flare stack purge gas calculation

8/18/2019 Flare Stack Purge Gas Calculation

1/22

May 2008


2/22

Disclaimer

This publication was prepared for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the GasProcessing Association Canada, the Alberta Department of Energy, the Alberta EnergyResources and Conservation Board, Small Explorers and Producers Association of Canada andNatural Resources Canada by CETAC-West. While it is believed that the information containedherein is reliable under the conditions and subject to the limitations set out, CETAC-West and thefunding organizations do not guarantee its accuracy. The use of this report or any informationcontained will be at the user’s sole risk, regardless of any fault or negligence of CETAC-West orthe sponsors.

Acknowledgements

This Fuel Gas Efficiency Best Management Practice Series was developed by CETAC WESTwith contributions from:

• Accurata Inc.

• Clearstone Engineering Ltd.

• RCL Environmental

• REM Technology Inc.

• Sensor Environmental Services Ltd.

• Sirius Products Inc.

• Sulphur Experts Inc.

• Amine Experts Inc.

• Tartan Engineering

CETAC-WEST is a private sector, not-for-profit corporation with a mandate to encourageadvancements in environmental and economic performance in Western Canada. The corporationhas formed linkages between technology producers, industry experts, and industry associates tofacilitate this process. Since 2000, CETAC-WEST has sponsored a highly successful eco-

efficiency program aimed at reducing energy consumption in the Upstream Oil and Gas Industry.

Head Office # 420, 715 - 5th Ave SWCalgary, AlbertaCanada T2P2X6Tel: (403) 777-9595Fax: (403) [email protected]


3/22

Table of Contents

1. Applicability and Objectives 1

2. Basic Improvement Strategies 2

3. Fuel Consumption Associated with Flaring 33.1 Pilot Gas3.2 Purge Gas3.3 Make-up Gas

4. Measuring Fuel Consumption 104.1 Fuel Metering4.2 Flare Metering

5. Reduction Opportunities 12 5.1 Extinguishing Pseudo-dormant Flares5.2 Reducing Pilot Gas Consumption5.3 Reducing Purge Gas Consumption5.4 Reducing Make-up Gas Consumption

6. Record-Keeping 16

7. References 17

Tables3.1 Average fuel gas consumption for energy efficient flare pilots 3.2 Typical minimum purge rates to avoid unsafe air infiltration

Figures

3.1 Typical schematic of a labyrinth style purge reduction seal3.2 Typical schematic of a baffle type purge reduction seal3.3 Minimum fuel gas to waste gas ratio required to attain a

combined net heating value of 20 MJ/m3


4/22

Background

The issue of fuel gas consumption is increasingly important to the oil and gasindustry. The development of this Best Management Practice (BMP) Module is

sponsored by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), theGas Processing Association Canada (GPAC), the Alberta Department of Energy,Small Explorers and Producers Association of Canada (SEPAC) NaturalResources Canada (NRC) and the Energy Resources and Conservation Board(ERCB) to promote the efficient use of fuel gas in flaring operations used in theupstream oil and gas sector. It is part of a series of 17 modules addressing fuelgas efficiency in a range of devices.

This BMP Module:

• identifies the typical impediments to achieving high levels of operating

efficiency with respect to fuel gas consumption,

• presents strategies for achieving cost effective improvements throughinspection, maintenance, operating practices and the replacement ofunderperforming components, and

• identifies technical considerations and limitations.

The aim is to provide practical guidance to operators for achieving fuel gasefficient operation while recognizing the specific requirements of individual flaringsystems and their service requirements.


5/22

EFFICIENT USE OF FUEL GASIN THE UPSTREAM OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY

MODULE 4 of 17: Flaring Operations

FIELD

5 . C h e

m i c a

l I n j e c

t i o n P u

m p s

1 . G a t h e

r i n g S y

s t e m s

6 . F i r e

d H e

a t e r s

4 . F l a r i n g

3 . P n e u m

a t i c I n

s t r u m

e n t s

2 . P u m

p j a c k s

7 . E n g i n e

s

1 0 . D e s i c c

a n t D

e h y d

r a t o

r s

8 . C o m

p r e s s i o

n

9 . G l y c

o l D e

h y d r a t o r s

1 1 . F u e l G

a s M e a

s u r e m e n t

SOUR GAS PLANTS

1 7 . A c i d

G a s

I n j e c

t i o n

1 5 . S u l p

h u r R

e c o v e r y

1 4 . A m i

n e

1 3 . R e f r

i g e r a t i o

n

1 2 . F r a c

t i o n a t i o

n

5 . C h e m i

c a l I n

j e c t i o

n P u

m p s

6 . F i r e d

H e a t e r s

4 . F l a r i n

g

3 . P n e u m

a t i c I n s t r u m

e n t s

7 . E n g i n

e s

1 0 . D e s i c

c a n t

D e h y d

r a t o r s

8 . C o m p

r e s s i o n

9 . G l y c o

l D e h y d

r a t o r s

1 1 . F u e l

G a s M

e a s u r e m e n t

1 6 . T a i l G

a s I n c i n

e r a t i o n

SWEET GAS PLANTS

1 3 . R e f r i g e r a t i o n

1 2 . F r a c t i o n a t i o n

5 . C h e

m i c a

l I n j e c

t i o n P u

m p s

6 . F i r e

d H e

a t e r s

4 . F l a r i n g

3 . P n e

u m a t i c I n s t r u m

e n t s

7 . E n g i n e

s

1 0 . D e s i c c

a n t D

e h y d

r a t o r s

8 . C o m

p r e s s i o

n

9 . G l y c

o l D e

h y d r a t o r s

1 1 . F u e l G

a s M e a

s u r e m e n t

1 6 . T a i l

G a s

I n c i n

e r a t i o n


6/22

Efficient Use of Fuel Gas in Flaring Operations Rev Date 27/05/2008Module 4 of 17 Page 1 of 17

1. Applicability and Objectives

This module provides guidance to operating staff to identify opportunities wheregas consumption associated with flaring operations can safely be reduced. Thedetermination of fuel gas efficiency in flaring is made by understanding the

sources of fuel gas use and making periodic assessments of performance andcomparing those with possible performance improvements.

Flares are designed to dispose of intermittent or continuous volumes ofcombustible gas which cannot economically be recovered or disposed of inanother manner. Although reducing the volume of waste gas which is disposedof by flaring has economic and environmental benefits, this is the topic of otherBMPs1 and will not be addressed here.

This module will focus on identifying opportunities for reducing fuel gasconsumption associated with operating flare systems. This includes fuel gas

used for operating flare pilots, purging the flare system and enriching waste gasstreams.

This module outlines the basic improvement strategies for reducing fuelconsumption in flaring and identifies sources of fuel consumption. Evaluation offlare performance using metering of waste gas and fuel consumption will bediscussed with consideration to the identification of potential reductionopportunities. The final objective of this module is to outline suggestions andprocesses to develop a reduction program.


7/22


2. Basic Improvement Strategy

The chief elements for achieving safe, effective and lasting reductions to fuelconsumption associated with flaring operations are: application of best availabletechnology, implementation of operating and management systems, and

corporate commitment.

Fuel consumption is often necessary to ensure the safe and reliable operation offlare systems. However, whenever it is economically and technically feasible todo so, fuel consumption should be minimized or eliminated. Achieving fuelefficiency in flaring requires:

• understanding the sources of fuel consumption in flaring operations,

• periodic checking of fuel consumption rates to evaluate systemperformance and make adjustments as required,

• assessment of opportunities to upgrade or replace underperformingsystems,

• maintaining adequate records to support the company’s flaring fuelreduction program.


8/22


3. Fuel Consumption Associated with FlaringOperations

Achieving efficiency with respect to the use of fuel in flaring systems requires an

understanding of where fuel consumption occurs in these systems. The sourcesof fuel gas consumption typically associated with flaring include pilot gas, purgegas and make-up gas. This section of the module discusses these sources andpresents methodology for estimating the expected fuel consumption rates. In allcases the fuel consumption rates provided by system designers and equipmentmanufacturers and/or actual site measurements are preferred for identifyingsubstandard performance and evaluating reduction opportunities.

3.1 Pilot Gas

Many flares are outfitted with continuously burning gas pilots to ensure ignition offlared gases. The number and type of pilots required depends on the flare size,stream composition and wind conditions. Typical pilot requirements and fuelconsumption rates are summarized in Table 3.1. These rates assume anaverage pilot fuel consumption rate of 1.98m3/h/pilot which is reasonable forenergy efficient pilots fueled by sales quality natural gas2. However, actualconsumption will depend on burner design and fuel properties.

Table 3.1 Average Fuel Gas Consumption for Energy Efficient Flare Pilots

Flare Tip Diameter Average Pilot GasConsumption

Inches mm

Number ofPilot Burners

m3/h 106 m3/y1 – 10 25.4 – 254 1 1.98 17.3

12 – 24 304.8 – 609.6 2 3.63 31.8

30 – 60 762 – 1524 3 5.95 52.1

> 60 > 1524 4 7.93 69.5

Adapted from [EPA CH1]

3.2 Purge Gas

Typically the header of an intermittent flare system is continuously purged withfuel gas to prevent air ingress into the flare system. Additional benefits ofpurging include mitigating fouling and damage resulting from burn back anddisplaced products that have been released into the flare header. Purging theflare system is necessary to ensure safe operation. However, purge rates abovethose required to maintain safe reliable operation are undesirable and should be


9/22


avoided. The required purge rate will depend on the type of seal used, stackdiameter, properties of the gas as well as ambient and system conditions.

For plain end flares the purge gas required to avoid unsafe air infiltration can beestimated using the Husa purge model. Equation 3.1 is an adaptation of the

Husa purge model that can be used to estimate minimum purge gasconsumption rates for flare systems. 3

( )[ ]5.146.3

296.28/75.01

21

%ln MW

Ls

KDOQ ⋅−⎟

⎠

⎞⎜⎝

⎛ −= (3.1)

Where:

• Q is the purge gas consumption in m3/h,

• K is 5.26 x 10-8

• D is the internal diameter of the stack in mm,

• O2% is the acceptable oxygen concentration at Ls in % (note 6% isusually acceptable),

• Ls is the distance into the stack where the safe condition is met inm (note the lesser of 7.62 m or 10 stack diameters is usuallyacceptable),

• MW is the molecular weight of the purge gas (note 19.5 is typicalfor natural gas).

Larger flares are often outfitted with seals which reduce the continuous purge

rate required to avoid unsafe air infiltration into the stack. Purge reduction sealsdo not physically isolate the stack from the surrounding atmosphere. Instead,they utilize proprietary internals, either baffle-type or labyrinth-type, to reduce theability for buoyant movement of air into the stack. Typical schematics of the sealinternals are provided in Figures 3.1 and 3.2. Equation 3.2 can be used toestimate typical purge requirements for flare systems outfitted with baffle-typeseals and Equation 3.3 can be used to estimate the typical purge gasconsumption associated with labyrinth-type seals. Actual purge rates will dependon the seal design and should be obtained from the manufacturer.

25*10447.3 DQ

−×= (3.2)

Where:

• Q is the purge gas consumption in m3/h,


Assuming:


10/22


• The average required purge velocity for flares outfitted with baffle-type purge reduction tips is 0.0122 m/s (0.04 fps).

26*10618.8 DQ

−×= (3.3)

Where:• Q is the purge gas consumption in m3/h,


Assuming:

• The average required purge velocity for flares outfitted withlabyrinth-type purge reduction tips is 0.0030 m/s (0.01 fps).

Figure 3.1

Typical Schematic of a Labyrinth Style Purge Reduction Seal


11/22


Figure 3.2

Typical Schematic of a Baffle Type Purge Reduction Seal


12/22


Typical purge consumption rates calculated using the above formulas arepresented in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2Typical Minimum Purge Rates to Avoid Unsafe Air Infiltration

Purge Gas Consumpt ion Rate (m3/h)FlareDiameter

(NPS)1 Plain End2 Baffle Type

Seal3 LabyrinthType Seal4

2 0.07 0.09 0.02

3 0.17 0.21 0.05

4 0.34 0.36 0.09

6 0.93 0.82 0.20

8 1.83 1.42 0.35

10 3.19 2.23 0.56

12 4.98 3.20 0.80

14 6.35 3.90 0.9816 8.98 5.17 1.29

18 12.16 6.62 1.65

20 15.92 8.24 2.06

24 25.34 12.02 3.01

26 31.04 14.18 3.54

30 44.57 19.03 4.76

36 82.87 27.63 6.91

42 142.76 37.84 9.46

48 228.39 49.65 12.41

54 345.39 63.06 15.77

60 499.74 78.07 19.52

Standard wall pipeCalculated according to Equation 3. assuming a stackcondition of 6% oxygen at the lesser of 10 stackdiameters or 7.62 m from the open top and a purgegas molecular weight of 19.5Calculated according to Equation 3.2Calculated according to Equation 3.3

Prevention of flare tip damage resulting from burn back may necessitate purgerates greater than those required to prevent air infiltration. Burn back occurswhen the flame regresses into the stack due to inadequate purge velocities. Avisible flame under purge-only conditions is an indication that purge rates aresufficient to prevent burn back. Smaller flare tips do not normally experienceburn back problems3. Header sweep is another consideration which may requirepurge rates in addition to the minimum requirements to prevent air infiltration orburn back. This is especially important when the potential for corrosive gases toenter the header exists.


13/22


3.3 Make-up Gas

Make-up fuel is sometimes required to raise the calorific value of flared wastegas to levels that will support stable and efficient combustion. The ERCB4 requires the combined net heating value (i.e. lower heating value) of flared gases

and make-up fuel to meet or exceed 20 MJ/m3

except for existing flares with ahistory of stable operation and emergency flare systems in sour gas plants wherethe heating value may be as low as 12 MJ/m3. In all cases Alberta Ambient AirQuality Objectives must be met and flares which are subject to AENV approvalmay have more stringent requirements for minimum heating values.Equation 3.4 or Figure 4.1 can be used to estimate minimum make-up gasrequirements.

r m

wr

wm LHV LHV

LHV LHV QQ

−

−= (3.4)

Where:

• Q f is the fuel gas flow rate,

• Qw is the waste gas flow rate,

• LHV r is the required combined net heating value (i.e. 20 MJ/m3),

• LHV m is the lower heating value of the make-up gas,

• LHV w is the net heating value of the waste gas.


14/22


0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Net heating value of the waste gas (MJ/m3)

M i n i m u m f

u e l g a s t o w a s t e g a s r a t i o

Typical Natural Gas (LHV = 34.6 MJ/m3) Low Heat Content Natural Gas (LHV = 31.9 MJ/m3)

High Heat Content Natural Gas (LHV = 38.5 MJ/m3)

Figure 3.3

Minimum Fuel Gas to Waste Gas Ratio Required to Attain a CombinedNet Heating Value of 20 MJ/m3


15/22


4. Measuring Fuel Consumption

When evaluating opportunities for reducing fuel consumption actual sitemeasurements are helpful for identifying substandard performance andsupporting economic evaluations. Depending on the source, fuel consumption

can metered independently or as part of the total flare stream.

4.1 Fuel Metering

Pilot gas, purge gas and make-up should be metered independently whereverpossible. These streams are of known composition and flow rates are generallyquite stable so conventional metering technologies are appropriate.

4.2 Flare Metering

Flare meters are excellent diagnostic tools which can be used to identifyexcessive purge rates and/or leakage into the flare system that might otherwisego unnoticed. The ERCB mandates metering of continuous or routine flaresources at all oil and gas production and processing facilities4 where averagetotal flared and vented volumes exceed 0.5 x 103 m3/d and recommends the useof flare meters at larger oil and gas batteries, pipeline facilities and gasprocessing plants where there are multiple connections to the flare system evenwhen the aforementioned average flaring rate is not exceeded4. At a minimum,sufficient fittings should be installed to facilitate spot checking of the residual flarerate if continuous flare metering is not required or deemed necessary.

Flare streams are particularly challenging to meter because of the high variabilityin flow and composition. In applications where metering is required by the ERCBthe meter must have an accuracy of 5 percent over the entire range of flows andcompositions encountered5. Generally, flare meters should be compositionindependent and exhibit accuracy over a high turndown (i.e. 1:100 or better).Metering technologies which meet these requirements include: ultrasonic meters,micro-tip vane velocity probes and optical velocity probes. Thermal dispersionprobes have adequate turndown but are highly composition dependant. Mosttraditional metering technologies used in the oil and gas industry (e.g. differentialpressure, turbine, positive displacement) fail to meet one or both of theserequirements. Traditional metering technologies may be applicable for flaremeasurement under certain circumstances where the composition and/or flowrate are adequately stable. If no flare metering is in place the residual flare rate(i.e. purge and leakage) can still be spot checked using a portable velocity probeor tracer test to establish if excessive purge rates or leakage are occurring. Inorder to conduct a tracer test it is necessary to have fittings on the flare line forinjecting trace gas and withdrawing a sample. The injection point must belocated somewhere on the flare line where there is flow and the sampling point


16/22


needs to be sufficiently downstream of the injection point and all tie-ins to allowfor good mixing of the entire flare stream and the tracer gas. Most portablevelocity probes can be inserted into the flare piping through a NPS ¾ full portvalve. Velocity measurements should be taken downstream of all tie-ins in astraight section of pipe.


17/22


5. Reduction Opportunit ies

When evaluating reduction opportunities it is important to base decisions onreliable data using a systematic and consistent approach. Safety is paramountand must be considered ahead of economics and operability when evaluating

reduction opportunities.

Any case where the actual fuel consumed in flaring operations exceeds requiredor manufacturer recommended rates represents an opportunity to conserve fuelby correcting the deficiency or replacing the underperforming equipment. Otheropportunities to reduce fuel consumption include extinguishing pseudo-dormantflares and application of best available technology. This section of the modulediscusses these reduction opportunities.

5.1 Extinguishing Pseudo-dormant Flares

Appreciable quantities of fuel gas are consumed in the operation of pilot andpurge gas systems to maintain flares in a pseudo-dormant state. In situationswhere gas is not continuously or routinely flared and the probability of anemergency depressurization is low, an opportunity exists to conserve fuel gas byextinguishing the flare.

When considering extinguishing flares operators should carefully assess theprobability of all possible relief cases. At a minimum the following conditionsshould be satisfied prior to extinguishing a flare:

• There should be no continuously or routinely flared streams.

• The stack should be fitted with a glycol/water seal or other positive sealingdevice which will isolate the flare header from the atmosphere. This willprevent oxygen from entering the flare header and enable monitoring ofleakage into the header.

• The maximum allowable working pressure of the piping and pressurevessels should be greater than the potential supply pressure from anyconnected sources (e.g. wells, compressors, etc.).

• No active injection or cycling schemes should be taking place or planned

for any pools with wells connected to the facility.• Pressure Safety Valves (PSV) connected to the flare system should be

outfitted with upstream rupture disks and a pressure gauge should beinstalled between the PSV and rupture disk to enable detection of a diskrupture.

• Manual depressurizing valves connected to the flare should be doubleblocked, tagged and carsealed closed to mitigate the possibility of anaccidental opening and/or leakage.


18/22


• Emergency shutdown valves should not be configured to depressurizeequipment to the flare.

ERCB approval is required prior to extinguishing sour flares. Guidelines andrequirements for submitting a request to extinguish a sour flare can be found in

the ERCB Directive 0604.

When the flare is extinguished flammable gases remaining in the flare systemare a potential hazard. To remove this hazard shutdown of the flare should beimmediately followed by an inert gas purge. If the flare system is restartedanother inert gas purge should be conducted to remove air from the stack andflare header prior to lighting the pilot.

5.2 Reducing Pilot Gas Consumption

The use of electronic ignition devices and/or energy efficient flare pilots canminimize the amount of fuel gas used to sustain flare pilots.

Electronic Ignition Devices

Electronic ignition devices that ensure continuous flare ignition by systematicallyproducing high voltage electric sparks can often be used in place of gas operatedpilots. Electric consumption is low and is typically supplied by solar rechargedbatteries. The ERCB allows the use automatic ignition devices in place of gaspilots to ensure reliable continuous ignition of acid gas and sour flares at allfacilities except sour gas plants which require the use of both devices4.

Energy Efficient Pilots

In situations where pilots cannot be replaced by electronic ignition devices thefuel efficiency of the gas pilot should be evaluated and consideration given toinstalling a more energy efficiency design. Efficiency of pilots can be maintainedby ensuring that wind shielding and pilot nozzles are in good condition. Somevendors offer designs that consume as little as 0.57m3/h/burner of fuel gas.

5.3 Reducing Purge Gas Consumption

An opportunity may exist to reduce fuel consumed to continuously purged flaresystems by installing purge reduction seals, using instrumentation to controlpurge rates, switching to an inert gas purge and/or reducing purge rates inresponse to leakage into the flare system. When evaluating purge gasreductions the purge rate required to maintain a safe stack condition (i.e. preventair ingress) should be considered in conjunction with purge requirements toprevent burn back and provide adequate header sweep.


19/22


Purge Reduction Seals

Purge reduction seals use proprietary internals, either baffle-type or labyrinth-type, to reduce the ability for buoyant movement of air into the stack. Thisreduces the purge velocity required to avoid air infuriation and can lead to a

significant reduction in purge gas consumption especially on larger diameterstacks. These devices should be considered in most situations where flaresystems are continuously purged.

Instrumentation to Control Purge Rate

The minimum purge rate required to avoid unsafe air ingress into the stack is notonly a function of the stack diameter and purge gas but is dependent on changesin ambient temperature, pressure, wind speed and temperature of products in theflare header. In order to compensate for the dynamic nature of thesedependencies, continuous purge rates are often set above the minimum valuerequired for the conditions under which the flare usually operates. An alternativeto specifying an excessive purge rate is to use instrumentation to monitor criticalparameters in the flare system (e.g. oxygen concentration, temperature, etc.) andautomatically adjust purge rate accordingly to maintain a safe stack condition. Inregards to instrumented purge rate control systems, an adequate purge rate isessential to system safety, redundancy and fail safe operation. The reliability,regular calibration and preventive maintenance are critical to the success of theinstrumentation.

Inert Purge Gas

Inert gases can be used in place of fuel gas for purging flare systems. Inertpurges have a safety advantage over enriching purges because in addition topreventing oxygen infiltration, combustible gases are also swept from the system.However, inert purges can extinguish pilots and may cause the combined heatingvalue of flared streams to drop below required levels to maintain reliable andstable combustion. Additionally, inert gas is typically more expensive thannatural gas so inert purges are not normally used.

Reducing Purge Rates in Response to Leakage

Leakage into the flare system can be difficult to identify and often necessitates aplant shutdown to correct. During the time it takes to find and repair a leaking

component all or part of the losses can be mitigated by using the leak as a purgesource and reducing the supply of purge gas up to the volume of the leak rate.

5.4 Reducing Make-up Gas Consumption

The quantity of fuel gas used to raise the calorific value of waste gas streamscan be reduced by using incinerators in place of flares or installinginstrumentation to automatically adjust the delivery of make-up gas.


20/22


Replacing Flares with Incinerators

Incinerators are an alternative to flares that can be considered for disposing ofsteady continuous waste gas streams with low heating values. These devices

maintain waste gases in the presence of oxygen at higher temperatures forlonger residence times than flares. As such destruction efficiencies are higherand gases with lower calorific values can be more efficiently combusted.

In many cases waste gas streams that do not meet the calorific requirements tomaintain reliable and stable combustion in a flare can be disposed of using anincinerator without adding any fuel gas. Even in situations where incinerators dorequire fuel gas to treat a waste stream the amount of fuel consumed is minimalcompared to the make-up gas that would be required to sufficiently enrich thestream for disposal using a flare.

Although incinerators offer a number of benefits they are not viable alternative toflares in all situations. Incinerators have lower turn down (i.e. typically only 10:1)and higher capital cost than flares.

Instrumentation to Control Make-up Gas Delivery

Instrumentation including online calorimeters and flow meters may be used toregulate the delivery of make-up gas to ensure calorific requirements of thecombined stream are satisfied while minimizing fuel gas consumed. This may beparticularly beneficial in situations where the composition and flow of the wastegas are variable.


21/22


6. Record Keeping

Operators should have a record program to support the company’s flaring fuelconsumption reduction program. Proper record keeping should assist inensuring that underperforming systems are identified and that appropriate follow-

up actions are implemented. This information will also assist in establishing thechecking/testing frequency for each flare, to achieve cost-effective fuel gasreductions.

Although each company will define its record keeping system, considerationshould be given to recording and retaining the following information:

• expected fuel gas consumption by each flare,

• records of changes/upgrades that have been performed,

• actual fuel consumption measurements,

• the economic analysis performed to evaluate reduction opportunitieswhere flares have not been adjusted/modified on economic grounds.


22/22

Efficient Use of Fuel Gas in Flaring Operations Rev Date 27/05/2008

7. References

1. Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Best Management

Practices - Facility Flare Reduction, December 2006. Accessed:September 2007 Available at:http://www.capp.ca/default.asp?V_DOC_ID=763&PubID=114231

2. United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Air Pollution ControlCost Manual – Sixth Edition, Section 3.2 VOC Destruction Controls,Chapter 1 Flares (EPA/542/B-02-001), September 2000: Accessed:September 2007, Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/dir1/cs3-2ch1.pdf

3. David Shore, Making the Flare Safe, Journal of Loss Prevention in the

Process Industry, Volume 9, Number 6, November 1996 , pp. 363-381.

4. Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, Directive 060: Upstream PetroleumIndustry Flaring, Incinerating, and Venting, November 2006, Accessed:September 2007, Available at:http://www.eub.ca/docs/documents/directives/Directive060.pdf

5. Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, Directive 017: MeasurementRequirements for Upstream Oil and Gas Operations, May 2007,

Accessed: September 2007, Available at:http://www.eub.ca/docs/documents/directives/Directive017.pdf

flare stack purge gas calculation

Documents