale gas. Unconventional capture and utilize natural gas, if the economics development has brought online hydrocarbon warrant. While it is unlikely that the flaring and resources that vary in their characteristics and limited venting of natural gas during production proportions of natural gas, natural gas liquids and and handling can ever be entirely eliminated, both crude oil. While each producing region flares gas for industry and regulators agree that there is value in various reasons, the lack of a direct market access developing and applying technologies and practices for the gas is the most prevalent reason for ongoing to economically recover and limit both practices. flaring. Economics can dictate that the more valuable FE’s objective is to accelerate the development of oil be produced and the associated gas burned modular conversion technologies that, when coupled (or reinjected) to facilitate that production.
    [Show full text]
  • Best Practices for the Reduction of Black Carbon and Methane
    December 2012 BEST PRACTICES FOR REDUCTION OF METHANE AND BLACK CARBON FROM ARCTIC OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................. i 1. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY.................................................................. 1 2. CH4 & BLACK CARBON EMISSIONS IN THE OIL AND GAS SECTOR....................... 2 3. GAS FLARING & VENTING....................................................................................... 3 3.1 INCREASE GAS UTILIZATION...................................................................................... 4 3.2 OPTIMIZE COMBUSTION CONDITIONS..................................................................... 6 3.3 REDUCE GAS VENTING.............................................................................................. 7 4. METHANE EMISSIONS............................................................................................. 8 4.1 DEHYDRATION AND FLOW ASSURANCE RELATED SOURCES..................................... 8 4.2 PNEUMATIC CONTROL DEVICES................................................................................ 10 4.3 STORAGE AND LOADING OF HYDROCARBON PRODUCTS......................................... 11 4.4 FUGITIVE METHANE EMISSIONS............................................................................... 15 4.5 CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSORS.................................................................................. 17 4.6 RECIPROCATING COMPRESSORS..............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Refinery Flaring in the Neighborhood
    Refinery Flaring in the Neighborhood Routine flaring in the San Francisco Bay Area, the need for new regulation and better environmental law enforcement, and the community campaign to get there A CBE Report Communities for a Better Environment, Spring 2004 Acknowledgements: CBE members deserve major recognition for carrying out the campaign described with- in, through their diligent and effective efforts to win environmental justice improve- ments in their communities around oil refineries. Many thanks to The East Bay Community Foundation,The Richard & Rhoda Goldman Foundation and The San Francisco Foundation for providing long-term funding of CBE’s oil industry pollution prevention work. Many thanks also to foundations providing sup- port for CBE’s program including The French American Charitable Trust,The Ford Foundation,The Funders’ Collaborative on Youth Organizing,The Homeland Foundation,The Nathan Cummings Foundation,The New World Foundation,The Rose Foundation,The Solidago Foundation, and The Unitarian Univeralist Veach Program at Shelter Rock. We also gratefully thank the many CBE individual members who have supported us for so long. Thanks to Steven Low, CBE Office Manager for securing permission to use key photos, to Adrienne Bloch, CBE Staff Attorney for ongoing and diligent evaluation of flaring issues, and to all CBE program staff for brainstorming on campaign strategy. Author & Research Visit CBE on the web: Julia May www.cbecal.org Former CBE Lead Scientist Review & Editing CBE Oakland Office Tina Cosentino & Carla Perez
    [Show full text]
  • 6. Associated Gas Production in Canada
    Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized GGFR Implementation Plan for Canadian Regulatory Authorities June 2008 The Canadian Regulatory Authorities supporting this document wish to recognize the generous financial support of the Government of Canada provided through the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) to the World Bank - Global Gas Flaring Reduction initiative. 2 Table of Contents 1. History of World Bank GGFR Initiative ...................................................................... 2 2. International Governmental Support............................................................................. 3 3. Environmental Regulation in Canada ........................................................................... 3 4. Endorsement by Canadian Regulatory Authorities....................................................... 4 5. Best Practice Sharing .................................................................................................... 5 6. Associated Gas Production in Canada .......................................................................... 6 7. Domestic and International Markets............................................................................. 7 8. Legal Framework.......................................................................................................... 8 9. Fiscal Framework.......................................................................................................... 9 10. Infrastructure
    [Show full text]
  • Failure Analysis of a Flare Tip Used in Offshore Production Platform in Qatar
    materials Article Failure Analysis of a Flare Tip Used in Offshore Production Platform in Qatar Elsadig Mahdi * and Ali Esmaeili Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, College of Engineering, Qatar University, 2713 Doha, Qatar; esmaeili.64@gmail.com * Correspondence: elsadigms@qu.edu.qa Received: 16 June 2020; Accepted: 28 July 2020; Published: 3 August 2020 Abstract: An immature failure of a gas flare tip used in Qatar oil and gas offshore industry was investigated throughout this study. The design lifetime of the flare was fifteen years; however, it manifested immature failure resulting in a reduction of its lifetime to ten years. The flare is composed of different parts where the upper flare body and wind deflector showed failure while other components were still healthy. The material used for the aforementioned failed parts was Incoloy 800H, which is a highly corrosion and high-temperature resistant steel alloy. The material was rolled up and welded together with different welding joints. The root cause of failure was identified by using chemical analysis and microstructural and mechanical characterizations. For the mechanical characterization, an optical microscope (OM) and scanning electron microscope (SEM) equipped with energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) analyses were used for the specimen extracted from the failed part in order to ensure that the material mentioned by the manufacturer demonstrated the same metallurgical properties. For the mechanical characterization, two sets of specimens were used, one close to the failure region and the other far from the failure area. The chemical analysis revealed that the material was truthfully Incoloy 800H. The mechanical examination results showed a significant reduction of mechanical properties, i.e., the ultimate tensile strength (UTS) and microhardness dropped by 44% and 41% for samples close and far from the failure regions, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Upstream Petroleum Industry Flaring Guide -XQH ALBERTA ENERGY and UTILITIES BOARD GUIDE SERIES
    *XLGH Upstream Petroleum Industry Flaring Guide -XQH ALBERTA ENERGY AND UTILITIES BOARD GUIDE SERIES Guide 60, first edition, published July 1999 Published by: Alberta Energy and Utilities Board 640 Fifth Avenue SW Calgary, Alberta T2P 3G4 Telephone: (403) 297-8311 Fascimile (403) 297-7336 ii &RQWHQWV 1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1 1.1 What’s New?................................................................................................1 1.2 Background..................................................................................................3 1.3 Flare Management Framework ....................................................................3 1.4 Flaring Management in Alberta ...................................................................4 1.5 Ongoing Research........................................................................................5 1.6 Regulation Changes .....................................................................................6 1.7 Access to Production and Flaring (S-2) Data...............................................6 1.8 Future Review and Changes ........................................................................6 1.9 Definitions ...................................................................................................6 2 SOLUTION GAS MANAGEMENT.......................................................................7 2.1 Schedule of Reducing Routine Solution Gas Flaring ..................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Flaring of Gas
    Flaring of gas Introduction In NSW conventional and unconventional gas is made up of several gases including methane, nitrogen and carbon dioxide. It also contains trace amounts of ethane, propane, butane, pentane, hexanes, octanes and other hydrocarbons. While the gas composition varies between sources, methane is the primary component, contributing between 95 and 99 percent of the extracted gas composition from coal seams in NSW. Gas activities in NSW may require flaring of gas during the assessment stage of a project where gas flow rates are determined, and during production activities. Why is gas flared? A gas flare is required for burning gas released during the assessment or production of gas and in other industrial activities. The primary reasons for flaring gas are: 1. to reduce the environmental impact of gases that otherwise would have been vented to the atmosphere. 2. to burn gas that cannot be used commercially 3. to burn gas that needs to be released for safety reasons. Types of flares There are two types of flare set-ups commonly used – enclosed and open flaring. Enclosed flare An enclosed flare surrounds the burner head with a refractory shell that is internally insulated. The shell helps to reduce noise, luminosity and heat radiation. Enclosed flares allow better combustion by maintaining temperature, air flow and more stable combustion conditions, maximising the conversion of methane to carbon. Open flare Open flaring occurs from a vertical pipe which typically has a diffuser attached to the end to promote gas combustion. Open flares have a high gas flow capacity compared with enclosed flares.
    [Show full text]
  • GLOBAL GAS Public Disclosure Authorized FLARINGFLARING
    GLOBAL GAS Public Disclosure Authorized FLARINGFLARING REDUCTION INITIATIVE Public Disclosure Authorized REPORT ON CONSULTATIONS WITH STAKEHOLDERS Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized World Bank Group in collaboration with the Government of Norway This volume is a product of the staff of the World Bank, and the judgments made herein do not necessarily reflect the views of its Board of Executive Directors or the countries they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accepts no responsibility whatsoever for any consequence of their use. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this volume do not imply on the part of the World Bank any judgment on the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................. 1 2 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................ 6 3 DOES FLARING CONSTITUTE A PROBLEM? ....................................... 8 3.1 The nature of flaring.................................................................................... 8 3.2 National policies and corporate strategies ............................................... 10 3.3 Size and location of flaring........................................................................ 14 4 CONSTRAINTS AND SOLUTIONS..........................................................
    [Show full text]