Norwegian University of Science and Technology

TPG 4140 – Natural Gas

Project Report

EFFORTS TO REDUCE FLARING AND VENTING OF

NATURAL GAS WORLD-WIDE

Robin Dragstmo Andersen

Dias Viktorovitsj Assembayev
Rafael Bilalov
Darkhan Duissenov
Danila Shutemov

Trondheim
November 2012
 ABSTRACT

The issue of climate changing has gathered a lot of attention in the global community
during the last decade. International agreements and restrictions have been implemented
in order to reduce the impact of human activities on the environment. But not everybody
knows that global emissions from gas flaring alone stand for more than one-half of the
annual Certified Emissions Reductions (624 million tons1 CO2) currently issued under the
Kyoto Clean Development Mechanisms.

The technology to address the problem of gas flaring exists today and the policy
regulations required are largely understood. A lot of research has been made on the topic,
but still each year an amount of around 150 billion cubic meters of natural gas is flared
around the world, contaminating the environment with 400 million tons of CO2 annually.

Geographic estimates show that a small number of countries contribute the most to global
flaring emissions, with Russia and Nigeria, together accounted for 42 % of those 400
million tons of CO2, leading the way.

Having the necessary technology and knowing the cradle of the problem, what stands in
our way to take this huge and yet seemingly easy step to reduce emissions? It seems like
the global community did not do its homework when the solution to such a renowned
problem is so obvious, but is it really the case?

1
Note: ton (long ton) = 1,016 kg (Imperial unit), while tonne =1,000 kg (SI unit)
ii
 Table of Contents
Abstract .............................................................................................................................. ii
List of tables .......................................................................................................................iii
List of figures ..................................................................................................................... iii
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1
2 Flaring processes ............................................................................................................2
2.1 Background ............................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Geography of flaring and venting .................................................................................. 3
2.3 Sources of flaring and venting.............................................................................................. 4

3 Efforts to reduce flaring ................................................................................................. 6

3.1 Political and economic efforts ....................................................................................... 6
3.2 Technical efforts ....................................................................................................... 13
3.3 Efforts to reduce flaring volumes in the highest flaring nations .......................................... 16

4 Summary and conclusion ........................................................................................... 21

5 Suggestions for future work ....................................................................................... 22
6 References .................................................................................................................. 23
7 Tables ......................................................................................................................... 26
8 Figures ........................................................................................................................ 28

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Current Gas Flaring Reduction CDM Projects ................................................................................. 26
Table 2 GGFR Partners around the World .................................................................................................... 26
Table 3 GGFR Partner Countries and the projects ........................................................................................ 27
Table 4 Estimated flared volume from satellite data ..................................................................................... 27

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Spectrum of waste gas ..................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 2 Gas flaring countries and trends ...................................................................................................... 28
Figure 3 Flaring geography ........................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 4 Schematic flow diagram of overall flare stack system .................................................................... 29
Figure 5 Water seal flashback drum .............................................................................................................. 29
Figure 6 Kyoto Protocol participation map as of February 2012 .................................................................. 29
Figure 7 Worldwide Joint Implementation market ........................................................................................ 30
Figure 8 Certified Emission Reduction units by country............................................................................... 30
Figure 9 Visual Interpretation of gas flare in the Defence Meteorological Satellites Program in the nightime
lights data .............................................................................................................................................. 31
Figure 10 USA domestic Gas STAR Methane Emissions Reduction ......................................................... 31
Figure 11 Methane Emissions Reductions .................................................................................................... 31
Figure 12 Microturbine.................................................................................................................................. 31
Figure 13 Hot tapping .................................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 14 Nigerian Gas Flaring by Company ................................................................................................ 32

iii
 1 INTRODUCTION
Associated gas flaring is one of the most challenging energy and environmental
problems facing the world today. Each year around 150 billion cubic meters of natural
gas are flared around the world, representing a huge waste of natural resources, which
could be used for better purposes, and being equivalent to 400 million tons of CO2 the
climate impact is obvious, suggesting a great contribution to global greenhouse gas
emissions. Global emissions from gas flaring alone stand for more than one-half of
the annual Certified Emissions Reductions (624 million tons CO2) currently issued
under the Kyoto Clean Development Mechanisms. (Data as of June 2011)

The potential damage of the associated gas, which is flared and vented, has recently
started to be realized by most countries. (In this report we will refer to both processes
as flaring, because it is globally accepted that venting is much more damaging to the
environment than flaring, so where it is possible the gas is flared, leading to that
venting represents a very small part of the flaring amounts worldwide).
Environmental consequences associated with gas flaring have a considerable impact
on local populations, often resulting in severe health issues.

The flared gas is very similar in composition to natural gas and is a cleaner source of
energy than other commercial fossil fuels. Because of the increasing gas prices since
2005 and growing concerns about the scarcity of oil and gas resources the interest in
flare gas has increased and the amounts of gas wasted have been considered. To get a
perspective, the amounts of gas flared could potentially supply one-half of Africa`s
electricity needs, for example.

What we can observe is that a small number of countries are dominant contributors to
global flaring emissions. In 2009 Russia and Nigeria accounted for an estimated 42 %
of global flaring. Twenty countries accounted for an estimated 85 % of the observed
flaring. If we implement the technology and methods, available in the market
nowadays in places with the highest flaring and venting volumes, we could reduce the
global flaring volumes to a small fraction of the current values, but to do that is
impossible without coordinating the efforts on the technological front with political
and economic incentives on both domestic and global levels.

Section 2 of this report will review the term “flaring” and different processes where
flaring takes place, and present a small geographical overview of gas flaring in the
1
world. Section 3 will review the efforts to reduce flaring, both technological and
political. Giving a deeper presentation of the gas flaring issue in the highest flaring
countries, we will review the existing problems and possibilities of improvement in
the flaring reduction efforts in these countries.

2 FLARING PROCESSES
2.1 Background
There are a lot of different definitions for the term flaring. Main idea behind all
definitions is that flaring is a method for getting rid of unusable hydrocarbon gases
using combustion and is often used during oil and natural gas exploration and
production processes. Practical definition provided by Canadian Association of
Petroleum Producers (CAPP, 2012) for the term flaring:

Flaring - The controlled burning of natural gas that cannot be processed for sale or use
because of technical or economic reasons.

Most flaring processes usually take place at stack top with the visible flame, opposed to
incineration, where waste gas is combusted at the furnace. Flaring during well tests,
production of associated gas, refining and other processing stages is used in a way of
open flame. There are some reasons for that: first, gas may contain corrosive
compounds, so it can be quite destructive, secondly, there might be the need to dispose
huge amounts of gas in a short time.

Combustion of natural gas is called flaring (Gao & Worika, 1998), while releasing it to
the atmosphere is known as venting. Due to unavailability of local market and
transportation systems in production areas, operators usually flare or vent associated gas
to avoid additional treatment and processing expenses. Decision of flaring and venting
or processing of gas depends on natural gas prices which have a major impact on it. Gas
would be processed and sold if prices would remain high enough for a long period, and
all required infrastructure could be built for gas processing and transportation. We will
use the term flaring in this report to represent burning of natural gas at the open-air top
of stack. Flare gas represents a waste gas from production wells, petroleum refineries,
chemical plants, coal industry and landfills which are shown on Figure 1.

Flare gas has a significant impact on environment due to possible presence of some
harmful compounds. The scale of impact depends on composition of the natural gas.
Flaring does not reduce the impact on environment to insignificant levels. Products of

2
combustion can also be hazardous when present in high amounts. Meanwhile, flaring is
considered as much safer than just venting gases to the atmosphere.

The flaring processes can be divided into three groups: emergency flaring, process
flaring and production flaring (SENES Consultants Limited, 2007):

Emergency flaring occurs in case of fire, break of valves, or compressor failures. A

huge volume of gas with high velocity is burned in a short duration of time.

Process flaring usually comes with a lower rate. During petrochemical processing some
waste gases are removed from the production stream and then flared. Amounts of flared
gas at such processes can vary from a few cubic meters per hour during normal
functionality to thousands cubic meters per hour during plant failures (United States
Enviromental Protection Agency, 1991).

Production flaring occurs in the exploration and production sector of oil and gas
industry. Large amounts of gas will be combusted during the evaluation of a gas/oil
potential test as an indication of the capacity of the well for production. Potential test
provides operator some measurements such as initial reservoir pressure, pressure
drawdown and fluid flow rates.

At the following sections we will speak about countries and processes where flaring
takes place.

2.2 Geography of flaring and venting

Lack of monitoring equipment and limited oversight make it difficult to quantify the
scale of gas flaring around the world. In some regions of Russia, for example, only
half of the flares have flow monitors (Kinzhikov & Poussenkova, 2009). In addition,
many countries do not publicly report gas-flaring volumes, leading to significant
uncertainty regarding the magnitude of the problem (GAO, 2004). In fact, to avoid
scrutiny, it may be in the producer’s or government’s interest to limit access to data
on gas flaring levels. Much of the official information on the amount of gas flaring
comes from environmental ministries or statistical agencies within various
governments. However, during the last decade, increased use of military satellites and
sophisticated computer programs has been used to measure gas flaring. These efforts
seek to correlate light observations with intensity measures and flare volumes to
produce credible estimates of global gas flaring levels.

When the various data sources are viewed in tandem, the global perspective on the

3
flaring problem starts to become clearer. A good estimate for global flaring including
venting seems to be around 150 Billion cubic meters per year, but there are some
large uncertainties at the country and regional level. These estimates will only
improve as additional satellite and industry data sources are cross-referenced. GE
Energy prepared statistics of flared gas volumes by country for years 2005-2009
(Farina, 2010 - Figure 2).

As we can see, a small number of countries are dominant contributors to global

flaring emissions. In 2009 Russia and Nigeria accounted for an estimated 42 % of
global flaring. Twenty countries accounted for an estimated 85 % of the observed
flaring. Major flaring countries around the world are shown on the Figure 3.
Even though production of oil has been increasing each year the emissions of flared
gas have remained stable at the same level of around 150 Bcm per year. Clearly,
holding flaring constant is not a good enough result given the scale of waste and lost
value to host governments. This is even more of a concern when global environmental
impact is considered.

There is almost unanimous agreement that systematic large-scale gas flaring is a

source of enormous environmental degradation. The impact on the global community
in terms of greenhouse gas emissions is significant. Environmental impacts at the
local level differ depending on the region. However, there are clear cases where
flaring has been highly damaging to local populations and ecosystems. The problem is
most acute in places where intense oil development overlaps with local communities.

2.3 Sources of flaring and venting

Gas for flaring is coming from different sources: associated gas, gas plants, well-tests
and other places. Associated gas is gas found in reservoirs with oil. It is the gas that
lies on top of the oil, due to lesser density and due to pressure and temperature, the
gas is also found in the oil. When the oil is produced, the pressure and temperature
decrease and gas is separated from the oil. This is called solution gas (IQPC, 2012).

Being that the associated gas is worth so much less than the oil, it is much easier and
less expensive to flare, and therefore most countries have been flaring it for many
years. When the petroleum companies have found reservoirs filled with petroleum,
the gas has not been very profitable compared with the oil. In fact, producing the gas
has cost more than just flaring it. This is still a problem for many countries today. And
this is mainly from flaring of associated gas. What these countries are learning is that
4
in many cases the large concentration of associated gas reserves could be developed at
low cost as a co-production of oil production (Farina, 2010).

The main purpose of gas processing plants is to remove all impurities (water, CO2,
H2S) from raw gas and to treat it for further transportation or processing. For disposal
of the gas which is not satisfying the market requirements flaring is used. Pressure
relief system automatically releases gas in any case when plant facilities and
equipment units are over-pressured (Wikipedia, 2012). Hydrocarbons are burned as
they exit at stack top. Height of the flame depends upon the volume of released gas,
while brightness and color depend upon composition.

In some cases steam is injected into the flared stream to reduce hazardous black
smoke. Small volumes of gas are continuously combusted to keep system always
ready for unexpected over-pressuring, emergency or shut-down procedures that
interrupt normal operations. The flow diagram (Figure 4) shows the units of common
flare stack system (Wikipedia, 2012):

 Liquid knockout drum for removing any oil and/or water from the relieved gases;

 A water flashback seal drum to prevent any flashback of the flame. Water seal also
allows flare header to operate continuously at a slight positive pressure, especially
when an elevated flare is combined with flare gas recovery system. Water lever
maintained constant at flashback seal drum by continuous weir within “S” bend
drainpipe. Rates are chosen according to time required to re-establish the seal,
usually around 5 minutes (GBA, 2012). The construction of water seal drum is
presented at Figure 5;

 As alternative gas recovery system for use during partial plant startups and/or
shutdowns as well as other times when required. The recovered gas is routed into the
fuel gas system of the overall industrial plant;

 A steam injection system to provide an external momentum force used for efficient
mixing of air with the relieved gas, which promotes smokeless burning;

 A pilot flame that burns continuously so that it is possible to combust relieved

gases whenever needed;
 The flare stack, including a flashback prevention section at the upper part of the
flare stack;

5
Flaring during the potential test is performed to measure reservoir and well
characteristics such as initial pressure and potential flow rates. These data become a
basis for further determination of facilities requirements, operational issues such as
water break through, and economic calculations for needed investment. Increased
flaring duration allows capturing more data which provides better understanding of
the field. Deeper insight of well characteristics contributes to better economics.

During potential test, 2 types of flaring occur: a) clean-out flaring b) production

flaring. To prepare a well for tests and production acidizing is usually used. It is a
common technique of injecting acid which reacts with the rock providing improving
porosity and permeability (RigZone, 2012). The term “clean-out” represents flaring to
clean the wellbore from mud, water and residuals which might not be collected.
During both types of flaring composition of “clean-out” combusted gas could
significantly differ from the “well-test” combusted gas composition. “Clean-out”
flaring, because of lower velocity and temperatures could exhibit various plume
characteristics (SENES Consultants Limited, 2007). The second flaring stage is the
production test, which has a longer duration than the clean-out interval.

Despite a significant increase of the annually drilled wells since the mid-1990s, the
total amount of natural gas flared during well tests slightly declined due to new
procedures and regulations, and venting during well tests was almost eliminated.

When the resources and geography are defined we want then to discuss efforts to
reduce flaring and venting.

3 EFFORTS TO REDUCE FLARING AND VENTING

Many organizations and different projects were established for reducing flaring and
venting world-wide. In the following sections we will describe main political,
economical, technical and most successful efforts being created and implemented.
The names will be given separately by italic.

3.1 Political and economic efforts

Kyoto Protocol

Climate change is one of the most significant challenges ever to face human beings. It
is a worldwide problem that requires a global response including the needs and
interests of all countries. One result of such a global response is the Kyoto Protocol.
Kyoto Protocol was established by the United Nations Organization in order to
stabilize and control atmospheric emissions. The Protocol was initially adopted on
6
11th of December 1997 in Kyoto, Japan, and entered into force on 16th of February
2005. As of September 2011, 191 states have signed and ratified the protocol (United
Nations, 2008). The participating countries itself are divided into three groups, as
Annex 1 countries, Annex 2 countries and non-Annex 1 countries. Annex 1 includes
the industrialized countries and the countries with economies in transition. Annex 2
consists of 24 developed countries and the European Union which invests money in
developing countries. Non-Annex 1 countries are mostly developing countries.

Kyoto Protocol is followed by the countries shown on the Figure 6 (Wikipedia, 2012).
Green indicates countries that have ratified the treaty. Annex 1 and Annex 2 countries
are in dark green. The brown shows the countries without intention to ratify. Red
shows the countries which have withdrawn from the Protocol. Grey stands for no
position taken or position unknown.

The main objective of Kyoto Protocol is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These
procedures are very essential as greenhouse gases trap heat and make the planet
warmer. The largest sources of greenhouse gases are energy supply, industry,
agriculture, and transportation. It is also includes gas flaring and venting (EPA, 2012).

When it comes to regulations, Kyoto Protocol requires the Annex 1 countries to

ensure that its total greenhouse gas emissions do not exceed a maximum allowable
level. However, the protocol also allows Annex 1 countries to increase or decrease
from their initial accredited amount, by selling and buying Kyoto units with other
Parties. These procedures are accomplished with the implementation of Kyoto
Protocol’s flexible mechanisms, such as Emissions trading, Joint implementation, and
Clean development mechanism (United Nations, 2008).

Emissions trading

Emissions trading is a flexible mechanism in which the state or authority in its

territory can purchase or sell quotas on greenhouse gas emissions at the national,
regional or international markets. Emissions quotas estimated by a central authority
for a specific period of time. The maximum level of emissions allowed is set
afterwards and then divided into individual emissions quotas. Emissions trading does
not affect the total assigned amount of Annex 1 Parties in whole, but re-distributes the
accredited amount among them (United Nations, 2008).

Emissions trading mechanism can be both mandatory and optional. Mandatory

schemes can be found in US, where it is used to reduce sulfur dioxide and in EU,
where it is implemented with the aim of CO2 emissions reduction, while the Chicago
7
Climate Exchange is an example of company for voluntary scheme. The scheme for
applying emissions trading differs from place to place. Japan is a good example of
implementing of emissions’ trading mechanism. The country had its own trade system
that had been in place for some years, but was not effective and nowadays has as well
its own emission reduction policy. This climate strategy is enforced and overseen by
the Tokyo Metropolitan Government. The first phase runs up to 2014, organizations
and companies will have to cut their carbon emissions by 6 %. The long term aim is to
cut the city's carbon emissions by 25 % from 2000 to 2020 (Estaught & Sternal-
Johnson, 2010)

Joint implementation (JI)

Joint implementation is one of the three flexible mechanisms set in the Kyoto
Protocol, which allows a country to earn credits called Emission Reduction Units.
ERU is equal to one metric tonne of CO2 equivalent (Wikipedia, 2012). The general
idea of JI is to decrease greenhouse gas emissions via cost-efficient projects in
industrialized countries. Cooperating parties earn ERU for their efforts. JI investors
can use the ERUs obtained from the project to increase their emissions allowance or
meet reduction commitments (DNV, 2012).

For Russia, which in the Kyoto Protocol is referred to as an industrialized country, the
mechanism of joint implementation is particularly important, as Russia is number one
in the world by the volume of associated gas flaring. According to World Wildlife
Fund, burning of oil associated gas accounts for about 1.5 % of all global emissions of
greenhouse carbon dioxide, and also brings into the atmosphere many dangerous
chemical elements. International JI market is shown on Figure 7. Russia is tipped as
the world’s largest provider of carbon credits under the Kyoto Protocol’s JI
mechanism (Alimov, 2009).

Clean Development Mechanism

The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is one of the key mechanisms of the
Kyoto Protocol, which aims to make the reduction of emissions beneficial where they
are cheapest. Developed countries with specific commitments to reduce emissions can
invest into CDM projects to reduce CO2 emissions in developing countries, and thus
compensate for its emissions by getting Certified Emissions Reduction units (CERs)
(Tveit, 2011). The statistics of obtained CERs are presented on the Figure 8. One
CER equals to an emission reduction of one metric tonne of CO2 equivalent (Shell,

8
2012). In order for the scheme to function projects must be validated as it is a
guarantee that they aim for a real and lasting results.

There are more than 1000 CDM projects that have been implemented in different
industries from energy sector to subsidized technologies. Most of the projects were
materialized in rapidly developing countries like India and China. To this day more
than 3000 CDM schemes are to be applied in the nearest future. As a result 3 billion
CERs will be generated by 2012.

Nowadays CER trading is a huge market with an annual cash flow of 10 billion USD.
This helps to develop global carbon trading market, boosting the profit for financing
companies, consulting firms and brokers (Sandbag, 2011).

Gas Flaring and venting in CDM projects

Gas flaring and venting reduction projects are a good alternative for CDM schemes.
While reducing gas flaring and venting significantly, CDM projects would also justify
the investment. Prior to the project implementation it must fulfill challenging
requirements. Approval for the registration by the UN Framework Convention’s
CDM Executive Board and host countries’ governments is an example of such a
requirement. The project itself must demonstrate that the emission reductions would
not be achieved without implementation of the project. Insufficient or raw information
at the time of project development will cause for rejection and financial losses. For
instance, as for the end of 2010, only 10 out of 21 projects were successfully
registered (AMEC, 2012).

Possible CDM activities related to gas flaring and can be gas to pipeline, gas to
power, gas to heat, gas to Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), gas to Liquefied Petroleum
Gas (LPG), gas to feedstock, for example methanol, ethylene, ammonia, and gas to
re-injection. Also the same categories as above and utilizing vented gas and
improving flares efficiency to reduce CH4 content of flares are included (Gouvello,
2011).

The real numbers related to gas flaring reduction projects around the world are shown
on Table 1. Most of the projects were implemented in India and Nigeria.

Global Gas Flaring Reduction

Global gas flaring reduction (GGFR) is a public-private partnership aimed at reducing

gas flaring and venting around the world, which helps to solve problems related with
global warming. It was established in 2002 and led by the World Bank. Participants of
9
GGFR work together and set the dialogue to remove all the barriers to reduce gas
flaring and venting by the application of best international experience and the
implementation of regional programs. GGFR assists the Governments and the oil
companies in their efforts to reduce flaring, venting and dispersion of gas in the fields
around the world (The World Bank, 2012). Furthermore, poverty reduction in
developing countries is also a principal part of the program.

By providing necessary infrastructure and facilities natural gas can be utilized by the
communities close to flaring sites. There are some small-scale projects which have
already been implemented under the program (The World Bank, 2012). Participating
countries and the petroleum companies are shown on Table 2. Different projects
which were implemented around the world under the GGFR program can be found on
Table 3.

Three GGFR Networks

The GGFR sets up three main network groups which include representatives from
different public and private areas. The idea is to make recommendations on the legal,
regulatory, technical and financial best practices in order to attract investment in the
reduction of gas flaring.

The technical network works on various projects solving technical and technological
problems. Six topics could be specified.

 The first topic is measurement and reporting of flare volumes

 Production process optimization and operational procedure improvement

 Associated gas utilization technologies

 Flare optimization

 Preparing effective flare management plans

 Industry management practices for flare reductions

The carbon network shares best practices in carbon credits financing making gas
flaring projects more investment attractive. It works as an advisory element when new
oil and gas projects are on the way, allowing them to be registered under the Clean
Development Mechanism.

The communications network focuses on main GGFR communications initiatives. It

aims to make a clear dialogue between international partners through contribution and
providing guidance and advice.
10
Satellite Data Estimation of Gas Flaring Volumes

Data collection and processing is a big part of global gas flaring and venting program.
Relying on this information the oil companies and different Parties can work in close
cooperation in order to get economic benefit from projects under GGFR. Satellite
Data Estimation is the state-of-the-art technology used to define gas flaring volumes
and is visualized by using low light imaging data acquired by the Defense
Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP).

Current estimates of gas flaring and venting are based on voluntary reports made by
corporations and individual countries. Those reports are not reliable and it is obvious
that some of the numbers of gas flaring and venting volumes are low. For instance,
Nigeria has been widely reported as the largest gas flaring country, but in fact the
satellite data indicated that Russia has twice the gas flaring volume of Nigeria
(Elvidg et al., 2007). Early observations indicate that the results will clarify how the
different projects are succeeding.

A set of place marks which was created based on a visual interpretation is presented
on Figure 9. Each of the features is identified as a gas flare in the DMSP night-time
lights data. Sites that had either clear indications of gas flaring, or no features
inconsistent with being a gas flare, were marked as red. Sites which were clearly not
gas flares (cities, towns, airports, mines) were marked with green place marks.
According to the satellite estimates shown on Table 4, the ranking of top 10 flaring
countries includes: Russia, Nigeria, Iran, Iraq, Algeria, Kazakhstan, Libya, Saudi
Arabia, Angola and Qatar. Most of the gas flaring reduction comes from Russia and
Nigeria.

Natural Gas STAR Program overview

Natural Gas STAR Program is an initiative of United States Environmental Protection

Agency. It is a non-commercial and flexible partnership which was founded in 1993
to reduce methane emissions by stimulating petroleum companies to imply cost-
effective technologies and projects. Starting to work in collaboration with US oil and
gas companies, in 2006 the program in support of the Global Methane Initiative was
expanded worldwide providing the framework to reduce emissions from the oil and
gas sector. Methane emissions are found in all chains of petroleum industry from
drilling to production, through refining and storage, to transportation and distribution.

11
Today, the program has more than 130 companies, including 16 international partners.
Further in this chapter methane emissions reduction effects for both American and
international partners will be described.

Natural Gas STAR Program in the U.S.

From the start of the program to year 2010, the majority of the U.S. participating
companies confirmed the effectiveness of the cooperation in reduction of emissions
from their operations. About 100 technologies and practices were implemented, as a
result domestic emissions inside the U.S. decreased to 94.1 Bcf annually (Figure 10)
and reduction of methane emissions by sector is presented in Figure 11. According to
the official website of Natural Gas STAR Program, the 2010 voluntary emission
reductions in the U.S. are equivalent to:

 The additional revenue of more than 376 million USD in natural gas sales (4
USD per thousand cubic feet)

 The avoidance of 38.1 million tonnes CO2 equivalent

 The carbon sequestered annually by 8.1 million acres of pine or fir forests

 The annual greenhouse gas emissions from nearly 7.3 million passenger
vehicles

Natural Gas STAR International

Natural Gas STAR International partner companies also reported advantageous

effects of the program. According to the report the methane emissions reduced by 6.8
Bcf each year and to 77.8 Bcf in total since the beginning. The progress is mainly
based on participation benefits, such as Information Sharing and Technology
Transfer, Program and Technical Assistance, Peer Networking, and Public
Recognition.

Nowadays, international partners have undertaken methane emission reduction

activities in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Equatorial Guinea, India, and Nigeria. For
2010, these companies reported methane emissions reductions from the
implementation of 34 technologies and practices. In the year 2010 methane emissions
reduction was equivalent to:

 Extra 27 million USD as an increased revenue in natural gas sales (4 USD per
thousand cubic feet)
 The avoidance of 2.7 million tonnes of CO2 emissions equivalent
 The carbon sequestered annually by nearly 586000 acres of pine or fir forests.
12
  The annual greenhouse gas emissions from more than 525000 passenger
vehicles

3.2 Technical efforts

Reduction of Flaring and Venting during Drilling and Well Tests

When drilling, operators often penetrate methane beds on the way down to the
reservoir, in which the methane will exit the well and go into the atmosphere. In this
case, the easiest thing to do for most operators is to prevent the pure gas from venting,
which is much worse than flaring it. This will also speed up the drilling process and
reduces plausible damage to producing formations by the drilling fluids.

Well testing often has a duration of several days, and it is to determine the different
attributes of the well, such as flow rate, fluid viscosity, rock density, reservoir
pressure etc. During this time, the natural gas is generally flared, and even vented
from some low-volume wells. With new procedures and regulations flaring and
venting has been reduced considerably (Bott, 2007).

Now the well tests have to be conducted under much shorter time, which is getting
easier and easier as the tools are getting better and more advanced. As an example, the
“Alberta Energy and Utilities Board” established a time limit of 72 hours in most
cases, where the operators need to elaborate on reasons to why they require more
time.

In cases where there are existing pipelines to processing plants, they can connect to
that system while doing the well tests. That way the gas can be processed and sold
instead of flared or vented. This procedure is called “in-line testing”. Unfortunately
this is not the case in most operations, because a processing plant is not always
nearby, and especially in the cases of exploratory wells. Flaring is often still needed as
a way to determine well characteristics and to remove waste materials.

With in-line testing the well connects to a nearby pipeline, and this allows the testing
to occur without the venting or combustion of flare gas. Even though some flaring is
still involved in in-line testing, it is at greatly reduced volumes. This becomes more
difficult unless there is a developed infrastructure of dense network and existing
pipelines (SENES Consultants Limited, 2007).

Seeing that not all wells have an existing pipeline close by, the industry is still trying
to find new ways to prevent the flaring and venting. In the case where flaring is

13
necessary, the industry is trying to find ways of reducing the frequency and duration
of well test flaring.

Methods of reducing flaring and venting of associated gas and solution gas

In order to reduce the emission of CO2 gases it is much better to use the gas for
something more useful, like selling it as an energy source. Another way to use it is to
pump it back down into the reservoir, to maintain the pressure and flow rate of the oil
being produced. An example of this procedure is the Oseberg field in Norway. By
using the associated gas in the production, they are able to recover much higher
percentage of oil than if they were to simply inject water for example (Statoil, 2012).
The natural gas can later be produced and sold when crude oil production ceases. In
the case where this is not necessary, or not possible, the gas can also be used to
produce electricity in gas-fired turbines called “microturbines”. That way the gas isn’t
just wasted on flaring, but can be an energy source to provide power for industry
operations, like pumping, compression machines and gas processing. The electricity
can even be sold, if they do not need all of it (Bott, 2007).

Injection of natural gas in reservoirs

Taking Norway as an example, we see that since they started the injection of natural
gas in year 1975 they have been able to recover 2-2.3 billion barrels more oil and
condensate (Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, 2010). There are various ways of
injecting the gas, with various effects. When the gas comes in contact with the oil two
things can happen. We can get what is called a miscible injection, which means the oil
and gas mix to a certain extent, depending on the pressure and temperature. The other
thing that can happen is what is called immiscible injection, which is when the gas
will not mix with the oil and instead form a separate phase. Gas injection is often
combined with water injection (WAG). In this case only 10-12 % gas is required.
Examples of the results of this technique are Ekofisk field, which increased the
recovery rate from 17-18 % to 50 %, Statfjord field, which has an expected recovery
rate 66 %, and the Oseberg field, which is expected to recover 63 % (Norwegian
Petroleum Directorate, 2010).

Microturbines

The compact turbine generators can produce electricity onsite, or close to the area
where it is needed. Different turbines are designed to tolerate and operate on various
gas and liquid fluids. Some turbines have other functions, such as providing hot water,
or driving an absorption chiller for air conditioning, among other uses (Capstone
14
Turbine – Figure 12). A microturbine can have a generating average capacity of 426
kW.

Reduction of Flaring and Venting in Processing Plants

For most processing plants the biggest problem has been removing the H2S in the
natural gas. In the case where they couldn’t remove it, the gas would be flared. Over
the years, the processing plants have become better and more advanced, with better
systems and tools. These systems and tools have increased the efficiency of sulfur
recovery, and that way reduced the amount of incineration or flaring to dispose of
H2S. Previously “non-spec” gas, meaning gas that did not meet pipeline specifications
was flared or incinerated. Now, additional methods are also being used by more and
more processing plants, to inject H2S and CO2 into underground formations. One of
the newest technologies being used is bacteria that remove the sulfur from low
volumes of sour gas (Bott, 2007).

Bacteria removing sulfur

The reason for removing the sulfur from the gas is simple. If the gas contains too
much sulfur it cannot be sold to people, so it is flared. In the case it satisfies the
requirements, but still contains some sulfur, it is sold and burned by the consumers.
Either way, the sulfur will contaminate and pollute the environment, creating acid rain
and other problems, like supporting reactions that deplete the ozone in the
stratosphere (Muyzer et al., 2007).

The sulfur bacteria create a sustainable process that remove the sulfur compounds
under highly alkaline and oxygen-limited conditions. Byproducts from the sulfate and
thiosulfate will then be removed from the stream before being disposed of. This is
also done by bacteria, but different ones, that remove sulfate and thiosulfate (Muyzer
et al., 2007).

Reduction of Flaring and Venting in Other Petroleum Facilities

In this area, the flaring and venting has been greatly reduced due to improved
equipment and procedures. One of the areas where venting was a problem, was when
pipeline companies would perform repairs and maintenance of the pipes, but through
new methods the flaring and venting have been cut down to nearly zero. An example
of one of these methods is “hot tapping”, which is a method used to prevent venting
of natural gas when connecting pipelines. Hot tapping makes it possible to work on a

15
live system, like pipes and pressure vessels without having to vent or shut down
operations. Example of “hot tapping” vessel is shown on Figure 13.

3.3 Efforts to reduce flaring volumes in the highest flaring nations

The GGFR illuminates that future flaring reduction projects around the world have the
potential of eliminating 32 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions by 2012
(Buzcu-Guven et al., 2010).

Russian Federation
In the later years more and more of the big companies in Russia have started to find
the economic benefits of utilizing the associated gas, and especially because of the
newly increases in the gas prices in their own country. One of the largest companies,
Surgetneftegas, has started to do large investments in gas turbine power generators
and pipelines, and they plan to utilize the rates to 97 % in the near future. However,
the amount of gas or electricity demanded in oil field and local communities are
usually much less than the amount of produced associated gas. Because of Gazprom’s
monopoly on pipeline network, gas processing and gas exports, other companies are
limited in finding other options to utilize their gas (IEA, 2006). Gazprom only allows
associated gas that meets certain criteria to flow through its pipelines, therefore, most
oil producers cannot sell their gas to Gazprom without further processing, and there is
no other entity that can purchase their gas. Their only option is to send the associated
gas to one of the Gazprom-owned gas processing plants or build their own. Gazprom
has as well monopoly on Russia`s export of natural gas to European markets. It sells
gas at high prices of around $140-280 per million cubic meters (mmcm), however,
other producers cannot do that. They are free to sell their gas to domestic markets
using Gazprom`s pipelines but at a much lower prices (around $45/mmcm).

The lack of efforts to value associated gas in Russia is due to the absence of
competitive markets for gas and other fuels. Another problem is the little financial
incentive to re-inject, sell or make any other beneficial uses of the associated gas that
their country so abundantly have for the oil producers (Buzcu-Guven et al. 2010).

The government of Russia has done some efforts to help reduce the flaring and
venting, as for example increasing the methane emission fees for flaring associated
gas. These efforts started in 2005, however, it is very unclear how strictly and
effectively these regulations are being enforced by the government. Some recommend
fees that are based on each unit volume of gas that is flared, and mean that it would

16
discourage companies in flaring associated gas in a more effective way than the fees
based on concentration of methane emissions (IEA, 2006).

The licenses issued by the Ministry of Natural Resources to oil and gas producers
include the permission to process and sell associated gas, re-inject it in the reservoir,
utilize it in the facility or produce electricity, or even flare specified amounts, but
there is no specific legislation that is supposed to regulate and restrict flaring or
venting. This is due to the insufficiently defined responsibilities of the authorities,
both the federal and regional, and often they overlap, which makes them more
ineffective in enforcing the regulations (IEA, 2006).

In Russia, transport of associated gas to the markets is still not a reliable way to use
the gas because of the uncertainties related to pipeline operations that belong to
Gazprom. On the brighter side, the carbon credits under the Kyoto Protocol Clean
Development Mechanism may be a potential financial incentive which supports re-
injection, Gas to liquid (GTL), and LNG projects to help reduce the flaring and
venting. If Gazprom got along with the oil companies and became more cooperative
and accepted buying of associated gas or transporting it with their pipelines, it would
mitigate the demand in Russia and moderate the increases in gas prices on a domestic
basis (IEA, 2006).

Nigeria

From the early stages of development petroleum companies in Nigeria have mainly
been interested in oil, because of various reasons, such as low market price of gas,
little demand, lack of technologies and undeveloped infrastructure, causing gas
flaring. Gas flaring has been a continuous issue in Nigeria. Only 40 % of daily gas
production is re-injected or used commercially, while 50 % is flared causing
environmental and health problems (Abuja, 2012). Nigerian oil and gas companies
emit 44 million tons of CO2 emissions as a result of flaring about 19 billion cubic
meters of gas (ICF, 2006).

In 1979 Nigerian government signed the Associated Gas Re-Injection Act, where it
was declared that the companies are forbidden to flare the gas produced with oil after
1 January 1984 without the admission of the Minister. Nevertheless, the Nigerian
authorities did not succeed in forcing the companies to keep the deadlines.

However, international oil and gas producers, as Shell, have been complaining about
shortages in financing of new gas flaring reduction projects and reported that they
reduced flaring by 60 % in Nigeria between 2002 and 2008. One-half of the reduction
17
is achieved through gas gathering and associated gas utilization projects and another
half is carried out due to security issues (Shell, 2008). Nevertheless, the real data
show that between 1999 and 2008 the gas flaring decreased by 12 % only.

There are many reasons for continuous burning of gas in Nigeria. Economic and fiscal
responsibilities of the international petroleum companies and the powerlessness of the
government to enforce to comply with the laws and regulations against gas flaring are
obviously defined as a main deterrent.

Because of intensive oil production local citizens around Niger Delta are having
problems to access to fishing and agricultural activities. Pollution of river, atmosphere
and surrounding territories causes difficulties for farming and takes the major source
of livelihood away from native inhabitants (Oghifo, 2011). The main Nigerian
companies which flare the gas are shown on the Figure 14.

To date there are different projects and master plans on the way helping to reduce gas
flaring. The West African Gas Pipeline Company owned by Chevron, Nigerian
National Petroleum Corporation and Shell has created a plan to build a new 684 km
gas pipeline to connect different oil fields across Sub-Saharan Africa. As a result the
CO2 emission is to be reduced by 78 million tonnes.

The reality shows that Nigeria is facing problems with electricity supply. Ongoing
power shortages have stimulated to develop flaring reduction projects, as 81 million
people do not have access to electricity and the average electricity consumption per
person is one of the lowest in the world (US EIA, 2012). The main aim is to build
more gas-fired power plants in Nigeria and West Africa. It is a good alternative to
hydro-electric power plants, which are strongly affected by seasonal flow reductions
and droughts.

Moreover, GTL technology is also used to reduce flaring. One of the first projects in
Nigeria was Sasol Chevron in Escravos. The plant will refine 300 Mcf per day of gas
to GTL diesel and GTL naphtha for further marketing in the EU and US (Buzcu-
Guven et al. 2010). Other GTL projects are introduced, however this technology is
new and it will take time to implement these projects.

The Nigerian Government has introduced fiscal incentives for international

companies in order to attract more investment into flaring reduction projects. These
fiscal incentives are the following (Buzcu-Guven et al. 2010):

18
  a value added tax (VAT) and customs-duty exemptions on plant, machinery
and equipment;
 a five-year tax holiday;
 an accelerated capital allowance after the tax-free period in the form of 90 %,
with 10 % retention on the books for investment in plant and machinery;
 a 15 % investment capital allowance that shall not reduce the value of the
asset;
 tax-free dividends during the tax-free period;
 tax-deductible interest on loans for associated gas utilization projects.

In 2007 the Nigerian government has created a Gas Master Plan (Yar'adua, 2007).
The idea of the plan is to stimulate the domestic use of natural gas by developing the
infrastructure and introducing competition and open access. The authorities are
intended to provide support by looking at initial increases in high-pressure
transmission and better fulfillment of existing gas pipelines by the international oil
companies.

Other countries

Shell and Iraq’s South Oil Company formed a joint venture recently to reduce flaring
in southern Iraq’s petroleum fields by investing in the infrastructure. The aim is to sell
associated gas in domestic markets of Iraq through the joint venture, and also use it to
generate power, and export it to other countries (Buzcu-Guven et al., 2010).

The AMAK project in Iran, started the most extensive environmental project
implemented by the National Iranian South Oil Company in February 2005, to collect
associated gas from one of the reservoirs in the Ahwaz oil field in Southern Iran. The
project was so big that they needed to construct seven sour gas compressors, one acid
gas compressor, a sweetening plant, 280 km long gas pipeline and 100 km of power
lines. The goal of this project is to prevent flaring of 7 Mcm of sour gas per day.

In Angola, Chevron has several projects on associated gas management. The Flare
and Relief Modifications (FARM) project works with the offshore Gas Processing
Platform and Cabinda Gas Plant, in order to upgrade and modify the gas flaring and
relief systems on 14 offshore facilities, process offshore natural gas liquids (NGL),
and produce LPG. FARM uses floating production, storage and offloading vessels to
export these products. This project will then eliminate 708 000 m3 of flared gas per
day (Buzcu-Guven et al. 2010).

19
Algeria and Egypt have extended their gas infrastructure, developed domestic gas
markets, and allocated a fair share of domestic production for export by increasing
domestic gas prices (Buzcu-Guven et al. 2010).

20
 4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Summary

The energy sector annually burns amounts of gas equivalent to one third of the
consumption of natural gas in Europe, polluting the atmosphere with about 400
million tons of CO2 – about 1.5 % of global emissions of CO2 (Bror, 2008). Lack of
rapid overall progress shows how difficult it is to stop this practice. The international
community is providing broad support for the governments and oil companies around
the world in finding technical and practical solutions. Initiatives as GGFR and Kyoto
mechanisms contribute to the implementation of projects through the effective
regulatory schemes and investments in infrastructure.

There are many methods, procedures and new technologies that help to reduce the
flaring and venting of natural gas. But even with all of these remedies there are still
many countries that do not want to make full use of them, because it requires time,
knowledge and investment to conduct. In most cases the gas prices are still too low to
make all of these efforts profitable.

Conclusion

A lot of research has been made on the topic. Especially during the last decade the
issue significantly gathered pace after the global community turned its attention to the
problem of environmental protection. The technology to address the problem of gas
flaring exists today and the policy regulations required are largely understood.
However, deeper issues regarding infrastructure development and market design
hinder progress in the countries where gas flaring is most abundant. Many
constructive efforts to reduce flaring are underway, yet with the current speed it will
likely take a decade or more to minimize this wasteful practice. However, with greater
global attention and concerted action, as well considering the rising tendency of gas
prices large-scale gas flaring can hopefully be minimized in shorter times.

21
 5 SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE WORK

Strengthen international commitments and collaboration

The next phase of gas flaring elimination requires a coordinated effort from central
and regional governments, oil and gas producers, technology providers and the
international community. These efforts must include proper punishing actions, which
are effectively executed, and incentives to encourage investment in development of
infrastructure, technology and other solutions that help reducing the gas flaring.

Improve local solutions

Local efforts are also critical to gas flaring reduction. Governments, oil and gas
companies and technology providers across the globe must cooperate in order to share
the experience, highlight the financial benefits from gas flaring reduction, create
environment that helps local investors and contractors develop, operate and service
distributed power generation.

Better access to financing

Local efforts require financial support, including investments in pipeline, processing

and storage, which will make it economically efficient to gather and utilize flare gas.
Even though the knowledge is there and the technology is available it often happens
that cheaper and short-term solutions are preferred. Access to necessary financing is
as important as the other factors for the long-term goal of eliminating the issue of gas
flaring.

22
 6 REFERENCES

Abuja, A. (2012, March 22). No standart measurement for gas produced in Nigeria. Retrieved October
10, 2012, from Bussiness Day: http://www.businessdayonline.com/NG/index.php/gas/34797-
no-standard-measurement-for-gas-produced-in-nigeria
Alimov, R. (2009, November). Russian Sberbank will start tenders for Joint Implementation projects.
Retrieved November 17, 2012, from Russian Socio-Ecological Union:
http://rusecounion.ru/ang_klimat17119
AMEC. (2012, November). Gas flaring projects under the Clean Development Mechanism of the
Kyoto Protocol. Retrieved November 2, 2012, from AMEC:
http://www.amec.com/aboutus/projects/oil_and_gas/gas-flaring-kyoto.htm?from=related
Australian Pipeliner . (2006, July). Extended offshore pipeline services to avoid downtime. Retrieved
October 25, 2012, from The Australian Pipeliner :
http://pipeliner.com.au/news/extended_offshore_pipeline_services_to_avoid_downtime/04120
2/
Bott, R. D. (2007, October). Flaring Answers + Questions. Retrieved October 20, 2012, from Stuff
Connections - World Bank Intranet:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTGGFR/Resources/578068-
1258067586081/FlaringQA.pdfhttp://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTGGFR/Resources/5780
68-1258067586081/FlaringQA.pdf
Bror, V. (2008). Steep aim: Stop gas flaring. Hague: Shell.
Buzcu-Guven, B., Harris, R., & Hertzmzrk, D. (2010, November). Energy Market Consequences, Gas
Flaring and Venting: Extent, Impacts and Remedies. Retrieved November 4, 2012, from Rice
University:
http://www.bakerinstitute.org/publications/CARBONFlaring%20paper%20Birnur%20FINAL
with%20cover%20secured.pdf
Capehart, B. (2010, August 31). Microturbines. Retrieved October 25, 2012, from WBDG:
http://www.wbdg.org/resources/microturbines.php
CAPP. (2012, October). Flaring & Venting. Retrieved October 10, 2012, from Canadian Association of
Petroleum Producers:
http://www.capp.ca/environmentCommunity/airClimateChange/Pages/FlaringVenting.aspx
DNV. (2012). Joint implementation scheme. Retrieved November 6, 2012, from DNV Managing Risk:
http://www.dnv.com/services/verification/carbon_credit_validation_verification/ji/
Elvidge, C., Baugh, K., Zniznin, M., & Pack, D. (2009). Improving Satellite Data Estimation of Gas
Flaring Volumes.
EPA. (2012, September 27). Accomplishments. Retrieved October 2012, from US Environmental
Protection Agency: http://www.epa.gov/gasstar/accomplishments/index.html
Estaught, B., & Sternal-Johnson, C. (2010, July 16). Tokyo Metropolitan Government Leads Japan,
Launches Own GHG Emissions Cap-and-Trade Program. Retrieved November 14, 2012,
from Artcraft Japan Official Blog: http://artcraftjapan.wordpress.com/2010/07/16/tokyo-
metropolitan-government-leads-japan-launches-own-ghg-emissions-cap-and-trade-program/
Farina, M. (2010, 10). GE Energy Flare Gas Reduction. Retrieved October 16, 2012, from Songas and
23
 GE Energy: http://www.ge-
energy.com/content/multimedia/_files/downloads/GE%20Flare%20Gas%20Reduction%2001-
24-2011.pdf
GAO. (2004, July). Natural Gas Flaring and Venting: Opportunities to improve data and reduce
emissions. Retrieved November 1, 2012, from U.S. Government Accountability Office:
http://www.gao.gov/assets/250/243433.pdf
Gao, Z., & Worika, I. (1998). Appendix 9. In Z. Gao, & I. Worika, Petroleum Environmental Glossary
(p. 555). Environmental Regulation of Oil and Gas.
GBA. (2012, November 1). Water Seals and Knock-out Drums. Retrieved November 1, 2012, from
GBA Flare Systems: http://www.gba-flares.com/ancilliaries1.htm
Gouvello, C. (2011, October). Gas Flaring and CDM. Retrieved October 24, 2012, from The World
Bank: http://www.worldbank.org/html/fpd/ggfrforum06/sucre/degouvelo.ppt
ICF. (2006, June). Nigeria: Carbon Credit Development for Flare Reduction Projects . Retrieved
October 28, 2012, from ICF International:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTGGFR/Resources/NigeriaGGFRGuidebook_ICF.pdf
IEA. (2006, October). Optimising Russian Natural Gas. Retrieved October 27, 2012, from
International Energy Agency:
http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/name,3647,en.html
IQPC, O. a. (2012, October). IQ Glossary. Retrieved October 10, 2012, from Oil and Gas iQ:
http://www.oilandgasiq.com/glossary/associated-gas/
Kinzhikov, A., & Poussenkova, N. (2009). Russian Associated Gas Utilization: Problems and
Prospects. World Wildlife Federation-Russia- Institute of World Economy and International
Relations.
Muyzer, G., Sorokin, D., Stams, F., & Siezen, R. (2007, October). Why Sequence Bacteria That Reduce
Sulfur Compounds? Retrieved October 14, 2012, from Doe Joint Genome Institute:
http://www.jgi.doe.gov/sequencing/why/100322.html
Norwegian Petroleum Directorate. (2010, 11 19). Large quantities of oil from gas injection. Retrieved
October 25, 2012, from Norwegian Petroleum Directorate:
http://www.npd.no/en/Topics/Improved-Recovery/Temaartikler/Large-quantities-of-oil-from-
gas-injection/
Oghifo, O. (2011). Gas Flaring/Power plants in Nigeria: Socio-economic and Environmental Impact
on the People of Niger Delta. Bodø: Universitetet i Nordland.
RigZone. (2012, October). How Does Well Acidizing Work to Stimulate Production? Retrieved October
16, 2012, from RigZone:
http://www.rigzone.com/training/insight.asp?insight_id=320&c_id=4
Rios, M. (2009, November 17). Satellite Observations Show Declining Levels of Gas Flaring,
Greenhouse Emissions. Retrieved November 2, 2012, from The World Bank Group:
http://go.worldbank.org/TCE8GDUG80
Sandbag. (2011, July 26). What is the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)? Retrieved November 1,
2012, from The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/26/clean-
development-mechanism
SENES Consultants Limited. (2007, May). Sour Gas Well-Test Flaring. Retrieved October 13, 2012,

24
 from The Science and Community Environmental Knowledge (SCEK):
http://scek.ca/documents/scek/Final_Reports/RA%202006-
08%20Sour%20Gas%20Final%20Report-May%2017_%202007.pdf
Shell. (2008, October). Sustainability report. Retrieved October 28, 2012, from Royal Dutch Shell:
http://www-
static.shell.com/static/investor/downloads/financial_information/reports/2008/2008_shell_sust
ainability_report.pdf
Shell. (2012, November). Certified Emission Reductions. Retrieved November 1, 2012, from The Shell
global homepage:
http://www.shell.com/home/content/shipping_trading/environmental_trading_solutions/produ
cts/certified_emissions_reductions/
Statoil. (2012, 08 28). Statiol awarded IOR prize. Retrieved November 3, 2012, from Statoil:
http://www.statoil.com/en/NewsAndMedia/News/2012/Pages/28aug_ior.aspx
Svensson, B. (2006, February 6). GGFR Initiative – General Context. Retrieved October 25, 2012,
from GGFR Initiative – General Context:
http://photos.state.gov/libraries/indonesia/502679/energyrountable/Panel%202_2%20Bent%2
0Svensson%20Feb%206.pdf
The World Bank. (2012). GGFR European and Central Asian countries. Retrieved November 2012,
from The World Bank Group:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTGGFR/Resources/578035-
1164215415623/GGFR_ECA_CC_RUS_0826.pdf
Tveit, A. (2011, June 22). Despite the criticism, the Kyoto Protocol's CDM shows positive results.
Retrieved November 12, 2012, from The Bellona Foundation:
http://www.bellona.ru/articles_ru/articles_2011/bellona-25-kioto
United Nations. (2008). Kyoto Protocol Reference Manual. Bonn: UNFCC.
United States Enviromental Protection Agency. (1991, September). Industrial Flares. Retrieved
October 13, 2012, from United States Enviromental Protection Agency:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch13/final/c13s05.pdf
US EIA. (2012). Nigeria. Washington: Energy Information Administration.
Wikipedia. (2012, November 2). Clean Development Mechanism. Retrieved November 2012, from
Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Cers-pie-
Oct-2012.svg&page=1
Wikipedia. (2012, October 7). Gas flare. Retrieved October 25, 2012, from Wikipedia The Free
Encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_flare
Wikipedia. (2012, September 12). Joint Implementation. Retrieved November 3, 2012, from Wikipedia
The Free Encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Implementation
Wikipedia. (2012, October). Kyoto Protocol. Retrieved October 2012, from Wikipedia The Free
Encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
Yar'adua, A. (2007, November 26). The Nigerian Gas Master-Plan. Retrieved October 29, 2012, from
Petroleum Products Pricing Regulatory Agency: http://www.pppra-
nigeria.org/presentation_2.pdf

25
 7 TABLES
Table 1 Current Gas Flaring Reduction CDM Projects (Gouvello, 2011)

Table 2 GGFR Partners around the World (as of September 2011) (World Bank Group,
2011)

Countries Oil companies Other partners

Algeria BP European Union
Angola Chevron World Bank Group
Azerbaijan ConocoPhillips Wartsila
Cameroon Eni
France ExxonMobil
Gabon Kuwait Oil Corporation
Indonesia Marathon Oil
Iraq Maersk Oil and Gas
Kazakhstan Pemex
Khanty-Mansiysk Shell
Russian Federation Sonatrach
Kuwait SOCAR
Mexico (Sener) SNH
Nigeria Statoil
Norway TOTAL
Qatar Qatar Petroleum
Uzbekistan

26
 Table 3 GGFR Partner Countries and the projects (Svensson, 2005)

Partner Countries Projects Carbon credit options

Algeria 3 fields: Ohanet, TFT Exploring carbon credits
and In Amenas for the same three fields
Nigeria 2 projects: gas pipeline 2 power projects
and gas to power AFAM, Kwale
Angola Angola LNG Angola LNG
Cameroon Rio del Rey pipeline to
Limbe
Equatorial Guinea Regional gas transport
system
Chad Sedigui
Russia Gas projects in Khanty- Gas to Power Surgut,
Mansiysk TNK-BP
Indonesia To be developed To be developed

Table 4 Estimated flared volume from satellite data (Rios, 2009)

27
 8 FIGURES

Figure 1 Spectrum of waste gas (Farina, 2010)

Figure 2 Gas flaring countries and

trends (Farina, 2010)

Figure 3 Flaring geography (Farina, 2010)

28
 Figure 4 Schematic flow diagram of overall flare
stack system (Wikipedia, 2012)

Figure 5 Water seal flashback drum (GBA, 2012)

Figure 6 Kyoto Protocol participation map as of February 2012 (Wikipedia, 2012)

29
 Figure 7 Worldwide Joint Implementation market
(Alimov, 2009)

Figure 8 Certified Emission Reduction units by country

(Wikipedia, 2012)

30
Figure 9 Visual Interpretation of gas flare in the Defence Meteorological Satellites Program in
the nightime lights data (Elvidge, 2009)

Figure 10 USA domestic Gas STAR Methane Figure 11 Methane Emissions Reductions
Emissions Reduction (EPA, 2012) (EPA, 2012)

Figure 12 Microturbine (Capehart, 2010)

31
 Figure 13 Hot tapping (Australian Pipeliner, 2006)

Figure 14 Nigerian Gas Flaring by Company 2000-2009 (Farina, 2010)

32