A FLARE GAS RECOVERY SYSTEM J D Miles Argo Environmental Engineering Limited www.argoengineering.

com

SUMMARY Flaring in the UKCS currently results in about 1% of total UK CO2 emissions. Following the Kyoto Agreement a number of initiatives have been brought forward to minimise CO2 emissions from offshore production on both sides of the North Sea. In Norway a CO2 tax was implemented in January 1991, resulting in urgent moves from the industry to cut flaring. In the UK things were initially a little slower, however industry lead initiatives have lead this year to the formation of a voluntary flare gas trading group. This paper reviews the background behind the need to drive down flaring and discusses the approach adopted in Norway to introduce a CO2 tax leading to the development of Flare Gas Recovery (FGR). The FGR concept is discussed and experience in Norway evaluated. The platform first associated with FGR, the Gullfaks facility, saw in excess of 68% reduction in flaring over the first 4 years of operation to 1998. In the UK the operators lead by BP have developed a flare gas trading group in preparation for government legislation anticipated in the near future. The initial impact of BP ambitions to achieve zero flaring by 2003 is discussed. Finally since 1994 when the Gullfaks partnership lead by Statoil initiated FGR the overall development of FGR is reviewed.

NOTATION CO2 DTI FOV FGR UKOOA UKCS FCCC GWP Carbon dioxide Department of Trade and Industry Fast opening valve Flare gas recovery United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association United Kingdom Continental Shelf Framework Convention on Climate Change Global Warming Potential

Page 1 of 11

BACKGROUND Flare Gas Recovery in Norway became a reality when the Norwegian Government introduced a CO2 tax effective 1st January 1991. The tax was initially set at 0.85 NOK/Sm3 and is applicable to all offshore facilities without exception. Whilst the tax has risen to over 1NOK and is currently at 0.72 NOK/Sm3 [6], the impact remains significant. Typical tax savings on Statoils Gullfaks A platform is in the region of 20 million NOK (1.5 million) resulting in strong incentive from Statoil to initiate a reduction in flaring. Supported by their partners on the Gullfaks Project Statoil worked with the ABB Gas Technology (formally Umoe Process Technology) to develop a concept to close the flare and recover the gas. It is perhaps an interesting side issue that a valve closing all or part of the main flare line was infact first used offshore in the North Sea on the BP Bruce facility. On Bruce the main flare was staged, closing the large flare but always leaving the smaller, more robust flare lit. Bruce was commissioned in May 1993, well before FGR became a reality. In practice the Bruce flare was designed like this simply to extend the life of the flare system. It was recognised that very large flares were more susceptible to low flow rate flaring than small flares, and hence the large flare was isolated. It took several years more until 1995 when the Statoil Gullfaks A and C facilities finally commissioned their flare gas recovery systems, but this time the driving force was very definitely saving on CO2 tax. Today there are 16 facilities in Norway operating flare Gas Recovery (see Appendix 1). In the UK, FGR has been troubled by finding the ideal economic formula to establish acceptable payback. Over the past two or three years however BP, under the direction of Sir John Brown, has been struggling with the internal requirement to establish zero flaring by 2003. This drive from the top added weight to the argument for FGR and as a result the BP internal Flare Gas Trading Model was developed and has helped in establishing FGR in the UK for real. Today there are two systems under construction for BP with a number of further studies under various stages of completion for BP, Shell, and Britannia. Flare Gas Recovery is here to stay, and is demonstrating major cost and environmental benefits to the industry. In Britain, offshore flaring accounts for 1% of the UK total CO2 production [1]. This is now at last under threat.

THE GLOBAL WARMING TREATY In a paper published by the DTI [2] entitled Environmental Legislation Applicable to the Onshore Industry, the UK government clearly lays down the principles behind the Global Warming Treaty and the impact on combustion of hydrocarbon gases in the light of this treaty. It is true to say that the now famous Kyoto Protocol has not yet passed into law, but it is coming and the industry is preparing for that day. The Global Warming Treaty is in actual fact made up from several components starting in 1992 when the Earth Summit was held in Rio de Janeiro. At this summit the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) was agreed. The FCCC does not contain binding targets, but recognises that reducing Greenhouse Gas emissions to their 1990 levels would be beneficial! In 1994 the Berlin Mandate was approved, committing signatories to open negotiations to extend and strengthen commitments under the FCCC, including new

Page 2 of 11

emission target reductions beyond 2000. specifically excluded.

At this stage Developing Nations were

In December 1997 the Kyoto Protocol was agreed, imposing targets on industrialised nations to reduce overall emissions of Greenhouse Gases by at least 5% below 1990 levels in the period 2008 2012. Finally in an EC Decision (93/389/EEC), the European Community required member states to devise, publish and implement national programmes for limiting and / or reducing CO2 and other Greenhouse Gases. The UK has a legally binding target under the Kyoto Protocol, once ratified, to reduce a basket of 6 Greenhouse Gases by 12.5% below 1990 levels in the period 2008 2012. The UK however has increased that goal to 20% below 1990 levels by 2010. This lengthy set of proceedings has resulted in clearly defined goals within the UK to achieve measures to tackle climate change. Such measures are not restricted to just CO2, but include 6 Greenhouse Gases, thus venting and VOC reductions must be eventually targeted alongside CO2. Within the same DTI document section 10 deals with Combustion Emissions and reminds readers of the legal and factual impact of combustion by-products: CO2 governed under Kyoto NO / NO2 contributes to Acid Rain and leads to low level photochemical Ozone in the presents of sunlight and VOC health impact SO2 Acid Rain CO toxic gas with GWP of 2-3 time more than CO2 (a Greenhouse Gas) CH4 Unburnt Hydrocarbon GWP of 21 times CO2 (a Greenhouse Gas) 3 ZERO FLARING THE BP MODEL BP have lead the way in introducing flare emission reductions within the UK. They have effectively been operating a CO2 trading system between assets since the beginning of 2000. The system is in its infancy still but is operational. A presentation made by BP at the 80th Annual GPA conference in San Antonio (USA) [3] this year described the model. In this model of CO2 trading taken from a BP web site, an asset is given 50 tonnes of CO2 emissions, but is predicting 60 tonnes. The options open to the asset are to achieve operational reductions, to undertake capital projects, or to purchase additional CO2 permits. In this way an operator can control on a macro scale the total CO2 emissions by setting quotas to assets. The operator can then seek to drive down CO2 emissions on a macro scale by annually decreasing the quotas to achieve longer Fig 1: BP Flare Trading Model tern environmental goals. On a micro courtesy BP Web Site. (project) scale the assets will see a real cost

Page 3 of 11

or benefit in reducing CO2 emissions and can justify capital project and earn extra income. During the presentation, BP stated that they now have the trading system live on their internal intranet allowing business units to buy and sell CO2 in an online trading market. This market has been constrained by lack of volume of business in the early days leading to highly variable costs being associated with CO2 trading. It is expected that the market will develop during 2001 offering a more stable price at around $20 per ton CO2. Indeed as BP restrict the CO2 allocations to business units then potentially force the cost of CO2 higher, this market will become a more significant tool to drive emissions down. Currently BP appear to be limiting themselves to CO2, but the author believes there will be room to move into other Greenhouse Gases in the near future.

INDUSTRY TRADING GROUP Under the terms of the Kyoto Protocol every nation state is to publish and implement national programmes for limiting / reducing Greenhouse gases. It is therefore inevitable that the BP model must be built upon nationally and CO2 will become a traded commodity and will therefore be either treated as a revenue or cost, depending on levels of gas flared. Increasing the volume of gas traded within a national market does offer potential increased market stability through increased trading volumes. It does also raise the issue of who sets gas quotas that will drive the market. The PILOT government / industry task force this year has announced [1] a pilot emissions trading scheme in the UKCS that involves 11 operators and 55 operating fields. This voluntary scheme started in January this year, and is set to target the total CO2 emissions from flared gas. The scheme has the following objectives: Continue the reduction in overall quantity of gas flared Provide early experience of target setting and trading mechanisms Prepare the industry for possible integration into wider emissions trading schemes that are being developed in the UK The companies participating are Amerada Hess, BG Group, BP, Enterprise Oil, Kerr McGee, Marathon Oil UK, Phillips Petroleum UK, Ranger Oil UK, Shell UK, Talisman Energy UK, and TotalFinElf Exploration UK.

FLARE GAS RECOVERY The Zero Flare Option Zero flaring is a term that has been loosely applied to operations attempting to minimise flaring. It is not practical to achieve Zero Flaring itself but it is a worthy target to move toward zero flaring. A paper recently presented by this author to the GPA [3] entitled Toward Zero Flaring - A Practical Approach to Cost Reduction and Environmental Benefit [4], highlighted a

Fig 2: FGR Schematic

Page 4 of 11

holistic approach to target zero flaring. In that paper the overall flare system was discussed with a view to developing an economic approach to minimise flaring. This paper will restrict itself to a review of the Flare Gas Recovery (FGR) system as developed and patented by Statoil and their partners on Gullfaks. FGR is now commercially and technically exploited by ABB Gas Technology under licence from the Gullfaks Partners. The schematic above shows the concept in outline view. 5.1 Flare Gas Recovery (FGR) The FGR system must be flexible to meet a wide range of opportunities. From the outset it must be understood that FGR will not meet every operational requirement. Quite simply if there is no place for the flare gas to be recovered to (other than the flare) then there is little point in installing the system. Having said that there are alternative approaches to improving flare system design (see references [4] and [5]), as well as good housekeeping that can help drive down emissions and save costs. When all else fails and continuous flaring is essential, the Flare Gas Trading market will at least provide a mechanism to permit CO2 permits to be acquired. A typical arrangement for FGR is shown below. Fig 3: Typical Arrangement for Flare Gas Recovery
Recovery to Process

Recovery Compressor

Bursting Disc

FOV

Flare
Ignition System

The system works as follows: A fast opening valve (FOV), which is normally closed, is positioned in the flare header, giving the effect of a sealed flare system. The FOV preferred is a sliding valve Mokveld that fails open. The valve has proven highly reliable in service, with only one recorded failure resulting in the bursting disk blowing. This failure had been due to extended steady operation over a period of weeks on Gullfaks resulting in lack of use of the FOV. The remedy has been that a procedure has been implemented to ensure the valve is operated at least once per month.

Fig 4: Fast Opening Valve

The bursting disk is set at a pressure above the valve set point to open and is generally in the region of 5 barg. These disks are relatively heavy in design (compared with more usual low pressure disks) and are not so prone to premature or non-desired rupture. In addition, the impact of pressure pulses that might be

Page 5 of 11

expected on a bursting disk in the flare line are significantly reduced by the recovery system. Thus the disks are believed very reliable. Any leakage (fugitives and other) into the flare system is recycled via a recovery system to the main process or for fuel gas. The recovery system may be either a simple crossover line to a suction side of an existing compressor, or a boosting devise such as an ejector system or dedicated recovery compressor. The preferred compressors are small screw compressors such as that shown in figure 6 for the Varg project. Such recovery plant maybe sized to recover in the region of 10 tonnes per hour gas, but more generally in the range 2-5 tonnes / hour.

Fig 5: Gas Recovery Ejector Skid

During the conceptual design of the FGR system considerable effort is taken to ensure that the recovery skid is optimised. All flare sources are considered and where possible the operating pressure of the flare knock out drum is increased (under low flow conditions) to facilitate the recovery process. If possible crossover lines or ejectors maybe considered as a preference to screw compressors. 5.2 Ignition System

Fig 6: Varg Booster Compres

In the event of a release requiring access to the flare, the FOV opens and the flare is then automatically lit by the ignition system. The ignition system does require some consideration. Conventional ignition systems offshore that use either flame front generation or direct pilot spark ignition, have not always demonstrated sufficient reliability. It is very important to ensure the flare will always light on demand. ABB Gas Technology with Statoil developed an on demand ballistic flare ignition system to complement the FGR system. This system utilises a high velocity pellet launched within a closed system along a guide pipe to the flare deck. The pellet strikes a striker plate and ignites zirconium dust in a shower of sparks over a 10m, 60 degree cone. This will light all flares in the vicinity. Figure 7 alongside shows the shower of sparks at the point of ignition on Oseberg A platform.

Fig 7: ABB GT Safe Ignition System

Page 6 of 11

EXPERIENCE FROM NORWAY

Gullfaks C The Gullfaks A and C facilities pictured in figure 8 was the first facility offshore to install FGR in 1995. The platform recovered both HP and LP gas streams using ejector skids. The equipment list included: HP and LP 24 inch FOV 2 off 3000 tonne/hr ejector skid recovery systems (HP and LP) ABB GT Safe Ignition system Fig 8: The Gullfaks C Facility
mill.scuf / year

Significantly the Flare rate (mill. actual reduction in SCUF/y) flaring was greatly CO2 tax (mill improved over that USD/y) expected. Flow Gas value (mill measurements prior USD/y) to introducing flare gas recovery Figure 9: Gullfaks indicated that 199319941995199619971998 Economics approximately 50% of the yearly flaring was due to process upsets and that the other half of the flaring were due to background flow, such as leakage, purging and minor process upsets. The graph above shows that the recovery of gas was ramped up over time beyond the 50% level. This was attributed to a change in mentality of the operation of the facility from normally flaring to normally not flaring. Flaring now highlighted a process upset and such incidents encouraged an overall improvement in process stability. Now, when a flare occurrence happens there is an enquiry into what caused the upset. On a commercial front FGR adds to the profitability of the project, even with slight overall reductions in Norwegian CO2 tax the recovery system pays financial and environmental dividends. The major financial benefits being: Reduced Taxation (averaging about $3 million saving per year) Increased Gas Sales (approaching $ 2.5 million per year) Improved stability in operation Significant reduction in flare maintenance cost
mill.USD / year

1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0

4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

Page 7 of 11

Oseberg C In 1996 the Oseberg A facility installed FGR on the HP flare line only. Gas was recovered by a simple HP crossover line, considerably reducing the overall installation cost. The recovery crossover system was designed to handle a maximum 3000 Kg/hr gas. Once again an ABB GT Safe Ignition system was installed. These early ignition system actually fired pellets in free space rather than utilising a fully closed system as used today. The overall impact on flaring was a reduction of 37%; again well over planned reduction from the HP system alone.

Fig 10: Oseberg A

1200 1000

3.5 3

800 600 400 200 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

Flare rate (mill. SCUF/y) CO2 tax (mill USD/y) Gas value (mill USD/y)

Fig 11: Oseberg Economics

Although Oseberg A only recovered HP gas using a crossover line the results portrayed a similar trend to the Gullfaks project. By 1998 over 1.5million USD of additional revenue was achieved in gas sales with reduced tax revenue from $3million to only $1 million. A total financial benefit of $3.5 million and significant environmental benefit as well.

There are several of these proven economic and environmental benefit solutions now in service. Flare Gas Recovery is a major step forward in securing a brighter and cleaner future for the industry. Flare Gas Recovery however may not be possible in all cases. There is a basic precondition that the gas recovered has to be useful. Fuel Gas deficient facilities are ideal, however future trends toward centralised power generation may make a significant future impact. Where flare gas recovery is simply not feasible, then the best flare solutions should be sort. Staged flares with the benefit of variable orifice solutions probably offer the best all round solution. The combination of these flare systems and Flare Gas Recovery will give economic and environmental benefit.

CONCLUSION Flare Gas Recovery has been established in Norway under strong environmental lead from the Norwegian Government with the introduction in 1991 of CO2 tax. In the UK significant interest has been developed following BPs initiative to develop an inhouse CO2 trading market. The UK government with UKOOA (PILOT) has fallen in line with both BP and the Kyoto Protocol by developing a voluntary CO2 trading programme. Currently neither programme challenges other Greenhouse Gases, although once the markets are properly developed, the inclusion of other gases will not be difficult.

mill.USD / year

mill.scuf / year

Page 8 of 11

The development of FGR in its attempt to reduce harmful emissions should not however be considered by the industry to be simply an environmental cost. In the majority of these cases in the UK and Norway, real operational and cost savings are being made. Evaluation of the BP Forties project [4] has shown real economic dividends where recovered fuel gas can substitute diesel for power generation on fuel gas deficient facilities. Savings in flare maintenance can be significant, and FGR encourages increased stability in production. Flare Gas Recovery will benefit many, perhaps even the majority, of facilities; Flare Gas Trading will however provide a flexibility in approach to environmental protection that will benefit the industry as a whole.

Page 9 of 11

REFERENCES 1 2 3 4 5
6

PILOT (UKOOA / DTI Task Force). Press Release by Pilot Task Force - 5th February 2001 DTI. Environmental Legislation Applicable to the Onshore Industry Proceedings - GPA 80thAnnual Convention, San Antonio, USA, 2001 J MILES J. Toward Zero Flaring - A Practical Approach To Cost Reduction and Environmental Benefit, GPA 80th Annual Convention, San Antonio, 2001 MILES J. The Use of flare Gas Metering after Kyoto, GPA Spring Meeting, Norwich, 2001
NORWEGIAN GOV. http://odin.dep.no/oed/engelsk/026031-150004/indexdok000-b-n-a.html

APPENDIX Reference List of Flare Gas Recovery Installations

Page 10 of 11

Reference List
PROJECTS:

Year Customer
2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1998 1998 1998 1997 1997 1996 1996 1995 1995 OXY Qatar Hibernia Exxon Mobil Statoil Statoil Saga Amoco Norsk Hydro Norsk Hydro Norsk Hydro Statoil Statoil Phillips Petroleum Norsk Hydro Statoil Saga Norsk Hydro Statoil Statoil Statoil

Project
TP1 Hibernia Sklevikneset Gullfaks A Phase II Gullfaks C Phase II Snorre B Valhall Oseberg South Osberg Gas Troll C Kollsnes sgard B Ekofisk II Visund sgard A Varg Oseberg A Heidrun Gullfaks C Gullfaks A

Territorial Market
Qatar Newfoundland -Canada Norway - Onshore North Sea Norway North Sea Norway North Sea Norway North Sea Norway North Sea Norway North Sea Norway North Sea Norway Onshore Norway North Sea Norway North Sea Norway North Sea Norway North Sea Norway North Sea Norway North Sea Norway North Sea Norway North Sea Norway North Sea Norway

Products
Flare Gas Ignition Flare Gas Ignition VOC Recovery Flare Gas Recovery Flare Gas Recovery and Ignition Flare Gas Ignition Flare Gas Ignition Flare Gas Ignition Flare Gas Ignition Flare Gas Recovery and Ignition Flare Gas Ignition Flare Gas Ignition Flare Gas Ignition Flare Gas Ignition Flare Gas Ignition Flare Gas Recovery and Ignition Flare Gas Recovery and Ignition Flare Gas Recovery and Ignition Flare Gas Recovery and Ignition Flare Gas Recovery and Ignition

PROJECTS, UNDER DELIVERY Year Customer Project

2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 Exxon Mobil Exxon Mobil Exxon Mobil Norsk Hydro Statoil BP BP Phillips ABB OS Fredrikstad Hvringen Ringhorne Grane Norne Forties Schiehallion Judy Sendje Berge

Territorial Market
Norway Norway Norway Norway Norway UK UK UK West Africa

Products
VOC Recovery VOC Recovery Flare Gas Ignition System Flare Gas Recovery and Ignition Hydrocarbon Blanketing Flare Gas Recovery and Ignition Fast Opening Assemblies Flare Gas Ignition System Compressor Package

The following projects have installed Flare Gas Recovery System on licence from ABB GT

Year Customer
1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1997 1996 1996 Norsk Hydro APS Saga Statoil Statoil Norsk Hydro Norsk Hydro Phillips Petroleum

Project
Oseberg South Pierce FPSO Snorre B Siri sgard B Visund Njord Ekofisk

Territorial Market
North Sea Norway North Sea Norway North Sea Norway North Sea Norway North Sea Norway North Sea Norway North Sea Norway North Sea Norway

Products
Flare Gas Recovery Flare Gas Recovery Flare Gas Recovery Flare Gas Recovery Flare Gas Recovery Flare Gas Recovery Flare Gas Recovery Flare Gas Recovery

Page 11 of 11