Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
www.tuvnel.com
Foreward
The purpose of this good practice guide is to inform the operator of oil and gas facilities of the issues surrounding flare
gas flow measurement using ultrasonic meters and to provide direction on how best to measure and document flare
quantities for emissions monitoring purposes. Topics on where direction is provided include ultrasonic metering, calibration,
verification and the issues associated with the determination of uncertainty. Computational Fluid Dynamics is also included
in the guide because it is a useful technique for determining the installation error that could impact on measurement
uncertainty.
Contents
Foreward
Introduction
Calibration
Verification
Data Handling
Uncertainty
7.3 Geometry (pipe diameter and transducer
dimensions)
7.5 Flow related sources of uncertainty
for ultrasonic flare gas
11
1 Introduction
Emergency flare systems are a necessity on any facilities producing, processing, refining, storing or transporting
hydrocarbons. Gas needs to be disposed of quickly during emergencies; such as a fire risk or over-pressurisation of the gas
plant. In some cases, a large quantity of the produced gas is flared because the infrastructure is not in place to export or
reuse it on site. This produces harmful greenhouse gases and other pollutants.
In order to combat this, legislation is in place targeting Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions to the atmosphere from these
facilities. The most stringent monitoring and reporting regimes are in the EU, Norway, Canada and, more recently, the USA.
The inclusion of flaring within Phase II of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) in 2008 means that strict measurement
guidelines are now in place covering the measurement of CO2 emissions from larger combustion facilities.
Many oil and gas facilities will fall into Category B (emitting 50 to 500 kt of CO2 per annum). For these facilities the
minimum uncertainty requirements for reporting flare gas flow rate is given in the accompanying Monitoring and Reporting
Guidelines (MRG) as 12.5% (95%) on activity data (volume). However, the MRG states that: The highest tier approach
shall be used by all operators to determine all variables for all source streams for all Category B or C installations. Only if it
is shown to the satisfaction of the competent authority that the highest tier approach is technically unfeasible, or will lead
to unreasonably high costs, may a next tier be used for that variable within a monitoring methodology. The highest tier
approach dictates 7.5% on volume and, strictly, 2.5% on CO2 emission factor. These are challenging targets for metering
in flare lines.
In the US, mandatory reporting of greenhouse gases (including CO2, Methane (CH4) and Nitrox Oxide (N2O)), both
onshore and offshore, is covered by Final Rule CFR 40 issued by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In addition
the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) has recently issued Final Rule CFR 30
setting limits on the flaring or venting of natural gas from facilities located in the Gulf of Mexico and Outer Continental
Shelf. These regulations state that all flare and vented gas volumes must be measured to within 5% uncertainty for facilities
producing in excess of 2,000 barrels of oil per day.
Pressure
Temperature
Flow
Diametric path
Mid-radius path
The velocity range of a flare gas ultrasonic meter is typically quoted as between 0.03 m/s to 80 m/s and above. This is much
wider than traditional gas ultrasonic meters. However, the actual velocity range that can be accurately measured will also
depend on a number of factors including: signal resolution, process conditions and pipe Reynolds number, to name but a few.
Uncertainty for flare gas ultrasonic meters is typically specified by the manufacturers as 2.5% to 5% over a stated range
of velocity, increasing as velocity reduces. However, these figures are only strictly applicable under ideal flowing conditions,
with all critical dimensions accurately measured.
4 Calibration
One major issue for flare gas meters is the lack of a traceable calibration. In many cases the transducers are inserted
through bosses welded to existing pipe and there is no meter spool that can be removed for calibration. Even spool pieced
meters are unlikely to be calibrated (except prior to installation) since the costs involved with shutting the plant down will
tend to be prohibitive. In addition, there is generally a lack of facilities capable of covering the range of flow rates prevalent
in most flare lines.
In situ calibration (e.g. the time-of-flight radioactive gas tracer technique) has the advantage that it can be performed
without the need to remove the flow meter from the line. In theory any uncertainty resulting from installation effect is also
calibrated-out to some degree. The main drawback with in situ calibration is that the flow rate and line conditions are likely
to be unstable during testing.
Controlled gas injection involves deliberately diverting a known portion of gas (e.g. nitrogen or fuel gas) into the flare line
in order to facilitate a comparison between the injected rate and the meter reading. This requires that the flow meters used
to measure injection rate are calibrated and in good condition. This method is at best a functional check unless the process
can be shutdown, and the flare line completely isolated from other gas sources.
5 Verification
Verification of flare gas ultrasonic meters generally involves checking the zero reading at static conditions and comparing
with a previous reading in order to determine if any drift has occurred in the transducers, cabling and electronics. These
tests do not assess the performance under actual flowing conditions and, therefore, do not replace a full flow calibration.
If the insertion bosses have isolation valves and extraction systems. The transducers can then be removed and inserted a
known distance apart in a small calibration chamber filled with a test gas (typically air) at fixed pressure and temperature.
A purpose-built test cell can allow a hydrocarbon gas of known composition to be used instead of air.
In situ field verification may be an option where the transducers cannot be removed from the line. This must be done
during a process shutdown whereby process gas is trapped between two or more isolation valves on either side of the
meter. If the gas can be sampled, this will allow retrospective comparison between measured and calculated speed of
sound. For this method to be effective, any movement of gas due to temperature differentials and/or leakage paths
must be eliminated. In reality, this is unlikely to be fully achieved in a flare line and this method is, at best, a check of
meter functionality.
Zeroing of electronics and cabling - This is carried out with the cables connected to a test chamber with substitute dummy
transducers immersed in a test cell. This method does not test whether any drift has occurred in the transducers themselves.
6 Data Handling
Flare lines present a unique measurement situation. The flow can be dominated by very low flow for much of the year
interspersed with periods of high flow. Each flare line will be unique. In some instances blow down and high flaring events
will dominate the total gas to flare; i.e. the low flow region will make up the majority of the gas flared.
Flaring can be broadly categorized into three modes of operation: Base load, operational flaring and emergency/blow
down. A sensible way of analyzing the flare data is to determine how much gas is flared under each mode of operation
and then to calculate the impact of the uncertainty in the gas on the total figure over the reporting period.
There will likely be a velocity range over which the data from the flare gas meter can be deemed most reliable. This can
be based on meter resolution, velocity, Reynolds number etc. Outside this region the uncertainty will be higher. Indirect
measurement calculation methods (such as the by-difference technique, whereby the flare gas quantity is calculated as the
difference between the gas produced and that used on the facility or exported) will be needed in cases where the flare
meter fails to give an output or has saturated above a maximum flow limit. The low flow region is the most difficult to
deal with in this respect as the uncertainty on the measurements of total gas, fuel, export gas etc. will translate to very
large uncertainty in a much smaller flare value (note: the flare value can even turn out to be negative!).
7 Uncertainty
The basic uncertainty for a flare gas ultrasonic meter for the most part comprises the uncertainty in measured velocity due
to timing resolution and critical transducer dimensions. Any additional uncertainty must be added to this baseline value
to arrive at the total uncertainty figure. The uncertainty in the volumetric flow incorporates the pipe area, flow profile
as well as pressure and temperature (if referred to standard conditions). Uncertainty in density must also be included for
applications where mass flow is reported.
Process issues:
It is important to note that these categories may not be mutually exclusive of one another (for example, installation effects
can vary as a function of the process conditions etc.). Many of the above issues will not be taken into account in the
manufacturers uncertainty budget, since they will not generally have a detailed knowledge of the installation, operating
conditions, logging procedures etc.
o Absolute pressure gauges are recommended otherwise barometric pressure variations must be taken into account
Temperature measurement:
o Drift may occur if the sensing probes are subject to deposition or wear
o Response time and probe vibration may be an issue at high flow rates
Note: Uncertainty in Compressibility factor, Z, is likely to be small compared with other uncertainty sources unless liquids,
or a high level of non-hydrocarbon gases, are present.
4 m/s (CFD)
30 m/s (CFD)
4 m/s (test)
30 m/s (test)
20
15
-5
10
-10
-15
-20
0
20
40
60
80
10 120
0
45
135
180
90
225
270
315
average
-5
20
40
60
80
10 120
Figure 4 Error from a single-path meter installed at various positions and orientations downstream of a double bend
It would appear from the comparison with test results, and careful examination of the variation in meter error at the various
path positions and orientations, that in most cases a figure of the order of 5% (k=2) may be used for the uncertainty on
the installation error from a single-path ultrasonic meter obtained using CFD modelling.
The current uncertainty levels stated in the Measurement and Reporting Guidelines for the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
are 17.5%, 12.5% and 7.5% (k=2) for tier 1, 2 and 3 respectively (see Appendix A of those guidelines). Taking a baseline
uncertainty for a single-path ultrasonic flare meter of 5% (k=2), and assuming all uncertainties to be uncorrelated, Table 1
shows the maximum uncertainty that can be tolerated on the meter correction factor (as determined in this case by CFD).
This can be as high as 16.8% for Category A facilities.
Note: This example does not take into account additional uncertainty on meter error that may significantly increase the
baseline uncertainty figure.
10
Tier
Meter basic
Correction factor
(%)
(%)
17.5
16.8
12.5
11.5
7.5
5.6
The complex nature of the flow downstream of bends, even under steady and controlled conditions, will make it difficult
to obtain accurate measurements using single-path ultrasonic meters. With this in mind, the use of multi-path ultrasonic
meters is highly recommended for flare gas lines where practicalities and cost constraints will allow.
Email: info@tuvnel.com
www.tuvnel.com